Original author: Ryo Kiyan
Original source: medium
After more than a month of effort, Big Thing has made significant upgrades to our research report by adding in-depth analysis of on-chain data. We mainly conduct in-depth analysis of four purposes:
1) Determine their attitude towards the project from the actions of the team/investors with large pledges/foundations
- A comprehensive analysis of Balancer’s innovation in DEX: 7 liquidity pools and architectural logic
- Ethereum Ecosystem Weekly Report: Plans to conduct stress tests on EIP-4844 at Devnet #7 and develop a complete set of Dencun EIP for Devnet #8.
- Data Analysis of Azuki Incident: Is the NFT Lending Platform Bankrupt?
-
Whether it is holding, increasing, or constantly selling
2) Look at the main force absorption from multiple dimensions or distribute chips
3) Current situation of the main holders
-
The strength of future increases
-
Long or short term
-
Whether it is smart money
4) Data analysis of those who increase/decrease their holdings
Take BLUR as an example and look at the investment research data
1 Holder’s research
The number of holders represents the project supporters.
The above figure shows the change in the number of BLUR holders over time, representing changes in holdings of more than 2, 200, and 100,000 BLUR, respectively.
1) More than 2 BLUR, worth about 1U, represents the total number of holders.
Here, I adopt a different definition from other data platforms. Because in my research, I found that there are a large number of very small non-zero addresses, which are only left over from selling transfers. Obviously, these addresses cannot be counted as holding users, because they do not even feel holding, but their existence will affect the data of the total number of holders, and even produce the opposite conclusion.
2) More than 200 BLUR, worth around 100U, refers to the number of users who have the willingness to actively buy and hold.
3) More than 100,000 BLUR, worth about 50,000U, is used to represent large holders.
From the figure above, it can be seen that the number of BLUR addresses has been increasing, but the increase was particularly large in March. The total number of holders increased by more than 1,000 people from April to June, and the increase rate was about 4%. The number of holders with 200 BLUR increased by about 800 people per month. For large holders, the monthly growth is about 20+. (In which June, token unlocking, the project party distributed 20 large wallets.)
Overall, the increase in the number of holding addresses for Blur in the past three weeks has been relatively small, with a monthly increase of only about 4%. Especially for major holders, the monthly growth is even smaller.
2 DEX/CEX Data Analysis in the last 60 days
In the above figure, the first one represents the daily deposit/withdrawal situation of the exchange, where yellow represents the net deposit of the day, and blue represents the net withdrawal of the day. The shaded area is the accumulation of deposits and withdrawals. The second figure represents the average amount of each deposit/withdrawal, which is used to judge whether the deposit and withdrawal behavior is that of major or retail investors. Intuitively, a high value is the behavior of major holders, and a low peak is mostly the behavior of retail investors.
1) From the perspective of the exchange’s deposit and withdrawal, there was a large deposit around June 15th, and it can be judged that the chips unlocked by the team were deposited into the exchange. Between June 8th and 12th, the overall trading volume net outflowed 6 million Blur, but there was no large withdrawal behavior from the average withdrawal. It is most likely the behavior of market makers, which was split into multiple small amounts.
2) It is also particularly noteworthy that between May 14th and June 8th, the overall inflow and outflow of the exchange did not change much. However, there were two peaks in the deposit amount, which indicates that although many retail investors were withdrawing from the exchange, major holders were depositing, which caused the price of Blur to continue to fall.
In summary, from the data, between May 14th and June 8th, many retail investors were withdrawing from the exchange, but major holders were depositing, which caused the price of Blur to continue to fall. Between June 8th and 12th, the overall trading volume net outflowed 6 million Blur, which was the behavior of market makers withdrawing in multiple small amounts. On the 15th, there was a large deposit of unlocked chips into the exchange. From the above signs, Blur is likely to form a bottom after the 15th, and market makers will take action to raise prices for selling. As a result, Blur rose from the lowest 0.3 dollars on the 15th to 0.45 dollars, an increase of 50%.
The above figure shows the buying and selling behavior on the DEX, where the first figure represents the daily buying and selling on the DEX, where yellow bars represent the net buying of the day, and blue bars represent the net selling of the day. The shaded area is the deposit and buying volume, with negative values indicating net selling. The second figure represents the average amount of each buy/sell, which is used to judge the behavior of major holders.
Unlike cex and cex, dex is a direct buy and sell.
1) From the figure above, it can be seen that during the period from April 28 to May 24, not only a large amount of blur was cumulatively net sold, but also multiple blue peaks appeared in the second figure, indicating that large accounts have been selling on dex all the time.
2) In the red box, it can be seen that the net buying volume was relatively large on these two days around June 12, and large accounts made large purchases. So why didn’t the price of blur rise sharply at that time? Because the exchange is linked with the dex market-making robot, indicating that retail investors on the exchange are selling in large quantities. It can be seen from the chain that large accounts are buying blur at the position of 0.3, so the price successfully bottomed out and started a rebound later.
Therefore, for the recent trend of blur, the signs of dex and cex are quite obvious.
The above figure is the number of transfers of wallet addresses (contract addresses) on dex and cex, which is the accumulated number of transfers in and out.
From cex, it can be seen that the most active time on CEX is UTC 14:00, 13:00, 06:00, followed by 12:00, 15:00. Converted into Beijing time, it is mainly in the middle of the night, indicating that the trading on cex is mainly based on US time zones.
From dex, it can be seen that the most active time on DEX is UTC 12:00, followed by 02:00, 15:00, and 13:00. Converted into Beijing time, the most active time is still in the middle of the night, mainly based on European and American time. The next most active time is 9pm and 11pm, which is relatively late.
Overall, the most active time for blur on cex and dex is mainly based on US time.
3. Portrait of Large Holders
Please note that here, after excluding project parties, dex, cex, mev, dex intermediate wallets, cex intermediate wallets and other addresses, it is the top 100 addresses that hold blur.
The above is the core information summary of the addresses of large holders.
1) ROI, from the ROI, most large holders are currently in a state of loss, with a median loss of 20%, and the loss range of the middle 50% of large holders is between 3% and 37%.
2) TransactionsPerDay (TPD) refers to the average number of transfers per day of the address, which is used to measure the activity of the wallet on the chain, and can indirectly judge whether the holder is a long-term or short-term operation. From the data, the median TPD of blur’s large holders is 0.4 times, that is, the monthly average is 12 times, which mainly reflects that it is not high-frequency operation.
From the TPD data, it was found that all very active wallets are likely to be wallets of Blur liquidity providers.
3) From the perspective of addressAge, we can see that the median wallet time is 217 days, and more than three-quarters of the wallets have been around for more than 69 days. This indicates that most wallets are not newly generated addresses and have existed for some time.
4) HoldDay represents the length of time an address holds Blur, with a median of 61 days. This means that the average holding time is more than two months, and the quartiles are concentrated between 25 and 100 days. It is worth noting that the price of Blur has fallen from $0.8 to $0.3 in the past two months.
Overall, most of the wallets of Blur holders have been around for more than two months and the daily transfer volume is not active, which means they are not frequent traders. The overall Blur holders bought in about a month ago, and new buyers account for a very small proportion of the total. Moreover, the overall Blur holders are in a loss position, with most losses between 3% and 37%.
The above figure shows the relationship between the cost and holding amount of the large Blur holders. The size of the sphere represents the holding time. From the above figure, we can intuitively see that
1) The average holding cost of most large holders is concentrated between $0.5 and $0.8, especially around $0.6.
2) The cost of some large holders is around $0.3-$0.4, and their spheres are relatively small, indicating that they are new buyers in the recent period.
3) The number of large holders with a cost of more than $1 is very small, indicating that the large holders at the high position have been washed out long ago or bought at a low price to reduce the holding cost. And the holding amount is relatively small. There are only three large holders with a cost of more than $1 in the figure, with 3.2 million, 480,000, and 300,000 Blur, respectively.
The above figure shows the total assets of the large Blur holders and the relationship between the holding amount and the size of other assets. The size of the sphere represents the remaining assets. The larger the sphere, the smaller the proportion of Blur in their assets, which indirectly reflects the potential for large holders to further increase their holdings. From the above figure, we can intuitively see that
1) The assets of large Blur holders are mostly concentrated below $1 million. Among them, those with assets ranging from $1 million to $10 million and $10 million to $100 million account for less than 10%.
2) The balls of the big holders with assets of over 1 million are relatively large, indicating that the proportion of blur they hold is not high. And among those with assets between $100,000 and $1 million, there is also a considerable proportion of addresses whose proportion of blu is not high.
3) In terms of the amount of blur held, the proportion of assets held by those with a large amount of blur (over 1 million blur) is relatively high, indicating that these addresses all specifically hold blur.
Overall, the addresses of large holders of blur do not have high total assets and are concentrated below $1 million. However, the proportion of blur held by addresses with blur is relatively high.
4 Analysis of Buyers
The above chart shows the data on the position of major holders in the past 60 days. Among them,
1) % Increase of Amount represents the proportion of blur increased, accounting for more than 53.48% of the total position of major holders. That means more than half of the chips have already changed hands.
2) % Increase Holder of Total Holders represents the proportion of increased holdings among major holders, which is as high as 42%.
3) Although the situation of the first two data is good, some problems are found when we look at the specific situation of the buyers.
A: Although 42% of major holders have increased their holdings, only 25 of them have accumulated more than 300,000 blur.
B: The multiple buyers of 1.92 million blur are selected by the red box. They all have the same amount, only hold blur as a token, and all come from trading transfers. This may be the unified behavior of a large holder or the behavior of a market maker. At the same time, we found that the top two buyers, with the same amount, also came from transfers within the exchange and were new wallets with only 10 days. Although we cannot judge who controls these addresses, it at least shows that there are not as many actual buyers as previously analyzed.
4) Only three people bought directly from DEX, and the increase in on-chain holdings was not so active.
5 Study on Team/Institutional Unlocked Chips (previously released)
1) After blur was unlocked on the 14th, 30 million was transferred to Coinbase. But CB’s trading volume only increased by 2 million on the 14th. And the price has risen by 20% instead.
2) 154 million blur was transferred to multiple wallets, and the wallets were just registered. It can be considered that the unlocked chips are uniformly controlled by the project party.
3) On the 14th, the official Blur wallet withdrew from Coinbase.
4) 3.15 million Blur was transferred to the market maker and Wintermute has been increasing its holdings in recent days.
According to the white paper, on June 14th, investors unlocked 78.49 million tokens, team contributors unlocked 117 million tokens, and advisors unlocked 4.98 million tokens. According to on-chain tracking, 191 million Blur tokens were actually transferred and distributed by address 0xCD531Ae9EFCCE479654c4926dec5F6209531Ca7b. I conducted a thorough investigation and found that the 191 million Blurs were transferred to 18 addresses. Five of these addresses have already transferred Blur tokens , totaling 33.1 million, with 210,000 sold directly on DEX, 29.73 million transferred to Coinbase, and 3.15 million transferred to Wintermute.
An analysis of the addresses still holding Blur tokens shows that most of these addresses are new and have no other transaction records. These addresses together hold a total of 154 million Blur tokens. Only the last three addresses in the image have received relatively frequent transfers, but they have received a total of only 300,000 Blur tokens. It can be assumed that 154 million Blurs are controlled by a single entity (likely the project team).
Like what you're reading? Subscribe to our top stories.
We will continue to update Gambling Chain; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!
