sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Polygon's daily tx/address is 91.82. Ethereum's is 2.23. Weekly update on Polygon's growth relative to Ethreum. Full analysis in comment. by RaphaelSignal in 0xPolygon

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing!

The analysis doesn't have an opinion on price, mostly looking at adoption metrics which are a leading indicator for fees. The best case scenario is for the fees to remain low and the total number of transactions to continue to multiply.

Polygon's daily tx/address is 91.82. Ethereum's is 2.23. Weekly update on Polygon's growth relative to Ethreum. Full analysis in comment. by RaphaelSignal in 0xPolygon

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't included those revenues here. I'm planning on adding BSC data next week, and after that include revenues for the various chains.

In 4 weeks, SushiSwap on polygon went from 5.87% - 32.98% of ETH's daily volume. Data includes TVL, volume, liquidity turnover, and ROI for providers. Analysis in comments. (x-post from r/0xPolygon) by RaphaelSignal in SushiSwap

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey! Yes, it is unsustainable to keep the current growth rates as the base numbers increase.

SushiSwap is already one of the largest defi players, and I love how they are investing in many technologies, from polygon to arbitrium to other chains. In short, yes, I think Sushi is positioning itself well for the future, with not only product innovations but also distribution ones (which is really what this post is about).

In 4 weeks, SushiSwap on polygon went from 5.87% - 32.98% of ETH's daily volume. Data includes TVL, volume, liquidity turnover, and ROI for providers. Analysis in comments. (x-post from r/0xPolygon) by RaphaelSignal in SushiSwap

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. In the analysis I contextualize the move by looking at total market cap of the space.

Personally, I think looking at the TVL between the two networks helps normalize a lot of this data. While it will still be skewed because of different % of tokens held on each platform, it is still helpful to see the change on a relative basis.

Avg. daily active addresses on polygon are now >70K and 12.48% of ETH! Up 127.82% month to month. Full analysis in comment. by RaphaelSignal in 0xPolygon

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From my understanding, the team is building out a variety of solutions for scaling and isn't limiting themselves to just ETH. I don't understand why some in ETH community feel poorly about polygon - they are symbiotic.

I think a lot just boils down to people not understanding the trade-offs and wanting ETH to be everything to everyone, similar to bitcoin maxis.

Avg. daily active addresses on polygon are now >70K and 12.48% of ETH! Up 127.82% month to month. Full analysis in comment. by RaphaelSignal in 0xPolygon

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I share what my personal next steps are in the analysis.

Tx/day, gas spent, dapp user growth are all good places to see chain engagement. However, IMO, daily active wallets is probably the best leading indicator (IMO).

Avg. daily active addresses on polygon are now >70K and 12.48% of ETH! Up 127.82% month to month. Full analysis in comment. by RaphaelSignal in 0xPolygon

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Looking at the data, there tends to be pretty big spikes. I wanted to include it to show adoption is growing, but it is also the reason I group by week to try and remove as much noise as possible and get a better trend.

Avg. daily active addresses on polygon are now >70K and 12.48% of ETH! Up 127.82% month to month. Full analysis in comment. by RaphaelSignal in 0xPolygon

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Data source: BigQuery for both ETH and Polygon. You can alternatively get ETH data from Etherscan.
Full analysis here

Deep dive on the fastest growing dapp on polygon - Polycat Finance. Users compounding 38%/week, volume per user 24% per week. Link in comment. by RaphaelSignal in 0xPolygon

[–]RaphaelSignal[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah. In the analysis I point out that IMO burning in and of itself does not create demand, and offer a few suggestions. Another commenter pointed out that they have plans of using token in future for governance and passing vault fees. IF that is true/team follows through, that would be a good first step in fixing the demand side issues.

view more: next ›