Which leads NEAR adoption: Intents volume or NEAR price?
Hypothesis: cross-chain volume through NEAR Intents is a better leading indicator of real network usage than the NEAR token price. This page puts both predictors against the same adoption metrics and asks two things: does each one move together with adoption in the same week, and does it move first? Every statistic uses week-on-week growth. Two series that merely trend over the same period would otherwise look related even if they aren't.
Summary: every adoption metric at a glance
Select a row to explore it below. "r" is the correlation of weekly growth rates: +1 means they rise and fall together, 0 means unrelated. A lead counts only when it is positive (a rise followed by a rise) and significant at p < 0.05. Significant negative links are bounce-backs, listed in the explorer below. The "levels" column correlates the raw series. It's shown as a warning only, because two long trends can produce a strong correlation (positive or negative) without any link between them.
Head to head: Intents volume vs NEAR price
The hypothesis says Intents volume is the better leading indicator. "Leads" are positive, significant correlations with the metric 1–8 weeks later. Same-week links are shown for context: they describe moving together, not predicting.
1. The two series over time (indexed, first week = 100)
2. Who moves first?
Bar at k: correlation of the predictor's growth this week with metric growth k weeks later. Right of 0: the predictor moves first. Left of 0: the metric moves first. Solid bars are significant (p < 0.05).
3. Same-week growth
Each dot is one week. The line is the least-squares fit.
4. After a strong week for the predictor, does the metric rise the next week?
Average next-week growth of the metric after the 25% strongest and the 25% weakest weeks of the selected predictor. The p-value is from a Welch t-test.
5. Is the relationship stable?
Same-week correlation over a rolling 26-week window.