# NEAR on the Evidence — an investment thesis that can be re-run

> Generated by `python3 -m nearthesis analyze` at 2026-11-11T00:46:57Z from snapshot `data/snapshot-2026-11-11` (chain data through 2026-11-10). Do not edit by hand: every number below is computed from the snapshot, and re-running the pipeline rewrites this file. Dashboard: [`docs/index.html`](docs/index.html).

## Verdict in five lines

1. Value capture lives in Intents, not gas: $53.7M of Intents fees vs $1.17M of L1 gas fees in the last year (45.9x). [C1: SUPPORTED]
2. Supply policy is tighter and verified on-chain: inflation cap 2.5% since 2025-10-29, gas burn 100% since 2026-11-04; realised net supply growth 2.51%/yr. [C2: SUPPORTED]
3. But holders are still diluted: burns + buybacks offset only 18.6% of issuance value over 90 days. [C3 (bear): SUPPORTED]
4. Usage: active accounts -75.3% and transactions -84.0% YoY (90d avg). [C4: FALSIFIED]
5. Verdict: 5 of 8 bull/neutral claims supported, 2 falsified, 1 mixed; bear claim C3 SUPPORTED. The long-term case is a bet that Intents keeps compounding: at today's price and buyback rate it needs ~$280.6B/yr of volume for value accrual to match issuance (trailing year: $32.9B); the bull scenario gets there in year 4.

## Scorecard

Claims and thresholds were pre-registered in [`config/claims.json`](config/claims.json) on 2026-11-11. A claim is **SUPPORTED** when all support tests hold, **FALSIFIED** when any kill test holds, otherwise MIXED / NOT SUPPORTED.

| # | Claim | Stance | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | [NEAR's value capture has moved from gas to Intents](#c1) | bull | **SUPPORTED** |
| C2 | [Monetary policy is tighter than most write-ups say, and the chain proves it](#c2) | bull | **SUPPORTED** |
| C3 | [Holders are still being diluted: burns + buybacks cover a small part of issuance](#c3) | bear | **SUPPORTED** |
| C4 | [On-chain usage is growing year over year](#c4) | bull | **FALSIFIED** |
| C5 | [Expensive on gas alone, peer-range once Intents fees are counted](#c5) | neutral | **SUPPORTED** |
| C6 | [Intents volume leads network usage better than price does](#c6) | neutral | **FALSIFIED** |
| C7 | [Builders keep shipping, and AI is a real share of the work](#c7) | bull | **SUPPORTED** |
| C8 | [The security budget is broadly distributed](#c8) | bull | **SUPPORTED** |
| C9 | [Liquidity on NEAR is deepening](#c9) | bull | **MIXED** |

<a id="c1"></a>
## C1. NEAR's value capture has moved from gas to Intents

**Claim.** Fees paid through NEAR Intents (cross-chain swaps settled on NEAR) already dwarf NEAR L1 gas fees, so the asset should be analysed as the settlement layer for chain-abstracted flow, not as a gas token.

**Verdict: SUPPORTED**

**Evidence**

- NEAR Intents settled $32.9B of volume in the last 365 days ($37.2B since DefiLlama's first record on 2024-12-10). _(source: [llama_intents_volume](https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents))_
- Intents fees over the same year: $53.7M, versus $1.17M of NEAR L1 gas fees, i.e. 45.9x larger. _(source: [llama_intents_fees](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyFees), [llama_fees_near](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near?dataType=dailyFees))_
- Cross-check of gas fees from a second source: NearBlocks daily txn fees sum to $1.17M over 365 days. _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Momentum: last-90-day volume $12.0B vs $6.56B in the prior 90 days (+83.4%). _(source: [llama_intents_volume](https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents))_
- Chart: [intents_volume](docs/index.html#chart-intents_volume)

**Tests that support it**

- Intents fees (1y) > 5x L1 gas fees (1y) — actual `53.70M` vs threshold `> 5.85M` → **yes**
- Intents volume (1y) > $10B — actual `32.87B` vs threshold `> 10.00B` → **yes**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- Intents volume falls >50% quarter over quarter — actual `0.8337` vs threshold `< -0.5` → **no**
- Intents fees drop below L1 gas fees — actual `53.70M` vs threshold `< 1.17M` → **no**

**Risks**

- Volume is concentrated in a few integrators/frontends; one partner leaving could cut it sharply.
- Fees are a take-rate on swaps: competing solvers/bridges can compress it.
- DefiLlama's adapter is the only free volume source (the official Explorer API needs a partner key).

<a id="c2"></a>
## C2. Monetary policy is tighter than most write-ups say, and the chain proves it

**Claim.** Live protocol config shows 2.5% max inflation and 100% of gas burned (not the 5% / 70% still quoted in many dashboards), and realised supply growth matches the config.

**Verdict: SUPPORTED**

**Evidence**

- Live protocol config (protocol v88, block 223,991,362): max_inflation_rate = 2.50%/yr, burnt_gas_reward = 0% so 100% of gas is burned; protocol_reward_rate (treasury cut) = 0%. _(source: [rpc_protocol_config](https://rpc.mainnet.near.org))_
- Archival bisection: max inflation changed from 1/20 to 1/40 at block ~170,379,856 (protocol v81, 2025-10-29). _(source: [rpc_param_history](https://archival-rpc.mainnet.fastnear.com))_
- Archival bisection: the contract-developer gas rebate changed from 3/10 to 0/1 at block ~223,015,353 (protocol v87, 2026-11-04), so the burn went from 70% to 100% of gas. _(source: [rpc_param_history](https://archival-rpc.mainnet.fastnear.com))_
- Realised on the supply curve: gross issuance over the last 90 days annualises to 2.50%; net supply grew 2.48% over 365 days (31.74M NEAR) and is running at 2.51%/yr over the last 30 days. _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Total supply 1.31B NEAR (RPC block header) vs 1.31B (NearBlocks, 2026-11-10): two independent sources agree. _(source: [rpc_block](https://rpc.mainnet.near.org), [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- DefiLlama's NEAR fee methodology still reads: "70% of every gas fee is permanently burned, reducing NEAR supply. The other 30% is paid to contract developers" (outdated since protocol v87). _(source: [llama_fees_near](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near?dataType=dailyFees))_
- Chart: [net_supply_growth](docs/index.html#chart-net_supply_growth)

**Tests that support it**

- Protocol max inflation <= 2.5% — actual `0.025` vs threshold `<= 0.025` → **yes**
- 100% of gas is burned (burnt_gas_reward = 0) — actual `1` vs threshold `>= 0.999` → **yes**
- Realised gross issuance (90d, annualised) <= 3% — actual `0.02498` vs threshold `<= 0.03` → **yes**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- Realised net supply growth > 4%/yr — actual `0.02506` vs threshold `> 0.04` → **no**

**Risks**

- Inflation and burn are governance parameters; a future protocol upgrade can change them again.
- Lower issuance lowers staking yield, which can push stake to other uses and weaken security.

<a id="c3"></a>
## C3. Holders are still being diluted: burns + buybacks cover a small part of issuance

**Claim.** The USD value of NEAR burned plus NEAR bought back with Intents revenue is well below the USD value of new staking issuance.

**Verdict: SUPPORTED**

**Evidence**

- Last 90 days: new issuance worth $28.5M vs $270.3K burned and $5.03M of Intents-funded buybacks: coverage 18.6%. _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts), [llama_intents_holders_revenue](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyHoldersRevenue))_
- Last 365 days: issuance $68.1M, burn $863.0K, buybacks $7.95M: coverage 12.9%. _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts), [llama_intents_holders_revenue](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyHoldersRevenue))_
- In tokens: 71,104 NEAR burned vs 8.03M NEAR issued in 90 days (0.89%). _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Buybacks run at 0.042% of Intents volume (90d), first recorded on 2026-02-23. _(source: [llama_intents_holders_revenue](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyHoldersRevenue), [llama_intents_volume](https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents))_
- Chart: [accrual_monthly](docs/index.html#chart-accrual_monthly)

**Tests that support it**

- (Burn + buyback) / issuance < 25% over 90d — actual `0.1863` vs threshold `< 0.25` → **yes**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- Burn + buyback >= issuance over 90d (net-deflationary in value terms) — actual `0.1863` vs threshold `>= 1` → **no**

**Risks**

- This is the core bear case: without a much larger fee base, the token's cash-flow story rests on staking demand, not scarcity.

<a id="c4"></a>
## C4. On-chain usage is growing year over year

**Claim.** Daily active accounts and transactions (90-day averages) are higher than a year ago.

**Verdict: FALSIFIED**

**Evidence**

- Daily active accounts: 71,745 (90d avg), -75.3% YoY; 30d avg is 3% of its peak (2.02M on 2024-07-09). _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Daily transactions: 741,872 (90d avg), -84.0% YoY; 8% of peak (8.30M on 2025-01-01). _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- New accounts per day: 9,597 (30d avg), -95.6% YoY. Log-linear trend over 365 days: active accounts -78.4%/yr, transactions -90.4%/yr. _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Part of the fall is a step, not a slope: the largest single-week change in daily transactions over the last year was -55.1% (week of 2026-04-06); for active accounts -47.4% (week of 2026-02-23). Steps like this usually mean one large app or bot changed behaviour, which these aggregates cannot attribute. _(source: [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Chart: [active_accounts](docs/index.html#chart-active_accounts), [txns](docs/index.html#chart-txns), [new_accounts](docs/index.html#chart-new_accounts)

**Tests that support it**

- 90d avg daily active accounts up YoY — actual `-0.7535` vs threshold `> 0` → **no**
- 90d avg daily transactions up YoY — actual `-0.8402` vs threshold `> 0` → **no**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- 90d avg daily active accounts down >30% YoY — actual `-0.7535` vs threshold `< -0.3` → **yes**

**Risks**

- Account and transaction counts include bots and app-driven onboarding (e.g. Telegram games); they measure activity, not economic value.
- NearBlocks counts are the only free daily source; BigQuery would allow deduplication but costs money.

<a id="c5"></a>
## C5. Expensive on gas alone, peer-range once Intents fees are counted

**Claim.** Market cap / trailing-year fees is far above peer L1s on gas fees alone, but within 1.5x the peer median once Intents fees are added.

**Verdict: SUPPORTED**

**Evidence**

- NEAR market cap $4.73B; P/F on L1 gas fees alone: 4,040.6x (4.3x the peer median of 937.7x). _(source: [gecko_peers](https://api.coingecko.com/api/v3/simple/price), [llama_peer_fees](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/<chain>?dataType=dailyFees))_
- Adding Intents fees: 86.2x (0.1x the median). Adding only NEAR's captured Intents revenue: 451.8x. _(source: [llama_intents_fees](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyFees), [llama_intents_revenue](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyRevenue))_
- Peers (market cap / 1y fees): Tron 90.5x, Solana 213.3x, Aptos 410.5x, BSC 558.9x, Sui 1,316.6x, Avalanche 1,400.9x, Ethereum 1,418.7x, TON 1,813.8x. _(source: [gecko_peers](https://api.coingecko.com/api/v3/simple/price), [llama_peer_fees](https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/<chain>?dataType=dailyFees))_
- Chart: [pf](docs/index.html#chart-pf)

**Tests that support it**

- NEAR gas-only P/F above peer median — actual `4,041` vs threshold `> 937.7` → **yes**
- NEAR P/F incl. Intents fees <= 1.5x peer median — actual `86.19` vs threshold `<= 1,407` → **yes**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- Even with Intents fees, P/F > 2x peer median — actual `86.19` vs threshold `> 1,875` → **no**

**Risks**

- Intents fees are gross: most go to frontends/solvers, not to NEAR holders (see C3 for what holders capture).
- P/F on chains is a rough lens; peers' fees include MEV/priority fees with very different durability.

<a id="c6"></a>
## C6. Intents volume leads network usage better than price does

**Claim.** Week-over-week changes in Intents volume correlate with LATER changes in active accounts more strongly than price changes do (the hypothesis from the track prompt).

**Verdict: FALSIFIED**

**Evidence**

- 92 weeks of data since 2025-01-19; noise band 2/sqrt(n) = 0.21. _(source: [llama_intents_volume](https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents), [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Best lagged correlation with next weeks' active-account changes: Intents volume r = +0.10 at lag 4w; price r = +0.13 at lag 5w. _(source: [llama_intents_volume](https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents), [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Same test on transactions: Intents r = +0.08 (lag 7w), price r = -0.19 (lag 4w). _(source: [llama_intents_volume](https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents), [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Context: NEAR's price is +41.4% over 365 days (-82% from its 2022-01-16 high) while active accounts are -75.3% YoY: this year price, Intents volume and raw activity counts did not move together. _(source: [gecko_near](https://api.coingecko.com/api/v3/coins/near), [gecko_near_chart](https://api.coingecko.com/api/v3/coins/near/market_chart?days=365), [nearblocks_charts](https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts))_
- Chart: [leadlag](docs/index.html#chart-leadlag), [price](docs/index.html#chart-price)

**Tests that support it**

- Best lagged |r| for Intents > for price — actual `0.09914` vs threshold `> 0.1283` → **no**
- Intents lagged |r| above the 2/sqrt(n) noise band — actual `0.09914` vs threshold `> 0.2085` → **no**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- Intents lagged |r| below half the noise band — actual `0.09914` vs threshold `< 0.1043` → **yes**

**Risks**

- Under two years of weekly data; correlations this short are fragile and can flip.
- Lead-lag correlation is not causation, and testing lags 1-8 inflates the chance of a spurious hit.

<a id="c7"></a>
## C7. Builders keep shipping, and AI is a real share of the work

**Claim.** Commit activity across core NEAR + NEAR AI repos is not collapsing, and NEAR AI repos account for a material share of it.

**Verdict: SUPPORTED**

**Evidence**

- 11 key repos: 8,891 commits in 52 weeks; last 13 weeks 1,370 vs 3,096 before (-55.7%); half over half +0.9%. _(source: [github_participation](https://api.github.com/repos/<repo>/stats/participation))_
- NEAR AI repos are 55% of those commits. Public repos pushed in the last 30 days: near 40/195, nearai 20/42. _(source: [github_orgs](https://api.github.com/orgs/{near,nearai}/repos))_
- Most-starred NEAR AI repo: ironclaw (12,717 stars); 26 nearai repos created in the last year. _(source: [github_orgs](https://api.github.com/orgs/{near,nearai}/repos))_
- Chart: [commits](docs/index.html#chart-commits)

**Tests that support it**

- Commits in last 26w within -20% of prior 26w — actual `0.009266` vs threshold `> -0.2` → **yes**
- NEAR AI repos > 20% of tracked commits (52w) — actual `0.5489` vs threshold `> 0.2` → **yes**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- Commits down >50% half over half — actual `0.009266` vs threshold `< -0.5` → **no**

**Risks**

- Commit counts are a weak proxy for value; a handful of repos is not the whole ecosystem (Electric Capital's report covers far more).
- Unauthenticated GitHub API: 60 requests/hour, so only key repos are tracked, and /stats/participation counts default-branch commits only (work on other branches is invisible).

<a id="c8"></a>
## C8. The security budget is broadly distributed

**Claim.** Many independent validators are needed to halt the chain, and a large share of supply is staked.

**Verdict: SUPPORTED**

**Evidence**

- 338 active validators; 9 of them hold over 1/3 of stake (Nakamoto coefficient), 26 hold over 2/3; top 10 = 36.3%. _(source: [rpc_validators](https://rpc.mainnet.near.org))_
- 581.23M NEAR staked = 44.3% of total supply; upper-bound staking yield at 2.5% inflation is 5.64% before validator fees. _(source: [rpc_validators](https://rpc.mainnet.near.org), [rpc_protocol_config](https://rpc.mainnet.near.org))_
- Block production this epoch: 99.99% of expected blocks produced. _(source: [rpc_validators](https://rpc.mainnet.near.org))_
- Chart: [stake](docs/index.html#chart-stake)

**Tests that support it**

- Nakamoto coefficient (1/3 stake) >= 5 — actual `9` vs threshold `>= 5` → **yes**
- Staked / total supply >= 30% — actual `0.4432` vs threshold `>= 0.3` → **yes**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- 3 or fewer validators control 1/3 of stake — actual `9` vs threshold `<= 3` → **no**

**Risks**

- Pools are counted as validators; one operator can run several pools.
- Halving inflation halved the staking yield; watch the staking ratio across future snapshots.

<a id="c9"></a>
## C9. Liquidity on NEAR is deepening

**Claim.** Stablecoin supply and DeFi TVL on NEAR are higher than a year ago.

**Verdict: MIXED**

**Evidence**

- Stablecoins on NEAR: $129.6M vs $168.8M a year ago (-23.2%). _(source: [llama_stablecoins_near](https://stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoincharts/Near))_
- DeFi TVL: $166.9M vs $134.0M (+24.6%); peak $481.7M on 2022-05-09. _(source: [llama_chain_tvl](https://api.llama.fi/v2/historicalChainTvl/Near))_
- DEX volume on NEAR, last 30 days: $3.90B (+16.8% YoY). _(source: [llama_dex_volume_near](https://api.llama.fi/overview/dexs/near))_
- Chart: [stablecoins](docs/index.html#chart-stablecoins), [tvl](docs/index.html#chart-tvl)

**Tests that support it**

- Stablecoin supply on NEAR up YoY — actual `-0.2321` vs threshold `> 0` → **no**
- DeFi TVL on NEAR up YoY — actual `0.2457` vs threshold `> 0` → **yes**

**What would prove us wrong (kill criteria)**

- Stablecoin supply down >50% YoY — actual `-0.2321` vs threshold `< -0.5` → **no**

**Risks**

- TVL is priced in USD and moves with the NEAR price; stablecoin supply is the cleaner signal.

## Scenario model: can value accrual catch up with issuance?

Model in [`nearthesis/scenario.py`](nearthesis/scenario.py), assumptions in [`config/scenarios.json`](config/scenarios.json). Baseline values measured from the snapshot:

| Assumption | Baseline |
|---|---|
| Total supply | 1.31B NEAR |
| Gross issuance rate (realised, 90d annualised) | 2.50% |
| L1 gas fees (trailing year) | $1.17M |
| Share of gas burned | 100% |
| Intents volume (trailing year) | $32.9B |
| Buyback rate (holders revenue / volume, 90d) | 0.042% |
| NEAR price | $3.62 |

| Scenario | Assumptions | Year-5 coverage | Breakeven year | Cumulative net dilution (5y) | Year-1 Intents volume needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bear | Intents volume halves each year from here, gas fees keep shrinking, price flat. | 0.6% | none | 12.78% | $281.2B |
| Base (no growth) | Trailing-year Intents volume and gas fees held flat at the measured level; current buyback rate; price flat. | 11.4% | none | 11.55% | $280.6B |
| Bull | Intents volume doubles each year (roughly its first-year pace), gas fees +50%/yr, price flat (higher prices make coverage HARDER: each dollar buys fewer NEAR). | 343.9% | 4 | -5.33% | $279.2B |

Sensitivity: year-5 coverage by Intents growth/yr (rows) and NEAR price multiple (columns).

| Intents growth \ price | 0.5x | 1.0x | 2.0x | 4.0x |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -25% | 7% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
| +0% | 23% | 11% | 6% | 3% |
| +25% | 66% | 33% | 16% | 8% |
| +50% | 162% | 81% | 40% | 20% |
| +100% | 675% | 337% | 169% | 84% |
| +200% | 5117% | 2556% | 1278% | 639% |

Re-run with your own view, e.g. `python3 -m nearthesis scenario --name base --set intents_volume_growth=0.6 --set price_usd=6`.

## Data sources in this snapshot

| Source | Provider | URL | Fetched (UTC) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `rpc_status` | NEAR RPC | https://rpc.mainnet.near.org (status) | 2026-11-11T00:28:03Z | ok |
| `rpc_protocol_config` | NEAR RPC | https://rpc.mainnet.near.org (EXPERIMENTAL_protocol_config) | 2026-11-11T00:28:06Z | ok |
| `rpc_block` | NEAR RPC | https://rpc.mainnet.near.org (block, finality=final) | 2026-11-11T00:28:10Z | ok |
| `rpc_validators` | NEAR RPC | https://rpc.mainnet.near.org (validators) | 2026-11-11T00:28:14Z | ok |
| `rpc_param_history` | NEAR archival RPC | https://archival-rpc.mainnet.fastnear.com (EXPERIMENTAL_protocol_config by block_id) | 2026-11-11T00:28:32Z | ok |
| `nearblocks_charts` | NearBlocks | https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts | 2026-11-11T00:28:33Z | ok |
| `llama_chain_tvl` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/v2/historicalChainTvl/Near | 2026-11-11T00:28:33Z | ok |
| `llama_fees_near` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near?dataType=dailyFees | 2026-11-11T00:28:34Z | ok |
| `llama_dex_volume_near` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/overview/dexs/near | 2026-11-11T00:28:36Z | ok |
| `llama_intents_volume` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents | 2026-11-11T00:28:36Z | ok |
| `llama_intents_fees` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyFees | 2026-11-11T00:28:37Z | ok |
| `llama_intents_revenue` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyRevenue | 2026-11-11T00:28:38Z | ok |
| `llama_intents_holders_revenue` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents?dataType=dailyHoldersRevenue | 2026-11-11T00:28:40Z | ok |
| `llama_stablecoins_near` | DefiLlama | https://stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoincharts/Near | 2026-11-11T00:28:40Z | ok |
| `llama_peer_fees` | DefiLlama | https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/<chain>?dataType=dailyFees | 2026-11-11T00:28:49Z | ok |
| `gecko_peers` | CoinGecko | https://api.coingecko.com/api/v3/simple/price (market caps) | 2026-11-11T00:28:49Z | ok |
| `gecko_near` | CoinGecko | https://api.coingecko.com/api/v3/coins/near | 2026-11-11T00:28:55Z | ok |
| `gecko_near_chart` | CoinGecko | https://api.coingecko.com/api/v3/coins/near/market_chart?days=365 | 2026-11-11T00:29:01Z | ok |
| `github_orgs` | GitHub | https://api.github.com/orgs/{near,nearai}/repos | 2026-11-11T00:29:12Z | ok |
| `github_participation` | GitHub | https://api.github.com/repos/<repo>/stats/participation | 2026-11-11T00:31:26Z | ok |

Evaluated but not used:

- **NEAR BigQuery public dataset** (https://docs.near.org/data-infrastructure/big-query): Needs a Google Cloud project with billing; this pipeline must run with no keys and no payments. NearBlocks /v1/charts provides the same daily aggregates.
- **NEAR Intents Explorer API** (https://docs.near-intents.org/integration/distribution-channels/1click-api/explorer/introduction): Requires a partner JWT. DefiLlama's near-intents adapter (volume, fees, revenue) is used instead.

## Limitations

- Daily usage counts come from NearBlocks' aggregates; they cannot separate bots from people.
- Intents volume, fees and buybacks come from DefiLlama's adapter, not from the official Explorer API (partner key required).
- Burn per day = NearBlocks gas fee x burn share, with the burn share switched at the change block found by archival bisection.
- Issuance value uses the NearBlocks daily price; the model treats buybacks as removed float (they are not burned).
- P/F uses DefiLlama chain fees, whose definitions differ by chain. Treat it as a rough lens.
- Correlations are on <2 years of weekly data and test several lags; read them as weak evidence.