分析比特币白皮书叙事与市场表现是否匹配，发现无显著关联。
Are Whitepaper Claims Reflected in Market Structure? A Contamination-Aware Pipeline and a Power-Limited Null
- 构建内容验证、抗污染的分析管道，确保数据真实可靠
- 43个项目中未检测到白皮书内容与市场结构的显著对应关系
- 低文本可靠性是主要限制，无法识别弱相关性
加密货币白皮书中的功能叙述是否反映其代币在市场中的行为？我们开发了一种内容验证、抗污染的分析管道，用于测量项目叙述与市场结构之间的结构性对应关系。结果有两个：一是警示性发现——早期数据中“专用代币比基础设施代币更对齐”的信号，实为数据污染所致（约四分之一文档为下载失败或错误文件）；经清洗后，无任何代币显示出显著对齐。二是诚实的零结果：将43份经验证白皮书进行零样本NLP分类（10个语义类别），结合基于小时级数据（17,543个时间戳，2023–2024年）的七项市场结构统计量，通过Procrustes旋转与Tucker相容系数（ϕ）对齐，未发现显著的主张-市场对齐（维度匹配ϕ=0.303，零填充ϕ=0.223，均不显著）。正向对照与功效分析表明，文本工具的可靠性过低，最小可检测效应ϕ≈0.66，远高于观测值≈0.22。这是缺乏证据支持对齐，而非证明不存在对齐——可排除强对齐（ϕ≥0.70），但无法区分弱对齐（ϕ≈0.3）与无对齐。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Do the functional narratives in cryptocurrency whitepapers correspond to how their tokens behave in markets? We develop a content-verified, contamination-aware pipeline for measuring structural correspondence between project narratives and market structure, and report two results. The first is a cautionary one. An apparent entity-level signal in an earlier version of our corpus -- specialised tokens appearing to align more strongly than broad infrastructure tokens -- was entirely an artifact of corpus contamination: roughly a quarter of the documents were failed-download stubs or wrong-document whitepapers (for example, a "Cosmos" entry that was in fact Binance Smart Chain text), and the apparent ordering does not survive content verification: on the clean corpus no token registers as helping alignment. We therefore report it as a contamination diagnosis, not a finding. The second is an honest null. Combining zero-shot NLP classification of 43 content-verified whitepapers across 10 semantic categories with seven cross-sectional market-structure statistics computed from hourly data (17,543 timestamps, 2023-2024), and aligning the two spaces with Procrustes rotation and Tucker's congruence coefficient ($ϕ$), we do not detect a significant claims-market alignment in this $n = 43$ sample (dimension-matched $ϕ= 0.303$, zero-padded $ϕ= 0.223$; both non-significant). A positive-control and power analysis shows the binding constraint is the low reliability of the text instrument: the minimum detectable effect is $ϕ\approx 0.66$, well above the observed $\approx 0.22$. This is absence of evidence for alignment, not evidence of its absence -- we can reject strong alignment ($ϕ\geq 0.70$) but cannot distinguish weak alignment ($ϕ\approx 0.3$) from none.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。