Methodology

Research Process

Each investigation follows a structured process: question formation, thesis construction, evidence gathering (for and against), counter-research, economic analysis, technical assessment, regulatory scan, and scenario construction.

Investigations are standing research questions, not one-time articles. Findings are versioned and updated as evidence changes. Every update is documented with the reason for the change.

Evidence Standards

Every material claim must be traceable to a source. Evidence is classified by how it was obtained:

• Directly observed: primary source data, fee schedules, statutory text, on-chain data
• Reported by source: claims made by institutions, researchers, or analysts
• Model-derived: outputs from quantitative models or simulations
• Inferred from evidence: conclusions drawn by combining multiple evidence records
• Experimental: results from controlled experiments

Where evidence is unavailable, we state that explicitly rather than manufacturing support. Absence of identified evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Source Quality

Sources are evaluated on four levels:

• Primary / institutional source: central bank publications, statutory text, peer-reviewed research, protocol specifications, on-chain data
• Industry analysis: company whitepapers, well-sourced journalism, industry reports
• News / commentary: news reporting, opinion pieces, blog posts
• Social / informal: social media, forums, used for context only

Conflict of interest is tracked for every source. An industry source is not presented as institutionally authoritative merely because it is the primary source for a particular statistic.

Counter-Research

Every investigation actively seeks evidence against its own thesis. Counter-evidence receives equal typographic weight, visual prominence, and reading position as supporting evidence.

The null hypothesis (Scenario D, "The Non-Event") is treated as a legitimate outcome, not a strawman. If evidence supports the conclusion that agent economic activity remains trivial or fully absorbed by existing infrastructure, that finding is published prominently.

Confidence and Uncertainty

Confidence levels are stated explicitly for claims, investigations, and scenarios. Uncertainty is a feature, not a deficiency. "We don't know" is communicated with the same care as "the evidence shows."

Every claim includes falsification criteria: specific, observable conditions that would cause us to revise our assessment. These appear as "What would change our mind" in each investigation.

Scenario Framework

The project maps four competing futures. These are analytical tools, not predictions. Their purpose is to help readers think about the conditions under which different outcomes become more or less likely.

Evidence relationships between investigations and scenarios are expressed qualitatively (supporting, challenging, mixed, unresolved) rather than as numerical probabilities.

Living Research

Every investigation is versioned. When new evidence arrives, existing findings are updated, not replaced by a new article. Readers can see the full version history and understand how conclusions have evolved.

Corrections are documented openly. When a claim is revised, the original formulation, the reason for the change, and the corrected version are all preserved.