发表机构
School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne; School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney（墨尔本大学计算机与信息系统工程学系; 悉尼大学数学与统计学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过对比LINK和UNI账本，证明链上集中度测量结果取决于测量规范（如持有者定义、时间聚合等），而非账本本身，并建议以范围而非点估计报告集中度。
AI 中文摘要
公共区块链是否“去中心化”通常通过引用集中度统计量来判定。在90天窗口内的两个ERC-20账本——Chainlink (LINK) 和 Uniswap (UNI) 上，我们表明判决取决于测量规范而非账本本身。四个可自由选择的选项（持有者群体、地址类型、时间聚合和实体解析）使UNI的余额HHI从109变动到2,336（相差21倍），且每种规范都有其合理性。在同一范围内，基尼系数变动小于0.003，且在实体解析下不发生变化，这表明基尼系数和HHI回答的是不同的问题，不能相互替代。我们进一步记录了一个实现选择——对重复转账进行求和与覆盖——这会丢弃约85%的交易量，并推翻关于财富与结构位置的发现。实质上，两个账本在所有权上极度不平等（余额基尼系数分别为0.990和0.998），但在路由上却不集中（周流量HHI分别为421和386），且这两个维度在地址间几乎统计独立。一个参数化的隐藏经纪人标准识别出30个和18个零余额中介，其中12个在两个账本间共享；匹配对照确认是度阈值化而非学习嵌入驱动了这一发现。最后，在治理账本上，有提案资格的地址与路由中介几乎不相交，因此路由的可竞争性受制于一个中本聪系数为2的规则层。我们得出结论，链上集中度应报告为指定范围而非点估计。
英文摘要
Whether a public blockchain is "decentralized" is routinely settled by citing a concentration statistic. On two ERC-20 ledgers, Chainlink (LINK) and Uniswap (UNI) over a 90-day window, we show that verdict depends on measurement specification rather than the ledger itself. Four discretionary choices (holder population, address type, temporal aggregation, and entity resolution) move the balance HHI for UNI from 109 to 2,336 (a factor of 21), with every specification defensible. Over the same range, the Gini coefficient moves by less than 0.003 and does not change under entity resolution, demonstrating that Gini and HHI answer different questions and cannot substitute for one another. We further document an implementation choice - summing versus overwriting repeated transfers - that discards roughly 85% of volume and overturns a finding on wealth and structural position. Substantively, both ledgers are extraordinarily unequal in ownership (balance Gini = 0.990 and 0.998) yet unconcentrated in routing (weekly flow HHI = 421 and 386), with the two dimensions close to statistically independent across addresses. A parameterized criterion for hidden brokers identifies 30 and 18 zero-balance intermediaries, 12 shared across ledgers; a matched control confirms that degree thresholding, rather than learned embeddings, drives the discovery. Finally, on the governance ledger, proposal-eligible addresses and routing intermediaries are almost disjoint, so routing contestability is held at the pleasure of a rule layer with a Nakamoto coefficient of two. We conclude that on-chain concentration should be reported as a specified range rather than a point estimate.
Comments23 pages, 6 figures, code and data available at https://github.com/Liu0916-star/GNN-Wallet-Clustering
