Papers › Are Whitepaper Claims Reflected in Market Structure? A Contamination-Aware Pipeline...
Are Whitepaper Claims Reflected in Market Structure? A Contamination-Aware Pipeline and a Power-Limited Null
Murad Farzulla
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
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≈0.66, well above the observed ≈0.22. This is absence of evidence for alignment, not evidence of its absence -- we can reject strong alignment (φ≥0.70) but cannot distinguish weak alignment (φ≈0.3) from none.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2601.20336")
Code
Syntology Ran 5 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 3 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 6 samples from 1 repository, 5 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 5 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 6 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from studiofarzulla/whitepaper-claims. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
a23f3839108f6ef6 · report
3bfa0bf1e45a242f · report
e32c6b949c84402b · report
99110ffe7b7e5509 · report
aa44d7bf0135e3aa · report
ac707b13d276c29b · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2601.20336, was issued in January 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections