Is NEAR Intents volume a leading indicator for NEAR? We tested it. It isn't.

89 weeks of public data. Every number on this page is rebuilt by make all from data/raw/.

1. Intents volume grew ~8.5x

NEAR Intents daily volume, USD (log) — DefiLlama303,419,79417,939

Median weekly volume went from $61,700,745 to $523,236,459 between the two halves of the sample.

2. NEAR price did not follow

NEAR/USD — DefiLlama coins API6.920.96

Same window: $3.2 → $3.833. NEAR moves with BTC at beta 1.751.

3. Lead-lag tests, with controls

Intents volume growth -> NEAR excess return (lag 0)r=-0.00 p=0.978Intents volume growth -> NEAR excess return (lag 1)r=-0.02 p=0.838Intents volume growth -> NEAR excess return (lag 2)r=+0.12 p=0.254Intents volume growth -> NEAR excess return (lag 4)r=+0.10 p=0.344NEAR excess return -> Intents volume growth (reverse (lag 1)r=+0.02 p=0.847NEAR excess return -> Intents volume growth (reverse (lag 2)r=-0.07 p=0.517NEAR excess return -> Intents volume growth (reverse (lag 4)r=-0.18 p=0.101NEAR L1 fee growth -> NEAR excess return (lag 1)r=-0.06 p=0.445NEAR L1 fee growth -> NEAR excess return (lag 2)r=+0.06 p=0.455NEAR L1 fee growth -> NEAR excess return (lag 4)r=+0.20 p=0.022Intents volume growth -> BTC return (lag 1)r=-0.08 p=0.448

Green = significant after Bonferroni over 11 tests (p < 0.0045). None is. Weekly log growth of Intents volume vs NEAR return in excess of BTC beta; 2,000-shuffle permutation p-values.

Method and the evidence against our own conclusion: THESIS.md.