NEAR: usage moved to Intents. Has value capture followed?

Snapshot 2026-11-05 · every number and chart is rebuilt from public, keyless data with python build.py · built at NEAR HACKATHON (Investment Thesis track)

H1: “NEAR Intents volume leads NEAR's price better than raw on-chain activity.” → NOT SUPPORTED
Tested over 89 weeks (2025-02-08 → 2026-11-05). Intents is real, fee-paying demand; the token's link to it is not visible in the data yet. Full argument, counter-evidence and falsifiers: THESIS.md.
$4B
Intents volume, last 30 days
$74.5M
Intents fees, annualized
70.4×
Market cap ÷ Intents fees
−91.8%
Transactions vs peak
2.5%
Net supply growth / yr
0.84%
Fee burn ÷ issuance

Usage moved: raw activity fell, Intents rose

Usage moved: raw activity fell, Intents rose

Daily transactions are down 91.8% from their Jan 2025 peak and active accounts are down 97%, while monthly Intents volume went from $6.4M (Jan 2025) to $4.8B (Sep 2026).

Source and method
  • https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts → txns, active_accounts (30-day mean)
  • https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents → monthly sum

Code: pipeline/charts.py::activity_vs_intents

Intents is now most of NEAR's trading

Intents is now most of NEAR's trading

Over the last 90 days, NEAR Intents was 83.9% of all DEX volume DefiLlama attributes to the NEAR chain.

Source and method
  • https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents
  • https://api.llama.fi/overview/dexs/near
  • share = Intents ÷ NEAR DEX volume, monthly

Code: pipeline/charts.py::intents_share

Price vs Intents, week by week

Price vs Intents, week by week

Week-over-week changes in Intents volume and in NEAR's price are essentially uncorrelated (same-week correlation -0.04).

Source and method
  • https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts → near_price (weekly close)
  • https://api.llama.fi/summary/dexs/near-intents → weekly sum

Code: pipeline/charts.py::price_vs_intents

The test: does any activity series lead price?

The test: does any activity series lead price?

No bar leaves the grey noise band for any series: over 89 weeks, none of them moves with or ahead of NEAR's price (Intents best: 0.205 at lag 8 vs a noise band of ±0.266).

Source and method
  • weekly log-changes, corr(series[t−lag], price[t]) for lag −8…+8
  • 95% band: max |corr| under 2,000 circular-shift permutations (seed 7)

Code: pipeline/analysis.py::lead_lag

Issuance vs burn

Issuance vs burn

Net supply now grows about 2.5% a year (it averaged 4.91% in 2024), and fee burn offsets only 0.84% of new issuance.

Source and method
  • https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts → total_supply, txn_fee (yoctoNEAR ÷ 1e24)
  • burn = 70% of transaction fees (NEAR protocol rule)

Code: pipeline/analysis.py::supply_and_burn

Revenue vs dilution

Revenue vs dilution

Annualized Intents fees ($74.5M) equal 57.8% of the dollar value of NEAR issued over the last year ($128.9M at today's price); on 68 of 309 days in 2026, fees ran above issuance. Whether those fees reach NEAR holders is not visible in this data.

Source and method
  • https://api.llama.fi/summary/fees/near-intents → 30-day sum × 365/30
  • https://api.nearblocks.io/v1/charts → supply change + burn, × price

Code: pipeline/charts.py::valuation