INTRODUCTION

Asset bridges with two directions are the initial type of interoperability. Two-way bridges are best understood as banks even if the word "bridge" conjures up images of hard hats and civil engineers. These days, almost every significant bridge is a two-way bridge. Notably, the majority of these bridges are "state-sponsored," which I define as being constructed and supported by the blockchain they are connecting to. Consider the Polygon, Avalanche, or NEAR Rainbow bridges. Each of these structures was developed or supported by the "blockchain nation-state" upon which it was erected. And practically all of them connect to Ethereum directly. Through a decentralized network, Axelar serves as a global interoperability layer that links L1 blockchains. Any smart contract developer may easily make an asynchronous call to a contract on another supported chain using Axelar's SDKs.

Bridging is the most basic type of cross-contract call. However, there are already a ton of bridges, so it's unlikely that Axelar would excel in that area. Axelar's strength lies in making more sophisticated cross-chain composition and commerce possible.

METHODOLOGY

Goals:

• To address if there is a spike in the bridge activity in recent days!
• To track the net outflows.
• To address the destinations.

Hence to address all these Initially, the timely analysis of the total volume as well as the transactions involved in the bridging event is charted. Then the chains to which the transactions are done are also considered and charted with time, which includes the total volume, average volume as well as the count of the transfers. Then the most popular chain in which most of the events happen is also considered. Then the tokens involved in the transactions as well as the volume which is transferred by the bridging event are charted. Then the total number of users who are involved in the bridging event is also charted with time to see how it changed with time. This is also determined by the time constraint of before and after the collapse. Then the different bridges are charted with time. Finally, the net inflow and the outflow into the chain are charted with time. With all these, it is certain that we will be able to address all the questions.

The total bridging transfers are charted in the left plot and it is seen that there is a slight increase in the count of the transfers while the highest was on October 28, 2022.

When coming to the volume of the transfers it is seen that there is a hike in the total volume and as seen from the transactions, more events happened to make more volume transferred over time. A similar trend is also visible in the average volume charted.

The participation of the Chains by the transfers as well as the volume is charted here and it is seen that both by volume and transfers Ethereum chain is the highest leading and when taking the transfers as a constraint it is also seen that the Osmosis also made to contribute almost equal to Ethereum but the volume constraint made it drastically smaller even than Polygon network.

The tokens involved in the bridging transactions with the time are charted here and it is seen that by transfers as the constraint, AXL has made the highest than all other tokens listed while USDC has the second while ATOM is the least used.

The transition volume is charted here and it is seen that USDC has more volume transferred than other tokens.

It is also clear that the tokens follow a similar trend all throughout time.

The pie diagrams visualize how much share each token has in terms of the bridging and it is clear that AXL has the highest holding 81 %.

> This is the volume of the tokens and not the value of the tokens. This should be considered and should never be a blind interpretation.

The exclusive time dependent chart on the total volume that is transferred with the bridging event is charted here for pre collapse and post collapse and November 6 is considered as the threshold of the collapsing and it is seen that the volume of the transactions is way higher after collapse than the pre collapse with a very large spike on November 9 which is in magnitudes higher than the normal values.

The chart to the right here is the distribution of the users who are involved in the transactions with time and it is also seen that more users involving into the bridging after the collapse which means it is not that the existing users transferring more volume but that there are more users too.

The destinations of the transactions are charted with time and it is similar to the volume as Ethereum hosts itself as the biggest destination of the bridging events. Thus that we can say more FTX to Ethereum transactions are happening. It is also seen that the trend is also decreasing.

The bridging event transactions happening for different chains are charted here and it is seen that even though Ethereum has the highest volume, there is now Osmosis as a good opponent for Ethereum in more transfer events.

The volume of the bridging events, the transactions as well as the total count on the wallets before and after the collapsing event is charted here and it is seen that 81% of the volume is bridged after collapsing, 70% of the transactions done are also after collapsing and 66% of the user are involved after collapsing. Thus after collapse has a severe effect on the total bridging events.

The total inflow and the outflow over time are charted here and it is seen that after November 6 there is a decreasing trend while in the very recent days very low inflow and outflow of the tokens through bridges are seen.

The Netflow of the tokens before and after the collapse is charted here and it is seen that there is more outflow of tokens after the collapse than the inflow.

CONCLUSION

Considering all these visualizations it is clear that there is a quite impact of the collapse in the network and the chains involved, tokens, as well as timely trend, is also inspected. Thus this dashboard can be used to clearly visualize all the parts of our goals.