Osmosis USDC.grv/USDC pool LP activity

Introduction

The Pool 872 (USDC.grv/USDC) has seen a significant drop in liquidity in a short period of time, which has raised concerns among its users and stakeholders. This dashboard is designed to help provide answers to the questions surrounding this issue. We will be taking an in-depth look at the historical data and market trends to understand the factors that led to the decline in liquidity. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the situation and present a clear picture of what happened to the LPs in Pool 872. Additionally, we will also investigate whether the release and incentivization of 3-Pools played a role in the sudden drop in liquidity. By analyzing the impact of these events on the market, we hope to shed light on their contribution to the overall decline in liquidity. Our goal is to provide a detailed and transparent report that will help our users understand the changes in liquidity in Pool 872 and make informed decisions in the future. We invite you to join us in this journey as we uncover the mysteries behind the sudden drop in liquidity in this pool.

Definition:

1. Total Value Locked (TVL): This term refers to the total value of assets that are locked into a DeFi pool or protocol. In the case of Pool 872, the TVL is the sum of all the USDC.grv and USDC assets that have been deposited into the pool.
2. Liquidity Provider (LP): A liquidity provider is an individual or entity that supplies assets to a DeFi pool, earning a share of the pool's fees in return.
3. 3-Pools: 3-Pools refer to pool 877 on osmosis that has BUSD, USDT, and USDC
4. Incentivization: Incentivization refers to the process of providing incentives to encourage individuals or entities to participate in a particular activity, such as providing liquidity to a DeFi pool.

Analysis:

1. Liquidity Provider Trend: The graph showing the number of liquidity providers for Pool 872 indicates that the pool had between 1 and 4 LPs per day. This suggests that the pool was not attracting a large number of LPs, which may have contributed to its relatively low TVL.

2. Maximum TVL: The graph showing the total value locked in Pool 872 reveals that the pool reached its maximum TVL on January 15th and that the majority of the liquidity was deposited in the first week of the pool being active. However, it is important to note that despite reaching its maximum TVL, the pool still had a relatively low amount of liquidity compared to other pools.

3. Rapid Decrease in Liquidity: Despite reaching its maximum TVL on January 15th, the graph shows that the liquidity in Pool 872 decreased by over 90% in the next 2 weeks. This sudden and rapid decrease in liquidity could have been caused by a variety of factors, such as a lack of interest from LPs, market volatility, or changes in the DeFi landscape.

4. Short Lifespan: The pool was active for about a month and a half, which is a relatively short lifespan for a DeFi pool. This, combined with the low number of LPs and the rapid decrease in liquidity, suggests that the pool may not have been successful in attracting and retaining LPs.

   \

In conclusion, the data indicates that Pool 872 struggled to attract a large number of LPs and had a relatively short lifespan, despite reaching its maximum TVL in the first week of being active. The rapid decrease in liquidity suggests that there were significant challenges faced by the pool, which could have been caused by a variety of factors. Further investigation is needed to determine the root cause of these issues and to understand why the pool was not more successful in attracting and retaining LPs.

Osmosis 3-Pool LP activity

Analysis:

1. Liquidity Provider Trend: The graph showing the number of liquidity providers for the 3-Pool indicates that the pool had between 1 and 6 LPs per day. This suggests that the pool was attracting a moderate number of LPs, which may have contributed to its relatively stable TVL.

2. Maximum TVL: The graph showing the total value locked in the 3-Pool reveals that the pool reached its maximum TVL on January 16th. This indicates that the majority of the liquidity was deposited in the first week of the pool being active and in the week of January 15th.

3. Slight Decrease in Liquidity: The graph shows that the liquidity in the 3-Pool decreased slightly since reaching its maximum TVL on January 16th. However, the decrease was not significant and the pool has maintained a relatively stable TVL compared to other pools.

4. Active for a Month: The 3-Pool has been active for about a month, which is a relatively short lifespan for a DeFi pool. Despite this, the pool has managed to attract a moderate number of LPs and maintain a stable TVL.

5. Current TVL: Currently, the 3-Pool has a TVL of 70K, which is relatively modest compared to other pools. However, the pool has maintained a stable TVL despite being active for only a short period of time.

   \

In conclusion, the data indicates that the 3-Pool has been successful in attracting and retaining a moderate number of LPs. The pool has maintained a stable TVL despite being active for only a short period of time and has not experienced a significant decrease in liquidity. This suggests that the 3-Pool has been well-received by the DeFi community and may have a bright future ahead.

Osmosis USDC.grv/USDC pool withdrawer activity

Analysis:

1. Withdrawn Liquidity: The data shows that there have been 20 wallets that have withdrawn liquidity from Pool 872. This suggests that there may have been issues with the pool that led to LPs removing their liquidity.

2. Deposited Liquidity in 3-Pool: Of the 20 wallets that have withdrawn from Pool 872, 20% of them have deposited liquidity in the 3-Pool since January 15th. This suggests that these LPs may have found the 3-Pool more attractive or profitable than Pool 872.

3. Extremely Active on Osmosis: The wallets that have withdrawn from Pool 872 are extremely active on Osmosis, with an average of over 100 swaps and LP actions since January 15th. This suggests that these wallets are highly engaged in the DeFi ecosystem and may have a significant impact on the liquidity of other pools.

4. Popular Pools: The data shows that the most popular pools that these wallets have been providing liquidity to are Pool 806, 907, and 633. This suggests that these pools may be attracting a significant amount of liquidity and could be worth keeping an eye on.

   \

In conclusion, the data suggests that there may have been issues with Pool 872 that led to LPs withdrawing their liquidity. Of these LPs, a significant portion have deposited liquidity in the 3-Pool since January 15th. The wallets that have withdrawn from Pool 872 are highly active in the DeFi ecosystem and are providing liquidity to other popular pools, such as Pool 806, 907, and 633.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis of the data from Pool 872 and 3-Pool reveals that the former struggled to attract a large number of LPs and had a relatively short lifespan, with a rapid decrease in liquidity. On the other hand, the 3-Pool was successful in attracting and retaining a moderate number of LPs, with a stable TVL and a modest current TVL compared to other pools. The sudden drop in liquidity in Pool 872 could have been caused by a variety of factors, including lack of interest from LPs, market volatility, or changes in the DeFi landscape. Further investigation is needed to determine the root cause of these issues. Meanwhile, the 3-Pool's success suggests that it has been well-received by the DeFi community and may have a bright future ahead.