Introduction

In this dashboard, we’ll look at users bridging into Polygon and what they do with their bridged funds.

The assumption/method here is that we’ll be looking at users coming from the PoS bridge and that are bridging ERC-20 tokens excluding ETH →WETH and WMATIC →MATIC.

Agenda

1. General Metrics
2. Top Users Bridging ERC-20s using PoS
3. What do users do?
4. Summary && Evaluation

Dashboard:

• Refresh: Daily
• Parameters:
  • date_trunc: daily,weekly,monthly

1. General Metrics

What we can see, when looking at the defaults of this dashboard is that the PoS bridge specifically for bridging ERC-20s is dying in popularity as new, faster bridges like Hop , Multichain and others have been built.

What we can also see is that the majority of users bridge stables USDC, USDT and DAI with a few users bridging WBTC or other tokens such as AAVE (DeFi), SAND (Metaverse) and others.

2. Top Users Bridging ERC-20s using PoS

When looking at the top 50 wallets and focusing on the top 3, we can observe the following:

1. The user: 0xfa35113163bfd33c18a01d1a62d4d14a1ed30a42 has about 12% of their transactions being interactions with the PoS bridge and they also have about 42k transactions on Polygon and 50k transactions on Ethereum with high balances.
2. The user: 0x882d04c3d8410ddf2061b3cba2c3522854316feb also has a lot of transactions about 62k on Ethereum and 162k on Polygon 🤯, with also high balances.
3. The user: 0xccfa24354a7dd35addc70affcf9a18d7bf1f199a has only about 6k and 5k on Ethereum and Polygon respectively, both with very low balances.

3. What do users do?

In this section, we’ll look at what it is that users do, with their ERC-20s, once bridging from Ethereum to Polygon.

NOTE: In all cases, the majority will be null, which is as expected, as a lot of the addresses as not labelled, but it is also useful to keep in mind that these addresses could be 0x address which would mean that the user sent their funds over to Ethereum again. The process would show up in the logs as such, interaction w/ smart contract, smart contract interacts with ERC20Predicate address which then “burns” and “mints” as required on either side.

Label

Once excluding null as discussed above, we can see that Quickswap , Aave and Sushiswap are the top 3 addresses people are interacting with, within the first 3 days (part of the methodology, check SQL code) of bridging into Polygon.

Label Type

Again, once excluding the null, we can see that DeFi, Dex and Token are the top 3 addresses by label type that people are interacting with. Token interactions could be an withdraw interaction which would match an exit to a different network or to Ethereum.

Label Sub Type

Swap Contract , Pool and Token Contract are again the top 3 addresses by subtype, that people are interacting with. A small % of them is also interacting with other bridges that have been labelled as well as claiming rewards, potentially as part of liquidity incentive programs of pool incentive farming.

4. Summary

In summary, we’ve seen at a relatively high level, what users are interacting with once bridging their ERC-20 tokens from Ethereum to Polygon. Assumptions are made clear at the start and along the different sections, on how the methodology shapes the results.

Evaluation

I would have liked to continue diving deeper on this one, maybe looking at other bridges, like Hop, Multichain, Evo Defi etc.