1 · Base layer
Most of NEAR's "activity" was one app, and it left.
In March 2026 one account, {{m:top_signer_mar26:text}}, signed {{m:top_signer_share_mar26:pct0}} of all transactions. It stopped within 32 hours on 1 and 2 April, and monthly transactions fell {{m:tx_drop_apr26_abs:pct0}}. About {{m:kaiching_deletes_oct26:num}} of its accounts were then deleted in early October. Of {{m:signers_last:n}} other signers in {{m:as_of_month:text}}, {{m:signers_engaged_last:n}} were engaged, down {{m:signers_engaged_change_abs:pct0}} since July 2025. That fall is mostly Telegram game accounts (down {{m:tg_engaged_change_abs:pct0}}). Engaged self-custody signers fell {{m:self_engaged_change_abs:pct0}}, then rose {{m:self_engaged_rise_since_aug:x1}} since August to {{m:signers_engaged_self_last:n}}. We do not know why yet.
2 · Is the volume real
Settled flow is real. How much of it is end-user demand is open.
The official dashboard and DefiLlama match to the dollar only since {{m:official_llama_match_since:text}}. Before that they diverge, and revenue differs by month. So we rebuilt deposits and withdrawals from raw token events. One-way on-chain flow runs at {{m:flow_ratio_median:pct_from_x}} of reported volume, between {{m:flow_ratio_low:pct_from_x}} and {{m:flow_ratio_high:pct_from_x}} across 26 weeks. That flow includes solvers rebalancing through the same contract, so it is a ceiling, not end-user demand. Outside the top 100 addresses, withdrawals were {{m:wd_floor_share_prev_pct:pct0}} to {{m:wd_floor_share_of_reported_pct:pct0}} of reported volume in two weeks we priced, and {{m:wd_ex_top10_share_of_reported_pct:pct0}} outside only the top 10. End-user demand sits between about {{m:wd_floor_share_of_reported_pct:pct0}} and {{m:wd_ex_top10_share_of_reported_pct:pct0}} of reported volume.
3 · Who keeps the fee
Wallets own the customer, so wallets keep the toll.
The protocol's own fee is {{m:intents_fee_pips:n}} pip, or 0.0001%. Everything else is a commercial fee set by whoever owns the customer. Swap-level data from the Intents Explorer shows {{m:ex_top_fee_partner:text}} carries {{m:ex_top_fee_partner_vol:pct0}} of 1Click volume and {{m:ex_top_fee_partner_fee:pct0}} of app fees, at about {{m:ex_top_fee_partner_bps:bps0}}. By NEAR's own count, NEAR kept {{m:capture_30d_pct:pct0}} of gross fees in the last 30 days and {{m:capture_all_time_pct:pct0}} all time; partners, wallets and solvers kept the rest. Most of the gain in what NEAR keeps came from its own front end, not from partners. How the fee numbers fit: in {{m:window_month_name:text}}, $100 swapped paid {{m:per100_gross:usd3}} in fees ({{m:gross_bps_30d:bps1}}); NEAR's 30-day split gives it {{m:capture_30d_pct:pct1}}, so {{m:per100_captured:usd3}} ({{m:per100_captured_bps:bps2}}). NEAR's monthly revenue series puts calendar {{m:window_month_name:text}} at {{m:net_bps_30d:bps2}} ({{m:rev_30d:usd}} of {{m:fees_30d:usd}} in fees, {{m:capture_month_pct:pct1}}; the split's 30 days end at the {{m:market_as_of:text}} pull), and the last three months at {{m:net_bps_90d:bps2}}, which is what kill row T3 grades. Same source, different windows; revenue a year is {{m:rev_run_rate:usd}} at October's rate and {{m:rev_annualised:usd}} on three months (row A2).
4 · Token accrual
Buybacks are real. "Permanently removed" is not what the chain shows.
The official page says buybacks "permanently remove NEAR from circulation", and its FAQ says revenue "can be deployed" for buybacks, locking or staking. On-chain so far, the NEAR is held: {{m:revenue_wallets_near:nearm}} sits in two wallets, {{m:revenue_held_share_pct:pct0}} of all official inflows, the largest daily burn since the buyback began was {{m:largest_daily_burn_since_buyback:near0}}, and a {{m:buyback_confirmations:n}}-confirmation multisig can move it. That is a discretionary policy, not a claim. In {{m:window_month_name:text}}, burn plus captured revenue equalled {{m:offset_30d_pct:pct0}} of issuance at best.
A larger flow we can see but not explain
treasury.near sent {{m:treasury_moved_near:nearm}} out in April and May 2026, {{m:treasury_moved_multiple:x1}} what the revenue wallets hold and about {{m:treasury_moved_usd:usd}} at today's price. It went to two multisigs and one hex account in single-day batches, and those three accounts are now close to empty. We can show the first hop. We cannot say who received it next or whether it was sold.
5 · Pricing power: the new test
Can NEAR raise its take without losing the flow? We could not tell.
A toll road is worth what it can charge, so we tried to measure that. Test one: the partner revenue share went live on 23 February 2026. The take did not step at that date: it went from {{m:switch_net_before:bps2}} to {{m:switch_net_after:bps2}} on three months either side, and most of that came in May. Test two: the take rose again from September, {{m:step_net_before:bps2}} to {{m:step_net_after:bps2}}, and rail share fell from {{m:step_share_before:pct0}} to {{m:step_share_after:pct0}}. Test three: {{static:elast}}
What this does and does not show
Rail share was unchanged in one window and lower in the other, and neither interval rules out a 25% loss of volume against rivals. Most of the gain in capture is NEAR's own front end taking a larger share, which is mix, not price. So these tests do not show pricing power, and they do not show its absence. We keep the model's fee inputs as assumptions and say so.
6 · Staking and security
Stakers are paid in new tokens, and fees barely cover it.
Security spend is {{m:issuance_usd_yr:usdm}} a year at today's price, and fees burned cover about {{m:burn_share_of_issuance_pct:pct1}} of that. Issuance is mostly a transfer, not a cost to holders as a group: a staker earns about {{m:staking_yield_net_pct:pct1}} after commission, or {{m:staking_real_yield_pct:pct1}} after supply growth, and an unstaked holder is diluted about {{m:non_staker_dilution_pct:pct1}} a year. Only the 10% treasury share and commission leave the holder base, so the valuation treats issuance that way. Offsetting issuance is NEAR's stated goal. It is not what sets value in our model.
7 · Competitors on the same metrics
In line with chains. Far richer than tokens with real payouts.
The bull and bear cases are arguing about which comparison applies. Against gas fees on other chains, NEAR's market cap is about {{m:near_mcap_to_kept_fees:x0}} what it keeps ({{m:near_kept_annual:usd}} a year: L1 fees plus captured revenue), inside the peer range (median {{m:peer_mcap_to_fees_median:x0}}). Against tokens with holder revenue, it trades at {{m:near_multiple:x0}} captured revenue alone (October's {{m:rev_run_rate:usd}} a year), or {{m:near_multiple_ex_chain:x0}} after subtracting a peer-median chain value, against a median of {{m:comps_median_multiple:x0}}. Those comps are app tokens and NEAR is a whole chain, so neither comparison is clean.
8 · The hypothesis that volume leads usage
Does Intents volume lead network usage better than price does? Not in this data.
We ran six forward tests over {{m:leadlag_weeks:n}} weeks. In none did volume beat price with an interval clear of zero. Out of sample, with overlapping windows purged, adding volume improved on a usage-only forecast in {{m:leadlag_oos_beats_own:n}} of 6 tests, and adding price did in {{m:leadlag_oos_price_beats_own:n}} of 6. Neither is a useful leading signal yet.
9 · AI narrative and developers
The agent story is mostly not on-chain yet.
Contracts with AI or agent names took {{m:ai_named_share_pct:pct2}} of October transactions, and {{m:ai_named_ex_top_share_pct:pct2}} without the largest one. One real signal cuts the other way: the account escrow.ai.near signed {{m:escrow_ai_share_pct:pct0}} of direct calls into intents.near in October, though we cannot say how much value those calls move. Off-chain inference cannot be measured from here.
10 · Valuation
Change any assumption and see what NEAR is worth.
The model discounts holder earnings over five years, adds an exit value, and adds what NEAR is worth as a chain apart from Intents. At base-case inputs, {{m:price:usd2}} needs {{model:implied_cagr}} volume growth a year for five years, {{model:implied_multiple}} today. With a 40x exit it needs {{model:implied_multiple_40x}}, and with a $3.9B chain value {{model:implied_multiple_low}}. Our weights give {{model:weighted}}, but that leans on the bull weight: {{model:weighted_bull_10}} at 10%, {{model:weighted_bull_30}} at 30%, and about {{model:implied_bull}} gets to the market price. In the base case, chain value is {{model:base_chain_share}} of the total ({{model:base_chain_value}} of {{model:base_equity}}, or {{model:base_chain_per_near}} a NEAR over {{model:supply}}), and it is an assumption.
11 · Kill list
What would prove this thesis wrong, with dates.
{{static:killnote}}
12 · Limits
What we could not measure.
- Most reported volume sits outside the Explorer. It covers 1Click swaps, about {{m:ex_coverage_pct:pct0}} of reported volume on sample days. The definition behind the reported series is not published.
- Confidential intents are invisible by design. Official TVL there is about $143M. We cannot see who holds it or why.
- Solvers and market makers are not labelled. Large addresses may be solvers, exchanges or real whales, and small ones may be bots. That is why end-user demand is a wide range.
- Raw flow is not always economic. One week in October 2025 shows a 47M SOL deposit and same-day withdrawal, {{m:flow_outlier_ratio:x0}} reported volume. Medians keep it out of our ratio, and we do not know what it was.
- Security. A bug in the Omni deposit path cost about $3.8M on 1 October 2026, and the funds were returned (report). Kill rule T6, added on 2026-11-12, now covers an exploit: it trips if more than $10M of user funds stay unrecovered within a year. It reads a hand-kept incident list (thesis/incidents.json), the one manual input here.
- Off-chain AI usage and Foundation holdings are not measurable here. Sources also disagree on circulating supply: the NEAR public dataset gives {{m:circulating_bq:nearb2}}, NearBlocks {{m:circulating_nearblocks:nearb2}}, and CoinGecko counts the whole {{m:supply:nearb2}} supply as circulating.
- Rail share is among native swap rails only. Relay, Across and Circle CCTP volumes sit behind a paid API. Relay's reported fees are about four times Intents'.
- The sample is short. Volume has about 22 months of history and fees about 18, in one market regime. Intervals here are wide on purpose.
- The kill list is ours. Thresholds were set by us on 2026-11-01 (T6 on 2026-11-12), so the raw values sit beside each one.
This is research, not investment advice. The authors make no claim about holdings.