Binance Pulse | BNB Price Trends
Binance Pulse | BNB Price Trends
Okay, let's talk about NEAR Protocol. It's up—a lot. The headline is that NEAR is surging, driven by activity on its "Intent layer." The claim? NEAR Intents' daily volume hit an all-time high, supposedly fueled by traders rotating into AI and infrastructure coins. That’s the narrative, anyway. But is it real, or just cleverly marketed hot air?
The core argument is that the Intent layer is driving NEAR's price. This "Intent layer" is a system for automating on-chain swaps, handling cross-chain operations. Total volume is approaching $4 billion. Impressive, right? Digging deeper, the claim is supported by data showing two big volume days recently: $200 million on Tuesday and $155 million on Thursday. Bitcoin and Zcash were supposedly the most traded assets, aside from stablecoins.
But here's where my skepticism kicks in. (I’ve been staring at market data too long to take anything at face value.) The Intent layer offers gas abstraction, meaning fees can be paid in USDT and USDC. If that’s the case, how much actual demand for NEAR is this "Intent layer" generating? The article admits demand for NEAR is "limited" to transactions settled with the native token. Limited how? That's the crucial question they don't answer.
The technical analysis paints a rosy picture: NEAR broke out of a descending channel, approaching the 50-day EMA. Open Interest (OI) in NEAR futures increased 65% in 24 hours. Bullish, right? Maybe. OI-weighted funding rates are negative, suggesting bears are paying a premium to hold short positions—which could incentivize bulls. But here's the rub: technical indicators are lagging indicators. They reflect what has happened, not what will happen. And a 65% increase in open interest could just as easily mean a leveraged house of cards waiting to collapse.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. If the NEAR Protocol is truly thriving, why was there a contentious vote just weeks ago to halve network rewards? The official line is that it was to "enhance tokenomics." But let's be blunt: cutting rewards is a cost-cutting measure, plain and simple. One validator, Chorus One, even accused the NEAR Foundation of bulldozing the protocol, causing a "serious governance issue." That doesn't sound like a confident, thriving project. That sounds like a project scrambling to stay afloat. More information on the vote can be found in this article: Will NEAR Protocol Survive After This Crucial Vote? That sounds like a project scrambling to stay afloat.
Here's my methodological critique: all of these articles cite "Dune Analytics" for the NEAR Intents volume data. Who is auditing Dune Analytics? What are their data collection methods? Are there potential biases or inaccuracies in their reporting? Without knowing the answers to these questions, it's impossible to verify the core claim that the Intent layer is driving genuine, sustainable demand for NEAR. It's like building a skyscraper on a foundation of sand – looks impressive from the outside, but structurally unsound.
NEAR is now the 32nd most valuable cryptocurrency, surpassing AAVE and some Trump-backed coins. That's the claim, anyway. The article also highlights that NEAR's trading volume has surged, accounting for nearly 27% of its market cap. Again, big numbers. But volume alone doesn't equal value. It could simply mean increased speculation, not increased adoption or utility. NEAR Surpasses AAVE, Trump-Backed WLFI Amid Intents Growth
The article also mentions six to seven more chains being added to NEAR Intents this month, potentially including Litecoin. Again, the narrative is one of expansion and growth. But adding more chains doesn't automatically translate to increased value. It depends on the quality of those chains, the volume of transactions they generate, and the fees they bring to the NEAR ecosystem.
I've looked at hundreds of these filings, and this particular ecosystem feels unusual. The NEAR protocol generated $5.44 million in fees since launch, with total volume approaching $4 billion. That's a fee capture rate of approximately 0.14%. Is that good? Bad? The article doesn't say. It just throws out the numbers without providing any context or benchmark. For comparison, Ethereum's fee capture rate is typically several orders of magnitude higher. (Yes, I know, apples and oranges, but you get my point.)
And here’s where I start to see the strings being pulled. The articles keep mentioning AI. NEAR is supposedly positioned to benefit from the AI-blockchain convergence. But what does that actually mean? The articles never provide any concrete examples of how NEAR is being used in AI applications. It's just a buzzword, a marketing hook to attract unsuspecting investors. This isn't analysis; it's algorithmic hype.