In my analysis, I will analyze Wallet Balances & Ecosystem Growth by answering these questions:

• How has the ratio of liquid to staked OSMO changed overtime?
• Are the top 100 OSMO holders the same now as they were at the start of the year?
• What is the current average OSMO per wallet? How has that value changed over time? Plot average OSMO/wallet against user growth.
• Do wallets normally hold a majority of OSMO, or another token? How has this changed over time?

What is Osmosis?

Osmosis is a DEX protocol, which implies that it employs smart contracts to calculate the price of digital assets, provide liquidity using a peer-to-peer (P2P) technique, and execute trades between users. An AMM — a DEX protocol that prices crypto assets in liquidity pools — is this approach to an exchange platform. Contributing tokens to these pools promotes decentralized liquidity, which is then utilized to ease exchange trades. As an incentive for participating, becoming a liquidity provider (LP) can reward you both trading fees and newly issued LP tokens. Three major elements will be included in the Osmosis decentralized exchange:

Self-governing liquidity pools: On Osmosis, liquidity pools (LPs) are totally customisable through governance. Nothing in the basic structure of Osmosis' AMMs is hardcoded, according to the Osmosis team. All pool settings, including curve methods, TWAP calculations, swap fees, token rates, reward incentives, and more, are subject to LP provider vote.

Superfluid staking: When users deposit any two supported tokens into an Osmosis liquidity pool, their liquidity shares will be staked to validators on the tokens' chains. As a result, the deposited asset will not only earn its share of fees from the liquidity pool's swap transactions, but will also earn rewards for assisting in the chain's security, allowing users to provide liquidity to the Osmosis AMM while also participating in the native ecosystems of the tokens they hold through staking. For example, the LP tokens in an OSMO>AKT pool will be able to secure both the Osmosis and Akash networks.

MEV resistance: At its foundation, Osmosis was designed with MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) resistance in mind, and it contains methods to help reduce MEV.

Methodology

The source of data: osmosis.core.fact_daily_balances, osmosis.core.dim_prices, osmosis.core.dim_labels are used to conduct my SQLs.

Aspect of analysis:

• Balance of liquid OSMO, staked OSMO and ratio of liquid to staked OSMO
• Top 100 OSMO holders on 01-01-2022 and now
• Average OSMO per wallet and its change over time and analyze average OSMO/wallet against user growth.
• Top 5 most common token held and the change in top 5 over time.

How has the ratio of liquid to staked OSMO changed overtime?

Total OSMO liquid was 386M and OSMO staked was 134M. Liquid made up nearly 75% in total balance while OSMO staked accounted for roughly one quarter. Based on this result, the ratio of liquid to staked OSMO =386M/134M = 2.87. \n

• The balance of liquid OSMO went up significantly from 157M to 386M. The sharp increase occurred in Jul-2022.
• The balance of liquid OSMO increased slightly from 66.7M to 178.7M from 14-Dec-2021 to Oct-10-2022 before going down rapidly subsequently.
• The ratio of liquid to staked OSMO had a rapid increase recently as a result of the growth in gap between liquid OSMO and staked OSMO.

Are the top 100 OSMO holders the same now as they were at the start of the year?

There were 38 wallets which appeared in the list of top 100 holders at the start of the year and at the moment. As can be seen, 3 wallets holding the 1st, 2nd and 3rd position in both periods were:

• ==osmo1fl48vsnmsdzcv85q5d2q4z5ajdha8yu3aq6l09== with its growth in the balance (from 75.8M to 219.7M)
• ==osmo1jv65s3grqf6v6jl3dp4t6c9t9rk99cd80yhvld== with its growth in the balance (from 46.5M to 60.3M)
• ==osmo1pvxhtre74l37p6y2rs2e8xyek75z7xlc7g2trt== with its decrease in the balance (from 35.9M to 23.9M)

In conclusion, only 38% in top 100 OSMO holders at the start of the year still hold their positions in top 100 current holders.

What is the current average OSMO per wallet? How has that value changed over time? Plot average OSMO/wallet against user growth.

Looking at these charts, we can see that both staking and liquid had the similar upward tendency in the change of number of users and balance. The rapid increase in the number of users occurred significantly since March. There is a notable difference that the amount of staked OSMO has decreased slightly recently while the amount of liquid is still growing.

In general, the number of OSMO per user for staking and liquid had the same downfall. However, the gap between them became bigger when it’s compared to pervious months.

Do wallets normally hold a majority of OSMO, or another token? How has this changed over time?

Regarding USD balance, although INJ had the highest balance held by users, OSMO still had its value when it was the second most popular token. Moreover, regarding the number of users, OSMO was top 1 with highest number of users (408K users). In addition, ATOM and EVMOS were tokens appearing in both list of top 5 tokens by USD amount and number of wallets.

Conclusion

• Total OSMO liquid was 386M and OSMO staked was 134M. Based on this result, the ratio of liquid to staked OSMO was 2.87.
• There were 38 wallets which appeared in the list of top 100 holders at the start of the year and at the moment. 03 wallets holding the 1st, 2nd and 3rd position in both periods were “osmo1fl48vsnmsdzcv85q5d2q4z5ajdha8yu3aq6l09”, “osmo1jv65s3grqf6v6jl3dp4t6c9t9rk99cd80yhvld” and “osmo1pvxhtre74l37p6y2rs2e8xyek75z7xlc7g2trt”.
• The average number of staked OSMO per user was 599. The average number of liquid OSMO per user was 1029.
• Regarding USD balance, INJ was the most common token highest balance held by users. Regarding the number of users, OSMO was top 1 with highest number of users. ATOM and EVMOS were tokens appearing in both list of top 5 tokens by USD amount and number of wallets.