Solana wallet intelligence,
tested before marketed.
A preregistered protocol for comparing position accounting, funding provenance, coordination, leader/follower inference, freshness, null honesty and evidence traceability. The rules are public now. Provider scorecards are not.
| Version | 0.1.0 |
|---|---|
| Release status | Protocol only |
| Comparative results | Not published |
| Registered providers | 0 |
| Frozen public cases | 0 |
| Protocol test definitions | 30 |
| Comparative release gate | 25–50 independently adjudicated cases |
The benchmark cannot move its goalposts after seeing the answers.
Version 0.1 fixes the questions, admission rules, abstention semantics and reporting requirements before a provider is tested. It does not prove a performance advantage for Conyr or anyone else.
A capability claim is not a measurement.
The public report will keep three kinds of evidence separate. Only an executed run against the frozen manifest can produce a score.
Measured result
Not releasedRequires an executed, timestamped run against the frozen manifest. Version 0.1 contains no measured provider results and names no winner.
Documentation observation
Not scoredA provider may document a capability, but documentation is used only to design a fair request. It never becomes accuracy, coverage or freshness points.
Conyr internal finding
ExcludedInternal research can nominate a future case. It cannot serve as independent benchmark truth until the evidence is frozen and separately adjudicated.
Accuracy, depth, timeliness—and the courage to say unknown.
Each axis defines its unit of analysis, independent evidence requirement, reported measures and abstention behavior. A broad feature checklist cannot substitute for these tests.
Position accounting
Does the provider reconstruct completed positions instead of treating profitable exits as independent wins?
One wallet and token mint over a frozen slot range
An independently reconstructed inventory ledger containing buys, sells, transfers, fees, lot allocation, remaining inventory and source transaction signatures.
- Completed-position outcome accuracy
- Realized PnL absolute and percentage error
- Open inventory quantity error
- Partial-history and unsupported-inventory abstention accuracy
A documented unknown is correct when the frozen ledger cannot establish cost basis. Coercing unknown inventory to zero or profit is an error.
Funding provenance depth
How far can a provider follow capital without inventing an origin?
One wallet and its pre-cutoff native-SOL funding path
A transaction-signature-backed path adjudicated hop by hop, with service and infrastructure roots verified separately from the provider under test.
- Direct-funder accuracy
- Valid path depth before termination
- Recognized-root accuracy
- False attribution rate
Unknown is preferable to an unsupported entity attribution. Unresolved paths are not scored as self-funded wallets.
Coordination discovery
Can the provider find repeated on-chain relationships without equating co-occurrence with common ownership?
One token episode and an adjudicated wallet cohort
Positive and negative wallet relationships reviewed from funding, execution, timing, size, recurrence and infrastructure evidence; intent is never used as ground truth.
- Relationship precision and recall
- False grouping of shared infrastructure users
- Evidence-domain coverage
- Calibrated confidence or explicit abstention
The benchmark grades detected on-chain relationships, not claims about legal ownership, identity or malicious intent.
Leader/follower inference
Can the provider recover a repeat, directed trading relationship and support its direction?
One wallet pair across multiple shared token episodes
A blinded pair adjudication using repeated event order, lag distribution, shared-mint support, size resemblance and counterexamples where the apparent direction reverses.
- Directed-edge precision and recall
- Direction accuracy
- Lag and support-count error
- Single-event false-positive rate
One coincident trade is insufficient. A provider can abstain when repeat support does not clear its published threshold.
Freshness
How long after an eligible on-chain event does the tested result become available?
One live, pre-registered event observed from a common Solana slot reference
The chain slot and event signature, an external observation timestamp and the first successful provider response containing the eligible update.
- Availability latency p50 and p95
- Timeout and stale-response rate
- Event-to-derived-intelligence latency
- Observation-window sample count
Documentation language such as real time is not a measurement. Freshness is reported only from timestamped live trials.
Null honesty
Does the provider preserve the difference between zero, empty, unavailable, unsupported and unknown?
One deliberately selected boundary or incomplete-evidence case
An adjudicated answer state paired with the evidence that makes a numeric zero, empty set, unknown value or unsupported request appropriate.
- Answer-state classification accuracy
- Unsupported-as-zero rate
- Unknown-as-fact rate
- Machine-readable partial or error semantics
A clear unknown or unsupported answer can receive full credit. A plausible-looking value without sufficient evidence cannot.
Evidence traceability
Can a user inspect the chain evidence behind the answer?
One normalized provider answer from any other axis
The frozen case record and its public transaction, slot, address, mint and time references.
- Transaction-signature coverage
- Slot and timestamp coverage
- Method or data-version disclosure
- Stable evidence-reference coverage
A result is not made correct merely by attaching a link. References must resolve to evidence relevant to the normalized answer.
Zero frozen cases is the honest v0.1 result.
The repository contains internal wallet studies and curated labels, but those are not independent truth for a comparison maintained by Conyr. No internal case has been promoted into the benchmark fixture.
Public identifiers
Only public Solana wallet addresses, token mints, slots and transaction signatures may identify a case.
Frozen boundary
Every case fixes the last eligible slot or time before any provider is queried.
Independent truth
Ground truth is reconstructed from chain evidence without reading the answers being scored.
Balanced set
The cohort must include positives, negatives, thin-history cases, ambiguous paths and legitimate abstentions.
No allegation
Coordination cases describe observed relationships, not legal ownership, identity, fraud or intent.
No cherry-picking
A case cannot enter because Conyr already returns a favorable or distinctive answer for it.
The next release must publish independently adjudicated positive and negative wallet or token cases, their evidence references, frozen cutoff and manifest hash before any tested provider is queried. Until then, the empty `cases`, `providers`, `runs` and `results` arrays in the manifest are intentional.
Freeze, capture, normalize, adjudicate, report.
The sequence prevents case selection and scoring rules from drifting after a provider response is visible.
Freeze before querying
Publish the case manifest and content hash first. Record every case identifier, cutoff, adjudicated answer state and evidence reference before collecting provider output.
Register the surface
Record provider, product, API version, paid tier, test date and configuration. Use an interface available to ordinary customers on that disclosed tier.
Capture without repair
Record timestamps, status, retries and a raw-response hash. Normalization may map fields, but it cannot fill missing values or silently turn unknown into zero.
Adjudicate blind
Where formats permit, reviewers see normalized answers without provider identity. Disagreements are resolved against public chain evidence and the rationale is retained.
Report denominators
Every rate ships with sample size, eligibility, missing count and uncertainty. Per-axis measurements appear before any optional weighted summary.
No denominator, no score.
Every published rate must expose what was eligible, missing and uncertain. Version 0.1 defines no overall winner because different users value the seven axes differently.
| Always publish | Sample size, eligible count, missing count, metric definition, point estimate and uncertainty interval. |
|---|---|
| Run identity | Provider, product, API version, disclosed tier, run timestamp, retry policy and response hashes. |
| Evidence | Transaction, slot, time and case references sufficient to audit each normalized answer where data rights permit. |
| Unavailable output | Record it as unavailable or untestable. Do not invent a zero and do not silently remove the case. |
| Corrections | Append a versioned correction with rationale. Never replace the historical result without a trace. |
| Composite ranking | None in v0.1. Per-axis measurements come first; any future weighting must be separately disclosed. |
A fair protocol still has boundaries.
These constraints will remain visible beside future results rather than being buried in a methodology appendix.
No result yet
This page is a preregistered protocol, not evidence that Conyr or another provider wins any axis.
Historical coverage differs
Provider retention and launch dates can make a case testable for one surface and unavailable for another. Availability is reported, not guessed.
Price models differ
PnL comparisons must hold price source, fees, lot method, transfers and cutoff constant or publish the remaining semantic difference.
Identity is not observable
On-chain patterns can support relationships and provenance; they do not independently prove a person or beneficial owner.
Latency is time-dependent
Freshness requires repeated live trials and can change by load, plan, region and incident state. Documentation is not a latency sample.
Publisher conflict
Conyr maintains this protocol and is also a potential participant. Frozen cases, blind review and public evidence reduce—but do not eliminate—that conflict.
What can be cited today.
The short answer is deliberately conservative: the protocol exists; the comparison does not yet.
Does v0.1 say Conyr is the best Solana wallet-intelligence provider?
No. Version 0.1 publishes the rules before the cases and measurements. It contains no comparative scores and declares no winner.
Why publish an empty case fixture?
Because Conyr's internal observations and curated labels are not independent cross-provider ground truth. Publishing them as truth would make the benchmark easier for its maintainer. The empty fixture makes that limitation machine-readable.
When can comparative results be published?
After 25 to 50 public wallet or token cases are frozen, independently adjudicated, evidence-linked and hashed before any tested provider is queried.
Can a provider receive credit for returning unknown?
Yes. When available evidence cannot support a value, a precise unknown or unsupported response is more correct than a plausible fabricated number.
Inspect the same protocol without the prose.
The JSON manifest exposes the release state, evidence classes, cohort contract, seven axes, run rules, scoring policy and empty result fixture. It contains no credentials, private data, query shapes or database information.