Overview

Axelar provides a decentralized network and tools that help connect dApp builders with multiple blockchain ecosystems, applications, and users for frictionless cross-chain communication. Axelar consists of a protocol suite, tools, and APIs, designed to break down the barriers to cross-chain communication.

Axelar, can be described as a secure cross-chain communication infrastructure provider that several chains including Osmosis DAO are using as a bridge to connect with not only the Ethereum ecosystem but other important chains. With Axelar, Osmosis supports swaps with Ethereum, Avalanche, Binance Smart Chain, Polkadot, and Polygon ecosystems, creating the first permissionless, one-click application for universal cross-chain swaps.

Methodology

In this dashboard we are gonna explore the Axelar Satellite Bridge and the behavior of its active users.

We will divide the analysis in two main approaches:

• Did bridge activity spike over the past days?
  • Daily bridges since November 1s
  • Daily amount bridged since November 1st
  • Average amount bridged since November 1st
  • Daily bridges per chain destination
  • Daily volume bridged per chain destination
• Did the user behavior changes over the past days?
  • One-time users vs regular users
  • User behavior by chain

In this first charts, we can see the global activity of Axelar Satellite over the past days. As it can be seen, the amount of bridges increased during those affected days reaching the highest values since the start of the month. Then, the numbers returned to the previous levels.

The same has occurred with the total volume bridged. From around 2M bridged daily, the total amount jumped over 8M during the affected days, which is around 4x more. Looking at the average volume bridged, we can see how it has a downtrend, that were partially broke during the affected days, when the average volume bridged jumped a little bit.

If we take a look at the numbers by chain destination, we can see how the most activity was concentrated to bridge to Ethereum chain and Osmosis chain having both more than 25% of the total bridges each. They amount of bridges seems to didn’t vary during the affected days. However, the bridges experimented some changes during those days when a new destination appeared - Ki chain, and another experimented a growth - Kujira.

In terms of volume, the major of them is represented by Ethereum. In this case, there is a huge difference with the rest of the chains. In fact, during the affected days, the distribution of volume bridged to Ethereum increased from less than 60% to more than 80%.

Regarding the average amount transferred per day, we can see how the most affected destination was Ethereum again. Its amount increased while the rest remained stable.

Bridge activity over the past days

Bridge activity per destination chain

Global user behavior

In a global view, we can see how the major of the users are one-time transfer users. In fact, more than 86k are one-time users while less than 44k are multiple-time transfer users.

The multiple-time users users have an average of almost 3 transfers and represents around 60% of the total IBC transfers.

There is a big difference in the behavior of users that are doing multiple transfers vs the one-time users. While the one-time users are moving an avergade below 1 USD, and a total volume of 10k USD, the other users are moving an average of almost 9k per trnasfers and more than 390M USD volume.

User behavior by destination chain

Looking the behavior by chain, we can see how not all of them shows similar trends. For example, regarding the number of users by type, we can see how in the major of the cases there are more one-time users rather than multiple-time users. The highest difference can be seen on Osmosis. However, in the case of Polygon and Avalanche bridges, the amonut of multiple-transfer users is higher than the one-time ones and then, their users usually do more than a transfer.

Regarding the average number of transfers of the multiple-transfer users, we can see how over the major of the chains the amount is at 3, but in Axelarnet and Ethereum, the number are a little bit under this threshold and then, we can say that the users are less active than for the rest of the chains.

Considering the distribution of total transfers by type of user, in the major of the cases there are more transfers done by multiple-transfer users than one-time users. But, for Axelarnet, Injective, Ki and e-money, the numbers are in favour of the second group.

The average volume bridged is higher for the multiple-time users in all of the chains, but there are some closer differences than others. The major difference is shown by Ethereum chain, which has an average of more than 25k USD for multiple-time users. The total bridged volume is clearly higher for multiple-time users, basically it represents more than 99% in all of the cases except for e-money that doesn’t have multiple-time users.

Key insights

• Did bridge activity spike over the last 7 days?

  • The amount of bridges increased during those affected days reaching the highest values since the start of the month. Then, the numbers returned to the previous levels.
  • The same has occurred with the total volume bridged. From around 2M bridged daily, the total amount jumped over 8M during the affected days, which is around 4x more.

• In which ecosystem were the bridges?

  • The most activity was concentrated to bridge to Ethereum chain and Osmosis chain having both more than 25% of the total bridges each. Their amount of bridges seems to didn’t vary during the affected days. However, the bridges experimented some changes during those days when a new destination appeared - Ki chain, and another experimented a growth - Kujira.
  • The major of the volume is represented by Ethereum. In this case, there is a huge difference with the rest of the chains. In fact, during the affected days, the distribution of volume bridged to Ethereum increased from less than 60% to more than 80%.
  • The most affected destination was Ethereum again. Its amount increased while the rest remained stable.

• How often are people using Satellite - one-time transfers into IBC or more consistent/steady streams?

  • The major of the users are one-time transfer users. In fact, more than 86k are one-time users while less than 44k are multiple-time transfer users.
  • The multiple-time users users have an average of almost 3 transfers and represents around 60% of the total IBC transfers.
  • There is a big difference in the behavior of users that are doing multiple transfers vs the one-time users. While the one-time users are moving an avergade below 1 USD, and a total volume of 10k USD, the other users are moving an average of almost 9k per trnasfers and more than 390M USD volume.

• Does this vary based on the ecosystem they are bridging from/to?

  • Regarding the number of users by type, we can see how in the major of the cases there are more one-time users rather than multiple-time users. The highest difference can be seen on Osmosis. However, in the case of Polygon and Avalanche bridges, the amonut of multiple-transfer users is higher than the one-time ones and then, their users usually do more than a transfer.
  • In Axelarnet and Ethereum, the users are less active than for the rest of the chains.
  • In the major of the cases there are more transfers done by multiple-transfer users than one-time users. But, for Axelarnet, Injective, Ki and e-money, the numbers are in favour of the second group.
  • The average volume bridged is higher for the multiple-time users in all of the chains, but there are some closer differences than others. The major difference is shown by Ethereum chain.