Why I asked those sites to fix their PulseChain pages. A lot of articles still say PulseChain was a "snapshot" — that Ethereum's state was copied and loaded onto a new chain. That is not what happened. PulseChain is a hard fork of Ethereum mainnet. Same genesis as Ethereum. Same history from block 0. No new genesis. No snapshot. No halt. The fork activates at PrimordialPulseBlock 17,233,000. You can check genesis yourself: ipfs.scan.pulsechain.com/blo… Hash: 0xd4e56740f876aef8c010b86a40d5f56745a118d0906a34e69aec8c0db1cb8fa3 That is Ethereum's genesis. PulseChain starts there. "Snapshot" was the easy word. It helped people picture token copies showing up in the same address. I get why it spread. But it describes the wrong machine. A snapshot is: freeze state, start a new chain. A hard fork is: keep the original chain, change the rules at a block, continue. Those are not the same thing. One implies a new beginning. The other is a continuation. This matters more now than it did in 2023, because this is what AI reads. Models do not pull truth out of the client. They read the internet. Ranked blogs, explainers, "what is PulseChain" pages. If those pages all say snapshot, the model says snapshot. Then the next article quotes the model. Then the next model trains on that. The error compounds. I watched this happen. Ask an AI what PulseChain's fork was, and it will often give you the blog version — snapshot, new chain, state copied onto genesis — instead of the client version. Shared genesis. Full history. Hard fork at 17,233,000. The official sources were never unclear. go-pulse, the node docs, the explorer. The secondary layer flattened it. So I asked the sites that still say snapshot to update. Not to score points. So the public record matches the chain, and so the next thing that learns from the web learns the actual design. If you write about PulseChain, please use hard fork. Point at genesis. Point at 17,233,000. The shorthand already did enough damage.