grenadeandClaude Opus 5.5
40bc2f67d1
A 3,000-block survey of intents.near from our own node (350 outcomes, 1,026 legs) showed the referral leg is the user — per-quote implicit accounts, none on a solver — and that its own diff mirrors the rest of the outcome to within the protocol fee in all 576 amounts checked. So each taker leg is now its own trade, priced from what that user gave and got. It also showed the pooling rule counted solver routing as trading: in 45% of outcomes with a taker the solvers traded through a pair no taker touched, usually USDT on Ethereum, and each such leg on the tracked asset became a phantom trade against a token the user never saw. Two takers on one pair — an account round-tripping wNEAR, in the case captured — were merged into one trade with a nonsense price. Now an outcome with any taker yields only the takers' trades; only an outcome with no referral at all (solvers trading with each other) is pooled, as `kind: unattributed`, with no side. `kind` is stored (migration 0010, no re-scan: production held no QTC rows) and on the wire, and the panel says how many of a figure's trades were users'. Tests run on the three captured outcomes. Checked live against near.internal with wNEAR: 18 trades from 18 outcomes, every taker an implicit account, and no counter that was only a hop. Closes #30 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015pkwBsR54NRmZyU4QVhvfj