Question:

To show any data on NEAR

NOTE: The data on some chains are from 15th June. So, only limited content has been shown from 15th June but can be altered from the parameter above as well.

For other contents like top NFTs and top DEX’s the entire data from the start has been taken into consideration

Summary:

We will be looking into the following comparisons:

• Daily % Success Transactions across all chains
• Daily Users Across Chains
• Cumulative Users Across Chains
• Daily Transactions Across All Chains
• Cumulative Transactions across chains
• Daily Fees Across All Chains
• Cumulative Fees across all chains
• Distribution of number of users across chains
• Distribution of number of transactions across chains
• Average Transactions per block on various chains
• Maximum Transactions per block on various chains
• Minimum Transactions per block on various chains
• Average Time Taken per block
• Average Time taken per block over time
• Average Time taken per block Distribution
• Conclusions

Methodology:

• For the % success across all chains, we would be using the transactions table. The transactions table would also be used for daily users, cumulative users, daily transactions , cumulative transactions, daily fees, cumulative fees, distribution of new users and distribution of transactions among chains

• For average, maximum and minimum transactions in a block, the blocks table would be used. It will also be used for finding the average time taken between blocks, the average time taken over time and the average time taken per block distribution

  \

Introduction:

Near is one of the most popular chains and has been an established chain .

Near's strengths include:

• Ability to process transactions quickly (block processing claimed to be about 1 sec)

• Transaction fees are consistently low (in at about 0.1$)

• Developer friendly

  \

Among NEAR's weaknesses are:

• Governance centralization is a concern. NEAR's governance is half-baked and currently, only validators can vote on proposals.
• 35% of the token supply is held by insiders which is compounded by partial on-chain governance thus making centralized decision-making an issue.

In summary, some of it’s features are:

• Lesser Fees

• More transactions

  \

Next, we divide the page into 2 sections: One would have the queries on the left and the other would have insights+ visuals on the right

Some Explanation:

• NEAR has about 85% successful transactions only among chains and is a fair performer in this criteria. Flow and Ethereum are some of the best performers here while optimism is the worst performer when it comes to number of successful transactions
• After BSC, Ethereum , Solana, Polygon and Flow, NEAR has the most number of users . It is followed by L1s like Avalanche, Optimism , osmosis and algorand.
• About 50k users use Near daily since 15th June while ethereum and solana have 300k+ and 250k+ daily users on an average. It’s the most valuable after Ethereum, BSC and Solana.
• About 50M+ transactions have taken place since 15th June on NEAR as compared to 7B+ on Solana alone!
• About 2.5k$ has been collected on an average (as can be seen in the daily fees across L1s & L2s chart) for about 2.5M transactions which implies that it costs only about 0.1$ per transaction on Near
• In comparison, Solana has about 7B transactions at about 0.23$ per transaction implying that Near has lesser fees than Solana!
• Even for BSC, the average comes out to be 0.15$ which is much higher than that of Near (about 15x difference).

Explanation & Insights:

• Most of the transactions associated with deposit and stake
• There has been a shift of power from the top 10 validators to the next 10-50 validators as can be seen from the charts above

Conclusions:

• At about 1.3 seconds taken per block, NEAR stands out among other chains as a very quick chain and hence keeps it’s commitment to being a fast chain and it supports a higher number of transactions per second as well.
• Thus the goals of being fast and the ability to support a high tps were seen
• Coming onto the disadvantages , it was stated that NEAR has a very high centralised power control among validators but that shift is seen as well in the past year as most of the power has now shifted from the top 10 validators to the next 10-50 validators