Beware! On-chain time correlation analysis may lead you to completely incorrect conclusions

GasFeeLady · 2026-01-05T13:58:13+00:00

On-chain analysis platform Bubblemaps points out logical flaws in the analysis of Polymarket insiders. Some analyses incorrectly link SOL deposits to Polymarket insiders, ignoring other possible factors and drawing unreliable conclusions. Bubblemaps warns to exercise caution when using on-chain data to avoid misleading inferences.

GasFeeLady

2026-01-05 13:58:13

Abstract generation in progress

【BitPush】On-chain analysis platform Bubblemaps recently pointed out that the analysis within the community about Polymarket insiders has gone off track. Someone linked a certain Polymarket insider to WLFI co-founder, which sounds explosive, but the logic is full of holes.

Even more outrageous, some analyses claim that a Polymarket insider received about 250 SOL from Coinbase, with similar SOL deposits flowing in the day before, and directly declare a 99% correlation. It sounds like they’ve uncovered a big secret, right?

However, Bubblemaps burst this bubble. They pointed out that this conclusion has serious flaws: the time window is too broad, focusing only on SOL inflows ignores the possibilities of USDC and ETH, and completely overlooks multiple small deposits or cross-month and cross-year transactions. Most critically, using the same analysis method and time window, they found over 20 seemingly matching cases.

The key lesson here is—time-based link analysis may seem powerful, but if used incorrectly, it can make almost any absurd conclusion appear reasonable. Be cautious as on-chain detective work; data can lie.

SOL-1,61%

ETH0,08%

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

gas_fee_therapist

· 01-08 04:20

Oh no, this is a classic on-chain detective brain-burning syndrome... Just by looking at two SOL transfers, claiming 99% correlation is a huge logical flaw that could launch a spaceship. Really have to thank Bubblemaps for bursting this bubble. Otherwise, if I keep analyzing like this, I might even connect myself to some whale. Pull any time window you want, only focus on SOL and ignore other tokens... Yeah, this methodology is indeed clever enough, no wonder there's so much chaotic analysis all over the internet. --- On-chain data, you see, seems transparent but is actually the most deceiving. A few days ago, I saw someone using a similar methodology to "solve" three completely unrelated wallets, and it made me so angry I want to rename myself Gas_FeeDetective. --- Laughing to death. If this analysis method really worked, I would already know what all the big influencers are doing. But on the other hand, it does remind us to be more cautious... Just linking to a random time and spreading it as news, the entire community is collectively messing around. --- A typical hindsight detective method—pick a point in time and start making up stories. How many "truths" can be spun from SOL+USDC+ETH being one of three options?

View OriginalReply0

SerumSqueezer

· 01-07 15:08

On-chain timing is essentially mysticism; Bubblemaps has thoroughly analyzed it this time. The day before yesterday, someone was confidently claiming a 99% correlation—ridiculous...

View OriginalReply0

ChainSauceMaster

· 01-07 11:48

Haha, really. A bunch of people start making up stories just by holding on to on-chain data. I've seen this move too many times. As the time window widens, anyone can be linked to anything. I bet five bucks that using this method, they could also "associate" me with some whale. SMH. Just look at SOL, still telling stories. What about USDC? ETH? Willful blindness, that's what it is.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeJumper

· 01-05 14:27

Ha, this is the common problem among on-chain detectives. They are 99% sure just by matching two transactions. It's hilarious. Once the time window is widened, everything can match. I think this analysis method is highly contagious. Alright, Bubblemaps finally said something reasonable. We need to quickly put an end to this wave of collective delusion.

View OriginalReply0

ser_aped.eth

· 01-05 14:26

Haha, here we go again, the time correlation analysis trick... Every time I see it, I want to laugh. Just because two SOL transactions are 99% correlated in quick succession? Come on, this kind of manipulation in the crypto world really needs to change.

View OriginalReply0

BrokenYield

· 01-05 14:06

lol this is why 99% of on-chain "detectives" end up rekt. correlation matrix goes brrrr and suddenly everyone's a forensic analyst... time windows that loose? that's not analysis, that's just astrology with transaction hashes ngl

Reply0

ChainSpy

· 01-05 14:04

Haha, this is the common flaw of on-chain detective stories. Two transactions close together are confidently said to be 99% related, but here they are playing probability theory. When the time window is too loose, everything can match up. I think this logic is almost the same as randomly pointing to someone. Ignoring the inflow of USDC and ETH... you must be pretty stubborn to only focus on SOL. It feels like the old trick of looking for evidence to fit a conclusion. So the fundamental issue is that everyone wants to be the "discoverer," but they overlook the most basic due diligence.

View OriginalReply0

MeltdownSurvivalist

· 01-05 14:02

Haha, no, that's just a common problem among crypto detectives—once the timelines match, they start speculating, which is really ridiculous.

View OriginalReply0