Try Quests to earn cryptoSuperFluid Validating
Introduction
The Osmosis blockchain is a distributed network that is managed by a large group of developers and front-ends (100+ validators and full nodes). You may quickly acquire knowledge of the Osmosis blockchain, create applications for it, and incorporate it into your existing infrastructure by perusing our documentation and examining our demonstrations.
The OSMO token is a governance token that allows staked token holders to decide the future of the protocol, including every implementation detail.
To facilitate decentralized trade, AMMs collect and store a variety of digital assets under the supervision of a smart contract. Liquidity providers deposit their assets into the pool and profit from fees when customers make trades using the pool rather than the traditional order book mechanism enabled by smart contracts. The act of placing assets into an AMM pool is known as providing liquidity (or "LPing"). Asset swaps can be made through AMMs, which are decentralized finance protocols.
An innovative feature of the Osmosis protocol is called Superfluid Staking, and it enables users to stake assets for network security while also contributing assets to a liquidity pool. What this means is that Osmosis stakers receive reward fees associated with liquidity pool transactions as a thank you for their contributions to the blockchain's security. The ATOM/OSMO pool is the largest Osmosis crypto staking pool by volume and is the first to support superfluid staking for both OSMO and the Cosmos token ATOM.
Method
At first I tried to find the share of Superfluid staked volume from staking on Osmosis chain, so for this purpose I used osmosis.core.fact_liquidity_provider_actions table.
The table osmosis.core.fact_superfluid_staking is used to access the delegation metrics on superfluid’s pools, too.
Then I used the queries in jackguy#1653’s dashboard and modified those. thanks to him.
✍🏻 Conclusion
As of Findings above:
It would appear from the provided analysis that this particular staking system has seen a dramatic uptick in activity since the release of superfluid staking. This system's liquidity pools appear to have a wide variety of validators and a fairly even distribution of stakes, which could be taken as indicators of its robustness and safety. Since a slash event is defined as a loss percentage of the stake, and the largest validators in most pools hold less than one-fifth of the total stake, the maximum percentage of a pool that a validator could lose through a slash event is too low. Since the largest validators in most pools do not control a sizable enough share of the total stake to be vulnerable to a slash event, the likelihood of a slash event significantly affecting the liquidity of a pool is low.
And finally, I’m glad to share this research with those who care about this issue via Twitter link, and will be pleased by your comments.
About:
-
Author: HaM☰d
\
-
Discord: 0xHaM☰d#8391
\
-
Twitter: @arjmandi_hamed
\
-
Email: h_arjmandi2012@yahoo.com
SuperFluid Staking pools
There are 16 SuperFluid Staking pools currently available on Osmosis (1, 678, 704, 712, 674, 722, 9, 604, 497, 812, 584, 3, 481, 42, 463, 15). What impact would a slashing event have on the OSMO liquidity of these pools?
Analyze the distribution of superfluid-staked OSMO across these pools. Which validators have the most SFS OSMO in total, and per pool?
\n
Hey there 👋!
Firstly, I appreciate you sticking with it until the conclusion.
I'm Hamed, a civil engineering Ph.D.
student interested in data analysis.
I've made many similar dashboards and visualizations since I started at Flipside in January.
Please take a look at my various contact details and let me know what you think.
:mag_right: Findings:
At first, the weekly staking transactions, liquidity providers, and liquid provided volume are shown in all Osmosis pools vs. Superfluid pools in the charts above and PIE charts right.
As can be seen the Superfluid pools were stablished in late Feb and early days of March with over 35.16K staking transactions, that took place by 20.4K liquidity providers.
Over 40% of staking transactions on Osmosis are belong to Superfluid pools.
:mag_right: Findings:
In the above two charts, the weekly deposit and withdraw volume($) are shown per each pool over time.
As can be seen the most volume in USD were deposited in first week of Feb, and in return the highest volume($) withdrawn took place in third week of Mar.
The chart right represent the net deposit volume in USD by weekly per each pool.
The ATOM/OSMO pool has had the most net deposit volume in USD.
Based on the PIE graph bellow, it appears that the more than one-third of validators are unknown label. this graph shows the total volume($) and share of staking volume by validators in all 16 pools.
The bar chart bellow shows the validator total staking volume($) per each pool.
:mag_right: Findings:
The weekly staking transactions, unique delegators, pair volume and validators per each 16 aforementioned pools are depict in the current section’s visuals.
Weekly staking transactions count and active delegators decreased over time.
The most pair volume staked in last week of May on CRO/OSMO pool by near to 200M pool native tokens.
The count of unique validators on Superfluid pools increased over time.
As of charts bellow ATOM/OSMO has had the most staking transactions count and unique delegators, also this pool has had the most new validator in total with over 77K.
New validator count decreased more and more over time for all 16 aforementioned pools.
:mag_right: Findings:
The first chart to the right displays the weekly value of the tokens used to access the liquidity pools, which is a representation of the value of the assets held within the pools. Market forces, such as supply and demand, and other factors that can affect the value of the assets in the pool may cause this price to change over time.
Liquidity pool deposits, withdrawals, and net deposits are all depicted in the second graph in US dollars. All of the assets in each pool, plus any fees, add up to this sum.
:mag_right: Findings:
The weekly deposits and withdrawals from each of the 16 liquidity pools are depicted in the third graph. The weekly net deposit is the difference between the inflow (the amount of money added to the pools) and the outflow (the amount of money taken out of the pools) for the week.
The net amount that has been added to or subtracted from each pool is depicted in the fourth graph.
:mag_right: Validating and Risks:
A validator node will treat Superfluid Staked OSMO similar to native OSMO with the expectation that LP tokens will fluctuate in value. As such a validator can choose to participate in Superfluid Staking if they are willing to take on the risks associated with providing liquidity.
Any participation in a liquidity pool, including Superfluid Staking, carries the risk of impermanent loss, among other risks. Impermanent loss occurs when the value of liquidity tokens is lower than if they were hold. Users may find themselves in a situation where their asset would have earned more from market changes than from being a liquidity provider in an AMM.
Staked tokens may be slashed if the validator they're staked to doesn't work properly. It's important to know how slashing affects Superfluid Staked assets, even though they're rare. Only a portion of the LP token's value earns staking rewards, but its entire value is subject to slashing penalties. 5% of your Superfluid Staked LP tokens will be sent to the community pool if the validator you delegated to is slashed for double-signing.
These factors make it important to choose a trusted, secure, and compatible validator. Always do your own research and know the high-risk nature of DeFi. Read more…