Tests evidentiary claims in onchain finance experiments, suggesting data transparency may mislead.
Onchain finance creates an illusion of evidentiary completeness. Events are public, balances are queryable, risk outputs are precise, and governance transactions are permanent. Yet these records do not prove the same facts. This study tests the problem through twenty bounded experiments on Aave V3 Ethereum at block 20,000,000. It distinguishes event history, exact-block state, derived measurement, bounded explanation, historical action, and authority provenance. The study is bounded, not protocol-wide. Its contribution is a falsifiable warning: transparent data can still support materially overclaimed financial conclusions when evidence classes are collapsed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rampai Darwin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: