Specifically, the maximum block weight observed for SBI Crypto was 3,993,047 WU (weight units), which exceeds the anticipated soft-maximum of 3,992,000 WU by 331 WU, after accounting for the max coinbase weight of 716 WU. This pattern of exceeding the soft-maximum by approximately 331 WU is not unique to SBI Crypto; it is a common occurrence across several pools. For instance, Foundry USA and Luxor both reported a surplus of 331 WU over the soft-maximum, while other pools like MARA Pool exhibited a significantly higher deviation, with a surplus of 2,040 WU, attributed to blocks with large inscriptions. Conversely, Ocean.xyz showcased an anomaly by operating under the default with a reduction of 10,971 WU.

Further investigation into the data reveals that variations in the max coinbase weight among different pools contribute to the disparities in the excess weight. Pools such as AntPool and BTC.com have max coinbase weights of 1,612 and 1,472 WU respectively, leading to variations in the surplus weight ranging from 306 to 309 WU. On the other end of the spectrum, pools like Pega Pool and Titan maintain lower excesses (330 and 324 WU respectively) due to comparatively minimal coinbase weights (688 and 696 WU).

This observation raises questions regarding the practices employed by mining pools in configuring their block weights. The consistency of the 331 WU surplus across multiple pools suggests a deliberate choice rather than random variation. It is speculated that pools may be adding transactions to the block post-template acquisition from Bitcoin Core, a strategy that could be perceived as risky. However, this practice has not been widely noted or analyzed within the blocks processed by the miningpool-observer project, indicating that there might be additional factors at play beyond the simple addition of transactions using the prioritizetransaction command.