2026-01-05 17:29:17

I recently came across an analysis report on trading behaviors from a certain prediction platform, but the logical chain within it is indeed problematic. Upon closer inspection of the correlation analysis— the time span was set too loosely, with some intervals having almost no direct relationship. What's more concerning is that this type of analysis often ignores the possibility of other funding sources, insisting on a single conclusion. The most dangerous aspect of this approach is that once the judgment of the time dimension is biased, the entire conclusion becomes misleading. When we look at on-chain data and track the movements of big players, we need to be more cautious, not just look at surface-level correlations, but thoroughly understand the entire flow of funds and the logical timeline. There are many such trading activities in the SOL ecosystem, and we must understand the underlying logic deeply and not be fooled by appearances.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoNomics

· 11h ago

lmao the classic "correlation matrix go brrrr" moment. people see two txns within a week and suddenly they're writing phd dissertations. the temporal lag analysis here is absolutely ropey — you can't just elasticate your time windows whenever it suits the narrative, that's not empirical rigor that's just... creative fiction.

Reply0

digital_archaeologist

· 15h ago

Widening the time span, any connection can be forced into a story. This trick is too lame.

View OriginalReply0

faded_wojak.eth

· 01-07 07:38

It's that same tactic of artificially extending the timeline to "find connections"—it's really getting annoying.

View OriginalReply0

InscriptionGriller

· 01-05 17:59

It's the same old trick again. When the timeline is extended, they start fabricating stories out of thin air, and the source of funds can be forcibly directed in one direction. A typical "cutting leeks" style analysis method.

View OriginalReply0

GoldDiggerDuck

· 01-05 17:59

This type of analysis report is actually just using time differences to deceive people, insisting on linking unrelated matters together... --- Please stop analyzing data like this. If one time point is wrong, the entire conclusion is invalid. --- The SOL ecosystem is like this, with funding sources from all directions. You insist on pointing to one direction, which is really ridiculous. --- The key is that these analyses ignore other possibilities; they are too arbitrary... --- On-chain data looks simple, but in reality, there are too many variables to consider. You can't just look at the surface. --- If the time dimension is messed up, the subsequent conclusions are basically nonsense. --- I suspect how many of these analyses truly understand the funding logic. --- Don't be fooled by appearances. This is really the easiest trap to fall into when looking at on-chain data.

View OriginalReply0

governance_ghost

· 01-05 17:51

Really, this kind of analysis report is just making random connections. The longer the time span, the more everything seems related, which is ridiculous.

View OriginalReply0

FancyResearchLab

· 01-05 17:49

Another analysis where the timeline doesn't match and people just force it in; Luban No.7 is under construction again. In theory, it should be feasible, but these guys clearly haven't grasped the fund flow logic. SOL's territory is too deep; don't be fooled by appearances.

View OriginalReply0

SorryRugPulled

· 01-05 17:46

You're absolutely right. This kind of timeline-based analysis is really harmful. I was also scammed once before.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrybaby

· 01-05 17:32

It's the same old trick of pulling the timeline out of context, I'm really tired of it. On-chain data is easily misinterpreted, we need to think for ourselves. SOL is too complicated, we need to be cautious. Jumping to conclusions without understanding the source of funds is purely misleading. Why do we keep falling into this trap every time, really.

View OriginalReply0