<p>In this critical response to Hodroj, Latham and Miller’s article ‘The moving open future, temporal phenomenology and temporal passage’, I contend that the ‘moving open future hypothesis’ has not yet been conclusively disproven. I first raise some methodological concerns, such as the limited sample population and linguistic diversity, which may impact the study’s conclusions. However, my primary critique revolves around vignette Universe C, which implicitly commits to future events existing, thereby undermining the concept of an objectively open future. This approach restricts the understanding of an open future, which should consider the complete absence of future facts. By failing to adequately capture this ‘thicker’ representation of openness, the study does not convincingly establish that there is no link between beliefs in temporal passage and a genuinely open future. Future avenues for research should focus on refining the vignettes to better reflect the nuances of temporal beliefs and investigate the temporally aperspectival replacement hypothesis.</p>