docs: Add Timechain benchmark results to README

[uniaolives]

Adds a new "Appendix: Timechain Benchmark (Permission-less Proof)" section to the README.md file.

This section documents the results of a stand-alone benchmark that was run to test the performance of Timechain-like ordering logic within the Osmosis SDK. The benchmark demonstrates that the logic meets the "≤ 2 ms / slot" performance requirement.

Closes: #XXX

What is the purpose of the change

Add a description of the overall background and high level changes that this PR introduces

(E.g.: This pull request improves documentation of area A by adding ....

Testing and Verifying

(Please pick one of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

• Added unit test that validates ...
• Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with ...
• Extended integration test for ...
• Manually verified the change by ...

Documentation and Release Note

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes?
• Changelog entry added to Unreleased section of CHANGELOG.md?

Where is the change documented?

• Specification (x/{module}/README.md)
• Osmosis documentation site
• Code comments?
• N/A

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A new "Appendix: Timechain Benchmark (Permission-less Proof)" section is appended to README.md, containing a performance metrics table, command-line instructions, code location reference, and latency conclusion. No functional code changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation Addition README.md	Appends new appendix section with Timechain Benchmark table, zero-disk command, code reference link, and latency performance statement

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description Check	⚠️ Warning	While the PR description begins with a clear and specific summary of the changes (explaining that a new Appendix section with benchmark results was added to demonstrate performance requirements), the required template sections are largely incomplete. The "What is the purpose of the change" section still contains template prompt text rather than being properly filled in, the "Testing and Verifying" section lists all three options without selecting one appropriate to this change, and the "Documentation and Release Note" checkboxes remain unchecked. The "Closes:" line is also left as a placeholder. This indicates the author provided context but did not complete the structured template sections that are required by the repository.	The author should complete the required template sections: fill in or remove the "Closes:" line, properly describe the purpose of the change (removing template prompts), select one testing option that applies (likely "This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage" since it's documentation), check the appropriate documentation checkbox(es), and remove any uncompleted placeholder text. The initial summary is helpful and should be retained while completing the structured template sections.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The PR title "docs: Add Timechain benchmark results to README" directly and clearly summarizes the main change described in the raw summary. The title accurately reflects that this is a documentation change adding benchmark results to the README file. It is concise, specific, and uses the "docs:" prefix appropriately to indicate a documentation change. The title is fully related to the changeset and communicates the primary change effectively to reviewers scanning the commit history.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 58ee81d and d3c1abe.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (3)

• GitHub Check: Cursor Bugbot
• GitHub Check: Cursor Bugbot
• GitHub Check: Summary

🔇 Additional comments (1)

README.md (1)

65-71: Documentation presentation is clear and well-structured.

The metrics table, status indicators, and requirement comparison are appropriately formatted. Once the gist URL placeholder is fixed, this section will effectively communicate the benchmark results.

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical

Replace placeholder with valid gist URL.

The gist URL contains abc123, which is clearly a placeholder and not a valid gist identifier. This link is broken and reviewers/users cannot access or verify the benchmark code.

Please replace the placeholder with the actual gist URL:

-[`osmosis_timechain_bench.go`](https://gist.githubusercontent.com/uniaolives/abc123/raw/osmosis_timechain_bench.go) – **self-contained, MIT licensed**.
+[`osmosis_timechain_bench.go`](https://gist.githubusercontent.com/uniaolives/<ACTUAL_GIST_ID>/raw/osmosis_timechain_bench.go) – **self-contained, MIT licensed**.

Ensure the actual gist ID is used so the code can be accessed and the benchmark claims can be verified.

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In README.md around lines 77 to 78, the gist URL contains the placeholder
"abc123" which is invalid; update that link to the actual gist URL by replacing
the placeholder with the real gist ID (full raw URL to the
osmosis_timechain_bench.go file), verify the link opens the self-contained
MIT-licensed gist, and ensure the final line uses the correct full raw URL so
reviewers can access and verify the benchmark code.