BIS研究指出比特币链上转账数据存在关键盲区

BIS研究揭示链上数据解读的盲点：比特币转账估值差异可达六倍

根据分析师衡量链上活动方式的不同，对通过加密货币网络流动的经济活动规模的估算结果可能相差悬殊。国际清算银行（BIS）研究人员的一项新研究发现，当采用不同的交易测量方法时，比特币转账价值的计算结果最多可相差六倍。

BIS研究人员指出，这一问题不仅限于比特币。相同的测量挑战也出现在更广泛的加密生态系统中，包括稳定币活动甚至用于计算市值的传统方法。他们的结论是：链上指标应被视为不完美的、带有噪声的近似值，而非现实经济活动的直接衡量标准。

核心要点

• 比特币链上转账价值估算存在巨大差异： 基于测量选择（特别是如何处理找零输出），估算结果可能相差高达六倍。
• 市值计算的偏差： BIS发现，传统的比特币市值数据有时比基于硬币最后一次移动时间的“实现市值”高出多达四倍。
• 跨链测量的共性陷阱： 在涵盖比特币、以太坊和波场的大规模数据中，该研究展示了市场中其他部分存在的类似测量缺陷。
• 以太坊的智能合约难题：The abundance of smart contract activity on Ethereum has created classification gaps, complicating the interpretation of activities, including stablecoins.
• Attempts to adjust analytical methods: Some analytical efforts (such as Visa's Onchain Analytics dashboard) attempt to adjust raw stablecoin trading volumes to eliminate distortions caused by non-economic activities.

Why Bitcoin's "transfer value" changes sixfold

BIS's research focuses on the value of transfers on the chain, not exchange volume. According to the study, the gap between estimates reflects differences in transaction measurement methods-the most significant difference being the analysis of how to handle the output of sending funds back to the original sender.

Bitcoin's transaction structure usually contains a "change" output. When a user spends Bitcoin, the network may return the unspent portion to the consumer as change. Some measurement methods view this as an additional output, although it does not represent value transferred to the other party.

BIS researchers warn that indicators commonly used to infer activity-such as trading volume, market capitalization and total locked value (TVL)-may seem much more accurate than what the underlying data actually supports. As the study points out, the accuracy implied by these indicators "is not supported by the nature of the underlying data."

Market value: The deviation between traditional values and reality

BIS's research does not stop at the estimation of on-chain transfers. It also highlights inconsistencies in the way Bitcoin's market value is typically calculated.

研究人员报告称，传统市值指标有时比“实现市值”高出多达四倍。“实现市值”是一种将每枚硬币按其最后一次移动时的价格进行估值的指标。从实际角度来看，这种差异凸显了一个更广泛的问题：对区块链运动的不同解读会产生截然不同的经济读数。

这对于使用链上衍生数据来衡量采用率、流动性或情绪的投资者和分析师来说至关重要。当测量方法论能使头条数字成倍数波动时，跨时间段的比较——或跨具有不同定义的仪表板的比较——都需要仔细审查。

以太坊与稳定币：分类空白与混合用例

BIS研究人员在以太坊上识别出了额外的挑战，那里的智能合约活动增加了代币持有或移动的方式。在该研究的数据集中，研究人员检查了约6750万个活跃合约，发现其中约5400万个无法使用该研究的分类方法进行归类。

稳定币进一步增加了复杂性，因为同一代币在不同链上可以扮演不同的角色。BIS研究人员指出，以太坊上的USDT与DeFi活动关联更紧密，而波场上的USDT则更多地与支付和价值存储用途相关。

The study also described significant differences in stablecoin positions, particularly in smart contract positions. In 2022, the proportion of USDT held by smart contracts on Ethereum will exceed 20%, while on the wave field it will only be about 1%. Because these positions reflect different use cases, BIS researchers warn that aggregating stablecoin activity across blockchains may confuse different types of economic behavior and obscure the actual use of stablecoin.

Ultimately, the broader revelation raised by the BIS team is the limitations of data interpretation: On-chain indicators should be treated as "noisy approximations" rather than direct measures of economic activity.

Filter raw data: Visa's adjusted stablecoin trading volume

While BIS research highlights the risk of treating raw on-chain measures as intuitive economic signals, it also points out that some analytics providers attempt to distinguish "economic activity" from activity that may be distorted by mechanisms or automation.

Visa's Onchain Analytics dashboard (backed by data from Allium Labs) displays total and adjusted stablecoin transaction volumes. Visa said its adjusted approach aims to reduce distortions from activities such as high-frequency trading, robotics, bridge routing and internal exchange operations.

在仪表板上，Visa目前显示在过去30天内，其跟踪的网络中稳定币总交易量为6.4万亿美元，而调整后交易量为3131亿美元。虽然BIS研究本身并未验证任何特定的专有调整方法，但这种对比说明了它提出的核心问题：定义和过滤选择的差异会使头条数字产生巨大的变动。

对于使用仪表板来基准测试稳定币采用率的读者来说，含义很简单：“总量”和“调整后”量不可互换，调整的合理性成为该指标可信度的一部分。

未来展望

BIS研究表明，随着链上分析的成熟，关于测量定义的透明度——以及对交易结构、智能合约分类和非经济活动的明确处理——将是必不可少的。投资者和开发者应将广泛引用的链上指标视为起点，而非底层经济需求的决定性证明，并关注能更好地将链上观察与现实世界使用情况相一致的新兴方法论。