The project runs two public test networks side by side, and each publishes the same set of public surfaces: an endpoint to point a wallet or tool at, an explorer to read the chain, a test faucet, and a path to create a sovereign chain. A comparison only means something when both sides expose the same things — which is why this list is identical in both columns.

Surface	What it is for	Where
The project's shared page	The way in, and where what is settled and unsettled is published	9chain.org
Each branch's own site	Technical documentation, faucet, chain-creation tooling — each branch publishes its own set	a1.9chain.org · c1.9chain.org
The shared explorer	Read both networks in one place, and see where they differ	9scan.org
Each branch's explorer	Blocks, transactions and account state for that branch alone	a1.9scan.org · c1.9scan.org
This document	Why the system is designed as it is, and what is left blank	you are reading it

⚠️ Two things have to be said alongside that list. First: both networks are operated by the project itself, so every page describing them — the shared explorer included — is the operator's own account, not an independent review. Second: specific addresses can change, and one has already changed meaning — an address carrying testnet in its name now serves a chain quite different from the one that name used to point at. So take addresses from the branch's own site, and always check against the chain itself: read the network identity and the first block's moment, and do not trust the name.

The project's network serves several public interfaces. This page says what each one is for and what you can check through it — not so that you can copy numbers away.

Interface	Used for	What you can verify yourself
Consensus interface (Cosmos RPC)	Asking node status, the list of signers, the genesis file	When this network was born · who signs blocks · whether it is advancing
EVM-compatible interface (JSON-RPC)	Pointing familiar wallets and tools at the network	Calling contracts and reading balances with tools you already trust
Query interface (REST)	Reading state per module	The parameters actually in force, rather than the ones in a document
Test faucet	Requesting a small amount to experiment with on a test period	That this is test-period money, not an asset
Explorer	Looking with your eyes, no tooling required	Blocks, transactions, signers — a view built by another party

Diagram

flowchart TB You["Your tooling"] --> C["Consensus interface status · signers · genesis"] You --> E["EVM interface wallets · contracts"] You --> Q["Query interface parameters in force"] C --> T{"Two answers must agree: which network does the address claim? when was the first block born?"} T --> OK["They agree: read on"] T -.-> NO["They differ: believe no number"]

Figure 37 — Every way in passes the same two-question check.

The naming rule, and why part of its value is gone. The project once set a rule: the public address of a test period carries the word testnet in its name, the official network would have a name of its own, and an address that has meant one thing never comes to mean another. The intent was sound, and this document used to tell you to rely on it. What has to be said plainly: that rule has already been broken once by the project itself — an address carrying testnet in its name now serves a different chain from the one that name used to point at, with a different identity and a different first block. So the reading has changed: still ask two questions — which network does this address say it is and when was its first block born — but when the two disagree, believe the second. A name is something people assign; the first block is something the chain states about itself and cannot restate.

Three things this page deliberately does not do. It does not copy a list of addresses into the body as a permanent truth — the list lives in the project's technical documentation, under Public endpoints, and that is the correct version. It does not record any number of the network — live numbers belong in the read-it-directly panel in Check the network yourself. And it does not promise these endpoints will always be free or always survive any load: this is infrastructure for experimenting, not a service commitment.

The explorer is a separate project. It is not run by the same team as the network, and that is a plus rather than a minus: a second party reading the same ledger is the cheapest way to catch a first party telling it wrong.

In short: an endpoint is only trustworthy when its name says the same thing as the data it returns — ask both questions before believing any number.

→ Next: Check the network yourself — The two questions to ask before trusting a figure