The overall information’s about daily swaps and swappers in osmosis are listed down bellow in column forms.
At the first image we can see the daily number of swappers from Aug 15th 2022 till Nov 13th 2022 (which is after Alamada and FTX collapse)
The most number of swappers has reached the peek amount (20.798k swappers) on Oct 28th, and after the collapse it is safe to say that the swappers amount has decreased by a noticeable number specially on Nov 13th which the swappers are only 1240.
Same as the swappers column, on the swaps picture we can also see a huge number of swaps on Oct 28th but despite the drop of swappers after the collapse we can see a huge amount of swaps in Nov 8th, 9th and 10th.
Also in the volume columns it is visible that we had a high amount of volume un swaps on Oct 28th and the same rise can be seen after the collapse too but the Nov 13th column puts and end to that.

For a better understanding of daily swaps and volumes of them during the collapse we have the images bellow.
As you can see most of the volume distribution in daily swaps is less then $10 and from Aug 15th to Nov 13th it stays that way and the least amount of volume distribution of swaps belong to more then $1000 swaps.
Similar to the graphs before we can see a huge amount of volume happened on Oct 28th before the collapse and right after the collapse the graph rises to a new peek but that also ends in Nov 13th.
The two images under this text box explains that how much of an impact the collapse made on the swap volume amounts, what is interesting here is the raise in more then $1000 swap amounts during and after the collapse.
Before the collapse only 5.2% of the total volume belonged to more then $1000 swaps but after the event that percentage rises to approximately 7%.
The Average number of daily swaps and their volume are shown in the 3rd row in column form.

In the pictures shown in this section we can have study of number of swaps to and from stablecoins, their swapper amount and their volumes.
In the swappers number graph in front of you, it is obvious that the most number of swaps of all time happened after the collapse and on Nov 9th.
On Nov 9th the number of swaps from stablecoins is 1% more then the swaps to it, and this trend continues till Nov 10th but after that the swaps to stablecoins overcomes the swaps from it.
On Oct 28th as we can see in the second row we have the peek of swappers amount during the whole mentioned timespan, and in the normalized version we can see both before and after the collapse the swappers to stablecoins side is heavier than swappers from it.
Same as the previous section, in the 3rd row we can see the most amount of volume happened during Oct 28th and Nov 8th.
But the distribution of volume of swaps from and to stablecoins is pretty much split in half during all time and at the end of Nov 13th we cam see that swaps from stablecoins is 19% more than the swaps to it.

In the column form bellow we can see after/during FTX Alamada collapse, the number of swaps from stable coin has increased by approximately 8k.
And a bigger portion of total swaps are related to stable coin during the collapse.
Even though with the increase in swaps from stable coin after the mentioned event, we can see that the swaps to stablecoins volume, over weights the volume of swaps from by a 2.9%.
Needless to mention that the number of swaps to stablecoin is still more than swaps from it.

Now we take a look at Osmosis status and the effects of FTX Alamada collapse on it.
As you can see the number and of incoming transfers to Osmosis descends a lot specially on Nov 13th, the out going transfers get a mild spike after the collapse but still manages to decrease on Nov 13th.
If we take a look at the volume graphs to they also don’t look so promising because same as the numbers, the volume amount drop (in both incoming and outgoing) by a huge amount and stop at 48.4k for incoming 1.3M for out going on Nov 13th.

For a better understanding we have the incoming and outgoing number of transactions and their volume in a side by side comparison in the bottom.
As you can see on Oct 28th before so called collapse we had a huge amount of transactions and the incoming transfers overwhelm the outgoing by nearly 5k tx-count.
The volume of outgoing transfers out weight the ingoing.
But from Nov 8th forward ( during the collapse) we can see a noticeable amount of increase in both number and volume of outgoing transactions which reaches at its peak on Nov 9th but after that, the total transactions get dropped to its minimum specially at the end of time span on Nov 13th.

If we want to have an average amount of daily transactions to Osmosis we can look at info bellow.
In the number count we clearly see a huge raise in both transfers and user count to Osmosis in during the collapse and the changes are also visible in the average volume meter which increases by approximately 27k during the collapse.
In the second row of images we have top five money senders to Osmosis during the collapse and we can see even though with such low number of tx counts, the green column sends the most amount of volume to Osmosis.
For a better study of each money sender and their amount on the second and third you can click on each individual in the legends of the graphs.

The daily number of transfers to Osmosis from Axelar Satellite bridges graphs, are seemingly like the last transfer info we hade in the pervious sections and we can see a huge rise in both number and volume of incoming transfers to Osmosis just to get almost shut down on Nov 13th.
In the following images and graphs we have both incoming and outgoing transactions to osmosis from Axelar Satellite bridge during the collapse.
As you can see the outgoing transfers and their volumes heavily overcome the incomings in transactions from Axelar Satellite bridge way.
On Nov 12th 76% of transaction numbers are belonging to outgoings and 93% of daily volume contains the outgoing transactions.

The average incoming transfers daily is shown in column forms in the following graphs.
On the left we have the number of tx count and user count and on the right we have the volume of transactions before and during FTX Alamada collapse via satellite bridge.
Same as the top 5 before we have the top 5 money senders to Osmosis via satellite bridge in column form at the end.

Conclusion

This week has highlighted the need for transparency & decentralization in crypto markets. Let's see how users have reacted to this wild week in Web3. Have behaviors changed? Analyze growth in Osmosis Volumes & User Count this week.

The event of FTX and Alamadas collapse clearly made an impact of the users in the market and we can see the rise in transactions and the volume of transactions after and during the collapse. As we reviewed in the previous sections not only stablecoin but the Osmosis went under the effects of the mentioned collapse, from Nov 8th forward we witness a huge raise in number of both incoming and outgoing transactions to and from Osmosis. But most of these transactions are incoming and the volume of them are less than outgoing transactions as you can see in the transfer sections.

By the end of Nov 13th 57% of transactions are incoming and 58% of total daily volume belongs to outgoing transactions.
Has more money flowed into Osmosis this week compared to the past few weeks/months? Where is this money coming from? Centralized Exchanges? Have wallets moved more into stables?

We mentioned that the amount of user transfers where higher to Osmosis but the outgoing volume of transactions are noticeably higher than incomings and these facts re much more visual in the transactions via satellite bridge and as you can see the daily number of outgoing transfers and their volumes are way higher than the incomings.

Discord: hojjat7878#8809
Twitter: @hojjat8d
Email: hojjat78delshad@gmail.com
Twitte link :

Appendix

The solution of this question and the queries are completely used from the filipside database

The construction of the dashboard was also used from the site app.flipsidecrypto.com/velocity, which belongs to flipside

Some ==queries== and charts and the ==method== description section are copied from the following dashboards:

Thank you very much dear ==alik110==

THANK YOU FOR READING!

Application

This week has highlighted the need for transparency & decentralization in crypto markets. Let's see how users have reacted to this wild week in Web3. Have behaviors changed? Analyze growth in Osmosis Volumes & User Count this week.

Has more money flowed into Osmosis this week compared to the past few weeks/months? Where is this money coming from? Centralized Exchanges? Have wallets moved more into stables?

Methodology

In this dashboard, We are going to mainly focus on the impact of ==FTX== and ==Alameda== collapse during the past ==wild week== on the ==Osmosis== ecosystem.

For this, First I am going to split our timespan into 2 categories:

1- Before FTX & Alameda Collapse==: Since ==3 Months (90 Days)== Ago Till Before ==8th November== 2022 (The date when cryptocurrency market has began to crash)

2- ==During and After FTX & Alameda Collapse==: Since ==8th November== Till Today.

So, We are going to check ==swap== and also ==transfer== activity on Osmosis users during this timespan as well as analysing the ==incoming== and ==outgoing== transfers from Osmosis via ==Axelar’s== Satellite Bridge.

One of the main issues in this bounty is extracting the ==USD Volume== of swaps/transfers/bridges since osmosis.core.fact_swaps and osmosis.core.fact_transfers tables do not have a ==price_usd== column and we have to join these tables with osmosis.core.dim_prices, osmosis.core.dim_labels and also ethereum.core.fact_hourly_token_prices in order to be able to extract some volume-related data from ==swaps== (considering that currencies on Swaps and Transfer tables are different from project_names and symbols on labels and prices table and we have to match them manually (using case/when) to match some popular and most traded currencies’ symbol on these tables to be able to extract their transactions’ volume).

Another issue is that the ==decimal values== of some currencies on tables seems to be incorrect. For example, the decimal value of the ==INJ== token on the swap table is ==12== but its actual decimal value (checked from mintscan) is ==18==! Or some currencies such as MEME ('ibc/67C89B8B0A70C08F093C909A4DD996DD10E0494C87E28FD9A551697BF173D4CA') was giving us strange numbers in some cases so I have exluded it from the results.

Also, I am going to calculate the ==average daily== values of ==transfers/swaps/bridges== for the 2 mentioned ==timespans== in order to get a more clear results for comparing data on these timespans. for this, I have excluded the ==current day’s date== from the results since the data on today are not complete yet and it can give us incorrect ==average== results.

So, As mentioned above, we are going to analyze data from ==3 months== (90 days) ago till today and we are only considering ==successful transactions==.

َAbout Osmosis

Osmosis is an automated market maker (AMM) protocol that allows developers to create bespoke AMMs with sovereign liquidity pools. Osmosis, which was built with the Cosmos SDK, makes use of Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) to facilitate cross-chain transactions. In other words, Osmosis is a decentralized exchange designed particularly for Cosmos, with intention to spread to other blockchains in the future.

Osmosis is one of the first Cosmos-based AMM DEX. TVL of Osmosis increase 100% since the beginning of 2022 ( $811.63m – $1.79b), Besides Cosmos is top 20 in the cryptocurrency market so the growth potential of Osmosis in the future is feasibility. Osmosis is inspired by Uniswap, Balancer, and Curve Finance, so it has the advantages of all three mentioned AMMs. The goal for Osmosis is to provide the best-in-class tools that extend the use of AMMs within the Cosmos ecosystem beyond traditional token swap-type use cases.

Osmosis is a sovereign Cosmos zone that draws its sovereignty not only from its application-specific blockchain architecture but also from the collective sovereignty of the LPs who have aligned interests in various tokens for which they provide liquidity.