Skycoin – Chain Analysis

Chain Analysis of Skycoin
CHAIN ANALYSIS
19.01.2020
ANALYSIS OF SKYCOIN TRANSACTIONS
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
In contrast to many newer projects in the crypto space, the Skycoin blockchain has already been running for several years. All of its transactions can be monitored in Skycoin’s handy blockchain explorer, which also has a feature-rich API. However, the explorer doesn’t contain detailed statistics about the blockchain yet, which is why I decided to create some in-depth statistics and present them to you in this article. The data used for this analysis starts at block 1 (start of Q2 2015) and ends at block 129,032 (end of Q4 2019).

Transaction Growth
Let’s start with the transaction growth over time. Block 1 of Skycoin’s blockchain was issued on April 02, 2015. Nearly five years have passed since then and the transaction volume is steadily growing, though the usage started out rather slow. In 2015, the blockchain registered 262 transactions, which increased to 311 transactions in 2016. That changed in 2017. With increasing public awareness and Skycoin’s first exchange listings, the usage of the network increased during every quarter. In Q2 2017 it was over a thousand transactions for the first time, in Q4 2017 the blockchain registered 4500 transactions. This growth continued in 2018: Q1 had 13k Skycoin transactions, Q2 about 24k transactions, Q3 17k transactions and Q4 2018 an all-time record of 27.6k transactions. The transaction growth slowed down after that, Q1 and Q2 of 2019 each had 13k transactions, while it was just 9k transactions in Q3 and 5k transactions in Q4. Overall, the number of transactions in 2019 have been 6 times higher than in 2017, but have been 50% lower than in 2018.

A great amount of these transactions have been interactions with exchange addresses, such as individual exchange deposit addresses or the exchanges’ withdrawal addresses. In general, 78% of all transactions have been interactions with exchange addresses. Breaking it down to individual exchanges, 59% of all Skycoin transactions have been interactions with Binance and 16% have been interactions with Cryptopia. Just 3% of all Skycoin transactions have been interactions with other exchanges. The recently launched Skycoin-based sports betting service “Moojiebet” already accounts for 1% of all Skycoin transactions. The following graphic summarizes these transaction statistics:
TRANSACTIONS OVER TIMESKYCOIN2015265201631120177,079201882,371201941,689MOOJIEBET1%CRYPTOPIA16%OTHER EXCH.3%BINANCE59%PERCENTAGE OF TRANSACTIONS CAUSED PER ENTITY:
Address Growth
This increase of transactions came alongside an increase in unique addresses, that held a minimum of one Skycoin. At the end of 2015, just 98 addresses held at least one Skycoin. This number increased to 166 addresses at the end of 2016. However, the growth in addresses and therefore the distribution of Skycoin really took off in 2017 after the first exchange listings. In the middle of 2017 the circulating supply of Skycoin was still distributed among 400 addresses, while this number increased to 2,000 addresses at the end of the year. The growth continued during 2018: At the end of Q2 2018 around 7.9k addresses held at least 1 Skycoin, which increased to 10.8k addresses at the end of Q4 2018. As of December 31, 2019 there are 12,054 addresses with at least one Skycoin.

It shows, that Skycoin’s circulating supply is distributed among 30 times as many addresses than it was two and a half years ago and is therefore in an ongoing decentralization process. Furthermore, not only the amount of addresses with at least one Skycoin has been growing but also the amount of addresses with a minimum balance of 100 Skycoin. At the end of 2019, there are over 5,000 addresses with at least 100 Skycoin, which is a 25% growth to one year ago and a 500% increase compared to two years ago. In the graphic below you can see the growth of addresses with at least a balance of 1, 10, 100 and 1000 Skycoin over time:
1433521,6395,8217,9518,7698,812ADDRESSES WITH A MINIMUM OF 10 SKYCOIN OVER TIME1002669622,7834,0425,0635,076ADDRESSES WITH A MINIMUM OF 100 SKYCOIN OVER TIME751844217081,0271,5111,569ADDRESSES WITH A MINIMUM OF 1,000 SKYCOIN OVER TIME2H20161H20172H20171H20182H20181H20192H20191664072,0087,89810,76611,62512,054ADDRESSES WITH A MINIMUM OF 1 SKYCOIN OVER TIMEGROWTH OF ADDRESSESSKYCOIN
Coin Hours over Time
However, Skycoin is not the only asset on Skycoin’s blockchain, it also contains Skycoin’s parallel currency Coin Hours. Coin Hours have both an inflationary and a deflationary side, since every Skycoin generates one Coin Hour per hour (inflationary) but also a certain amount of Coin Hours is burned in each Skycoin transaction (deflationary). In general, the circulating supply of Coin Hours has been growing over time but has also had massive decreases caused by individual transfers that burned a ton of Coin Hours.

At the end of 2015, the circulating supply of Coin Hours was at 6.3 billion while it was at 23.6 billion at the end of 2016. The circulating supply went as high as 29.5 billion on April 6, 2017 until a huge number of 13.5 billion Coin Hours were burned in one transaction: After that, the circulating supply of Coin Hours increased constantly with occasional burns once a “Coin Hour whale” decided to move his Skycoin and therefore burn up to 50% of his Coin Hours. At the end of 2017, there were 27.5 billion Coin Hours in circulation, which increased to 69.7 billion Coin Hours at the end of 2018. At the end of 2019, the circulating supply is at 185 billion Coin Hours.

Looking at these numbers, it may be surprising that a total of 519 billion Coin Hours have already been burned, which is around 2.8x as many Coin Hours as the current circulating supply. The circulating supply of Skycoin (at 17 million SKY at the end of 2019) has only generated 283 billion Coin Hours thus far, however, every time a distribution address with one million SKY is opened, the Coin Hours those one million SKY generated over the past five years can get introduced to the circulating supply. Around 408 billion Coin Hours have been released this way from distribution addresses, though most of them have been burned immediately.

In parallel to the transaction analysis, exchanges are not just responsible for the majority of transactions, they have also burned many Coin Hours over the past three years. A total of 82 billion Coin Hours have been burned in exchange-related transfers, of which 63 billion were burned by Binance, 15 billion by Cryptopia and 4 billion by other exchanges. Check out the following graphic for a visualization of all mentioned Coin Hour statistics:
TOTAL82BILLIONCRYPTOPIA15BILLIONOTHERS4BILLIONBINANCE63BILLIONAMOUNT OF COIN HOURS BURNED IN EXCHANGE TRANSFERS:283 BILLIONCOIN HOURS GENERATED BY SKYCOIN IN CIRCULATION:422 BILLIONCOIN HOURS TRANSFERED FROM DISTRIBUTION ADDRESSES:519 BILLIONOVERALL AMOUNT OF BURNED COIN HOURS:50B100B150B200B20162017201820192015CIRCULATING SUPPLY OF COIN HOURS OVER TIME:COIN HOURS OVER TIMESKYCOIN
Wrap-up
In this article we discussed several statistics of Skycoin’s blockchain. We saw that Skycoin transactions have been growing over time and reached a peak in Q4 2018. Address growth has been steady as well, with both growing addresses overall and growing addresses with a substantial amount of Skycoin. Looking at Coin Hours, their circulating supply has been growing exponentially over time, even though sudden burns of huge Coin Hour amounts decreased the circulating supply substantially.



Articles, that may interest you:

Hammer Candle

Hammer Candle Crypto
HAMMER
13.01.2020
ANALYZING THE ALLEGED REVERSAL PATTERN
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
There are several tools and technical indicators to analyze price movements in charts. Whether it may be candlestick formations, the relative strength index, moving averages or other approaches, traders are constantly searching for the best method to predict future price movements. However, most of the patterns shown by these indicators are only said to have certain impacts on future price movements without having been statistically proven for cryptocurrencies yet. Therefore, I want to have an in-depth look at a certain candlestick formation in this article and examine, whether its presumed impact can be proven by numbers.

Hammer
The candlestick formation “Hammer” is one of the most widely known candlestick patterns. It is a candlestick with a relatively small body that is accompanied by a long wick to the downside and a short to non-existent wick to the upside. The hammer visualizes an interval in a chart, in which lots of selling pushed the price down initially, before the bulls pushed the price back up, thus positioning the closing price relatively near to the opening price.

Two types of the hammer candle allegedly have a predictive impact on prices. One is a hammer candle that is positioned in a chart after a downtrend. It is assumed to indicate the end of a downtrend and is widely recognized as a bullish reversal pattern. The second hammer pattern is called “hanging man”, which is a hammer that appears after an uptrend and is supposed to be a bearish reversal pattern.

While the human eye might spot hammer candles very easily on a chart, I had to conduct a mathematical definition for the pattern in this analysis. This definition is determined by these three points:
  1. The wick to the upside has to be smaller than 25% of the size of the candle body.
  2. The wick to the downside has to be bigger than 200% of the size of the candle body.
  3. The range from highest price to lowest price of the candle has to be bigger than 75% of the average range from highest to lowest price of the last 7 candles before in this chart. This rule was set in place to exclude very small hammer candles.
Hanging Man:Textbook candleformation, where thehanging mancandle is a bearishreversal pattern.Hammer:Textbook candleformation, where thehammer candleis a bullish reversalpattern.DEFINITION OF CANDLEHAMMER
Data Sample
After defining the candle formation, we have to collect data to examine, whether the hammer candle acts as a reversal pattern in crypto. Therefore, I collected daily trading data of 19 major cryptocurrencies against USD (BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, LTC, EOS, BNB, XMR, TRX, XLM, ADA, XTZ, LINK, NEO, ETC, DASH, IOTA, DOGE and BAT). I restricted the data sample to these 19 cryptos, since I only wanted to include assets that had decent trading volumes for a longer period and were listed on multiple exchanges. The result is a data sample with 27,729 records.

Findings
Of these 27,729 records, 402 fit the definition of a hammer/hanging man candle. That is around 1.45%, meaning we saw a hammer/hanging man candle on average every 69 days in a major crypto chart against USD. Comparing the closing price of the candle to daily closing prices after it occurred, we see an average increase of 0.1% after 1 day, 0.52% after 3 days and 2.13% after 7 days (Median: -0.54% after 1 day, -0.69% after 3 days, -0.89% after 7 days). Not surprisingly, the percentage values are not very conclusive, because they contain both a presumed bullish reversal and a presumed bearish reversal.

If we now want to separate hammer and hanging man candle from each other, it gets a little more complicated. A hammer candle only occurs, if there was a downtrend before the candle, while a hanging man only occurs, if there was an uptrend in the days prior to the candle. To define an uptrend/downtrend prior to the candle, we have to define a fixed timespan, in which the trend appeared. We also have to define a minimum value for the size of the trend to exclude tiny movements.

Accordingly, I started with 1-day movements. A hammer candle is identified, if the opening price of the day prior was higher than the hammer candle’s closing price by at least the size of the hammer’s candle body. Subsequently, a hanging man candle is identified, if the opening price of the day prior is lower than the hanging man’s candle by at least the size of the hanging man’s candle body. This 1-day algorithm found 183 hammer candles and 101 hanging man candles. The results are not very promising though: On average, the 1-day hammer candles led to a price increase of 0.47% compared to 1 day later, which barely confirms the bullish reversal pattern. Surprisingly, the 1-day hanging man pattern also led to a price increase, namely 1.35%, compared to the closing price 1 day later. This number shows the exact opposite effect to the bearish reversal that this pattern should have.

As a summary, the 1-day hammer/hanging man candles were not indicative of any trends. Therefore, I tested 3-day and 7-day movements that followed the same calculation than the 1-day movements but with 3-day and 7-day intervals. The algorithm identified 137 3-day hammer candles, 89 3-day hanging man candles, 78 7-day hammer candles and 63 7-day hanging man candles. The results are again different than expected: The 3-day hammer led to an average price decline of 2.03% while the 7-day hammer led to a price decline of 2.63%. The 3-day hanging man led to a price increase of 3.89%, while the 7-day hanging man led to a price increase of 1.9%. In both cases the results contradict the assumed effects.

Conclusion
Although the hammer/hanging man candle is said to be a trend reversal candlestick pattern, the underlying analysis of this article could not prove a correlation between the appearance of the pattern and a trend reversal. The hammer candles that should have signaled a bullish reversal actually led on average to a further price decline, while the hanging man candles, which should have proven a bearish reversal, actually led on average to a further price increase. Concluding from that, trades that were based on the assumed impact of hammer and hanging man candles did not necessarily turn out profitable in the considered data sample. However, the occurrence of both candle patterns has been rare, so that a bigger data sample could provide different results. Nonetheless, the two candle patterns could not be proven to be good predictive indicators for past cryptocurrency price movements, which in my personal opinion signals that they shouldn’t be given too much recognition in a chart prediction.



Articles, that may interest you:

Binance Chain Statistics

Binance Chain Statistics Binance Chain Statistics
BINANCE CHAIN
06.01.2020
STATISTICS OF TRANSACTIONS AND ASSETS
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
It was in early 2019, when Binance announced the creation of a native blockchain for their ecosystem. Their goal was to launch a platform that can handle very large loads and is perfectly suited to exchange assets. Today, Binance Chain has been live for nearly 9 months, with block 1 created in April 2019. It has witnessed rapid growth ever since with the onboarding of over 100 assets and close to 50 million transactions. In this article, I will present aggregated statistics on Binance chain transactions and assets.

Transaction Growth
Let’s look at the transaction growth first. In the second quarter of 2019, Binance Chain already had a total of 3.2 million transactions. This number went up significantly higher in Q3 2019, with a total of 20.7 million transactions. It also increased in Q4, when the total number of transactions rose by another 15% to a total of 23.7 million transactions. As a comparison, the Ethereum network had 59.6 million transactions in Q4 2019.

You might ask: How can a new platform like Binance Chain already have a transaction number as high as 40% of Ethereum’s transactions in Q4 2019? Well, Binance Chain has a unique feature, which is on-chain orders. Every time an order is placed or canceled on Binance’s decentralized exchange, it is logged in a transaction on Binance’s blockchain. 95% of the transactions on Binance Chain in 2019 were on-chain orders, which were either “place order” (63%) or “cancel order” (32%). Just around 5% of the total of 47.5 million transactions in 2019 were transfer transactions.
TRANSACTIONS PER QUARTERBINANCE CHAINQ2 20193.2MQ3 201920.7MQ4 201923.7MPLACEORDER63%TRANSFER5%OTHERS0.03%CANCELORDER32%PERCENTAGE OF TRANSACTIONS BY TRANSACTION TYPE:
Growth of Chain
Binance Coin is by far not the only asset on Binance Chain. Since its inception, an increasing number of assets have been issued on Binance Chain. From just 7 assets issued in April 2019, the mark of 100 assets issued was already broken in July 2019. Until the end of 2019, there have been 172 assets issued on Binance Chain. However, some of them were burned completely afterwards and don’t appear in the explorer under the list of assets anymore. That’s possible due to Binance Chain’s native “burn” transaction type, which has already been used 60 times by different coins and tokens in 2019. Talking about listings on Binance DEX, this number expectedly correlates with the number of issued assets, even though it shows, that not all issued assets were listed on the DEX.
22991112121CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF LISTINGS OVER TIME:212335260CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF BURN TRANSACTIONS OVER TIME:Apr.2019Jun.2019Aug.2019Oct.2019Dec.2019784145166172CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF ISSUED ASSETS OVER TIME:GROWTH OF CHAINBINANCE CHAIN
Assets
Let’s take a closer look at the assets on Binance Chain. To measure the adoption of an asset, I like to consider the amount of holders of at least 100 USD of this particular asset. It is better than the total amount of holders, since it ignores addresses with just tiny amounts of a token, whereas an amount of 100 USD is also small enough to not only focus on whales. At the end of 2019, RUNE had the most addresses with a balance of above 100 USD on Binance Chain with 1,056 addresses. It was also the only token with more than 1,000 addresses above a 100 USD balance. Second spot went to CAS with 894 addresses, while BOLT was placed third with 787 addresses. The ranks 4 to 8 belonged to MTXLT, ONE, CHZ, FTM and CRPT and were relatively close with around 650 addresses. On number 9 we can find RAVEN, which had 483 addresses above 100 USD.

However, to not only measure adoption of assets but also usage of the chain, I analyzed the assets that caused the most transactions on Binance Chain as well. Please note that this list excludes the “cancel order” transaction type, since the explorer doesn’t attribute this transaction type to particular assets. With 5.2 million transactions and therefore accountable for 16% of all transactions on Binance Chain, DEFI has the number one spot in this category. It is followed by UND (1.37M transactions), USDSB (1.28M), COS (1.16M), CBM (1.06M), NEW (921K) and ARN (915K). The other assets on Binance Chain combine for 63.4% of all transactions. Interesting side note: The top assets by transaction type differ completely from the top assets by addresses with a balance over 100 USD per asset.

As the native token of the chain, BNB is excluded from the list of transactions by asset, since it is involved in every transaction. I also had to exclude it from the list of addresses with a balance of over 100 USD for a particular asset, since the Binance Chain Explorer doesn’t display more than 1500 addresses in a rich list per asset. However, in a past analysis I did a few months ago, there were around 10,000 addresses holding BNB worth 100 USD or more.
DEFI16%CBM3.3%USDSB3.9%ARN2.8%COS3.6%OTHERS63.4%UND4.2%NEW2.8%PERCENTAGE OF TRANSACTIONS PER ASSET (WITHOUT BNB):RAVEN483CRPT619FTM647CHZ656ONE664MTXLT686BOLT787CAS894RUNE1056ADDRESSES WITH A BALANCE OVER 100 USD PER ASSET:STATISTICS PER ASSETBINANCE CHAIN
Wrap-up
This article discussed several statistics of Binance Chain. Since its launch in Q2 2019, Binance Chain has executed close to 50 million transactions. 95% of those transactions are on-chain orders on Binance DEX, 5% are transfers of assets. Throughout 2019, the number of assets issued on Binance Chain increased to 172. 30 of those assets have over 100 addresses holding 100 USD worth of that asset, while 13 assets combine for 50% of all transactions on Binance Chain. All in all, Binance Chain has been successfully onboarding assets and users in 2019 and it will be exciting to watch its further growth in 2020.



Articles, that may interest you:

Cryptocurrency Inflation Rates

Crypto Inflation
INFLATION RATES
02.01.2020
INCREASES IN CIRCULATING SUPPLY OF TOP COINS
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
The circulating supply is a crucial factor in the price determination of a cryptocurrency. Once yet undistributed coins are moved into the circulating supply, they become tradeable and can be sold on the market. With some projects running low on funds after a prolonged bear market, moving coins from the total supply into circulation and then selling them is an adequate method for these projects to gain more funding. Unfortunately, this will drive the price of a coin down, because the small demand doesn’t match the massive amount of coins being sold and the project might sell the coins at any price available. To my surprise, circulating supply increases are way less forecasted than prices, even though they can influence the price heavily. Therefore, I will take a closer look at the top coins’ circulating supply per year in this article.

Supply Inflation: Bitcoin
Let’s start with the biggest cryptocurrency. Bitcoin has been around for over 10 years now and shows, how the circulating supply inflation rate can decrease gradually over time. Starting with a very high inflation of 208% at the end of 2010 compared to the end of 2009, Bitcoin’s circulating supply inflation has decreased significantly over time. It went from a triple-digit percentage increase in 2010 to a double-digit percentage increase in 2011 and then down to a single-digit percentage increase in 2015. Currently, Bitcoin’s circulating supply inflation is projected to be at 3.76% in 2019 and will even further decrease in the upcoming years due to the block reward halving from 12.5 BTC per block to 6.25 BTC per block in 2020. Previous block reward halvings have occurred in 2012 and in 2016. The following graphic shows the inflation rate of Bitcoin’s circulating supply per year:
BITCOINCIRCULATING SUPPLY INFLATION2010:208.29%2011:59.38%2012:32.61%2013:14.82%2014:12.15%2015:9.93%2016:6.96%2017:4.35%2018:4.06%2019:3.88%
Supply Inflation: Ethereum
Ether’s supply inflation is different to Bitcoin’s due to a certain amount of pre-mined tokens, that were sold in their ICO. I estimated, that they sold 63 million ETH in their ICO back in 2014 and declared the difference to the ETH in circulation at the end of 2015 as supply inflation for ETH in 2015, which is around 21%. Similar to Bitcoin though, the inflation rate decreased per year and has been in the single-digit percentage region since 2018. Key influences to Ethereum’s supply inflation were two block reward reductions. The first one reduced the block reward from 5 ETH per block to 3 ETH per block in the Byzantium hard fork in late 2017, while the second one took place less than two months ago and reduced the block reward from 3 ETH to 2 ETH in the Constantinople hard fork. The following graphic shows how Ether’s circulating supply inflation rate developed over time:
ETHERCIRCULATING SUPPLY INFLATION2015:20.48%2016:15.23%2017:10.55%2018:7.69%2019:4.77%
Supply Inflation: TOP 35
Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s circulating supply inflation look healthy and organic. The longer both networks have been live, the lower is the inflation rate of their circulating supply. Let’s take that as a reference and look at the circulating supply inflation of other coins and tokens. I made a snapshot of today’s CoinMarketCap top 35 and analyzed their inflation rate per year. The circulating supply per coin at year-end is taken from CoinMarketCap’s historical snapshots. 14 coins/tokens were excluded from that analysis, because they didn’t have market cap data in at least 3 different years. The resulting graphic displays the inflation rate per year for 19 coins/tokens (Bitcoin and Ethereum have already been displayed in the sections above):
TOP 35CIRCULATING SUPPLY INFLATION2018:22.17%2019:15.86%BASIC ATTENTION TOKEN:2017:762.96%2018:88.42%2019:49.52%ZCASH:2014:433.76%2015:5.41%2016:4.95%2017:4.70%2018:4.50%2019:4.30%DOGECOIN:2016:0.00%2017:0.00%2018:0.00%2019:0.00%NEM:2015:22.13%2016:14.57%2017:11.39%2018:9.63%2019:8.29%DASH:2017:13.01%2018:8.50%2019:8.52%ETHEREUM CLASSIC:2018:0.00%2019:0.00%IOTA:2017:30.00%2018:0.00%2019:8.52%NEO:2018:0.00%2019:4.12%CHAINLINK:2015:92.51%2016:29.45%2017:13.80%2018:7.33%2019:4.15%MONERO:2018:1.35%2019:0.07%TRON:2015:36.00%2016:43.09%2017:158.02%2018:7.29%2019:4.67%STELLAR:2018:0.00%2019:0.00%CARDANO:2018:32.10%2019:18.91%BNB:2018:57.57%2019:4.47%EOS:2012:357.60%2013:80.07%2014:43.99%2015:24.56%2016:12.05%2017:11.05%2018:9.63%2019:6.59%LITECOIN:2018:3.88%2019:3.74%BITCOIN CASH:2016:945.77%2017:13,647.45%2018:35.86%2019:121.02%USDT:2014:296.25%2015:8.26%2016:8.35%2017:6.61%2018:5.30%2019:6.24%XRP:
As the data shows, inflation rates are highly different across these 19 coins and tokens. Some of them have very small inflation rates (Tron, Bitcoin Cash), while some of them even have zero inflation into their circulating supply (NEM, IOTA). Others started with a very high inflation rate (Litecoin, Monero) but it then decreased over time. As a stable coin, Tether is an outlier in this dataset, since an increase of its circulating supply theoretically means that more tokens backed by fiat money are entering the crypto space (whether that might be true or not shall be the subject of other articles).

Discussing supply inflation in general
The circulating supply displayed for each coin/token is mostly defined by the projects themselves. Let’s say a project defines, that their total supply equals their circulating supply and therefore all coins have been distributed and are in circulation. It means, that there is no inflation currently and there will be no inflation in the future – a good sign for investors. However, it is tough to determine, whether or not a certain amount of the circulating supply has been held by the team from the start and is more or less not distributed and therefore shouldn’t count as part of the circulating supply.

Furthermore, attracting investors with an inflation rate of zero is not the only incentive of declaring all coins in the total supply as circulating supply. The market cap of a project is calculated by its circulating supply times its current price. If a project declares, that all their coins are in circulation even though 50% of them haven’t been distributed originally, their market cap is 2x higher than it would be, if they will define their circulating supply correctly. Since the most common ranking method for cryptocurrencies is by market cap, a project can boost its placement in these rankings with this method.

Adding to that, I think it also important to distinguish between a planned inflation and a rather unplanned inflation. If a coin is mined for example, its mining rewards might be already determined for the next few years or even decades to come. Both the miners and the investors know, how many coins will be released at which point in time and can act accordingly. When it comes to pre-mined tokens though, it can be hard to determine, when these tokens will be put into the circulating supply, especially if the vesting period is not scheduled via a smart contract. Events like a wallet getting hacked or a project running out of funds can lead to a massive dumping of these tokens on the market, which nobody could predict before.

However, a high inflation doesn’t matter so much, if there is a high demand. Bitcoin had a very high inflation rate of 208% in 2010 and 59% in 2011, but managed to go up from being basically worthless to 30 US Dollars in mid-2011. As another example, the price of Zcash increased by almost 10x in 2017, even though the circulating supply increased by 765% in the same year. It has to be stated though, that most cryptocurrencies don’t have a very high demand and are just speculation objects, which leads to prices massively decreasing if a bigger amount of yet undistributed coins and tokens hits the market.

Wrap-up
Inflation of the circulating supply is a factor, that can have a fundamental influence to the price, even though it is not often considered in price analyses. Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s increases in circulating supply have been decreasing over time percentage-wise. Other coins have had various inflation rates, ranging from zero inflation to a very high inflation above 25%. Due to the circulating supply being determined mostly by the projects themselves, it can be also used to manipulate investors’ expectations and the project’s rating in rankings by market cap. This article showed, how different the increases in circulating supply are across all coins and tokens in CoinMarketCap’s top 35.



Articles, that may interest you:

Exchange Liquidity Ranking

Exchange Liquidity Ranking
EXCHANGE LIQUIDITY
01.09.2019
RANKING EXCHANGES BY ORDER BOOK DEPTH
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
Order book depth is a fairly new metric to compare exchanges. It measures the volume of orders in exchanges’ order books and is intended to be a better comparison method of exchanges’ liquidity than a ranking by trading volume. I introduced order book depth in January 2019 and also analyzed in a follow-up article that there is no correlation between trading volume and order book depth. In this article, I want to apply this comparison method and present a ranking of exchanges based on a data snapshot I collected recently.

The data sample
Fortunately, with Coingecko and Coinpaprika, two exchange ranking sites have stepped up this year and implemented order book depth as an additional measurement for liquidity. This empowers users to compare liquidity across exchanges in a much simpler way than to open the exchange and compare order books manually. Since Coingecko integrated the order book depth feature for 50 more exchanges than Coinpaprika, I chose to use Coingecko’s data for this analysis.

I made a snapshot of all exchanges’ order book depth as displayed on Coingecko on August 25, 2019. Of a total of 354 exchanges listed on Coingecko, 183 exchanges’ order books were integrated into Coingecko. Of these 183 exchanges, I excluded 4 exchanges because they are (partly or entirely) using the same order book than a larger exchange: Upbit has Bittrex’ order book integrated into their exchange and Bequant is using HitBTC’s order book. The order books of Huobi Korea, Huobi US and Huobi Global also looked similar. Therefore, I decided to exclude Upbit, Bequant, Huobi US and Huobi Korea from this analysis and only display the order book depth of Bittrex, HitBTC and Huobi Global. Furthermore, I decided to manually adjust HitBTC’s order book depth, since their reported liquidity was way higher than their balance in hot and cold wallets suggested. This leaves us with a dataset of 179 exchanges.

The comparison method
Coingecko offers data on order book depth of the buy side and sell side within a 2% range of the current price. So, “-2% depth” is the sum of all buy orders in USD not further away than 2% of the current price, while “+2% depth” is the sum of sell orders in USD not further away than 2% of the current price. Just to give you an example: With a market sell of BTC worth 4.3 million USD on Bitstamp at the time of the snapshot you would have hit all buy orders, that were not lower than 98% of the current price.

While Coingecko offers both buy orders and sell orders on integrated exchanges, I decided to only use buy orders for this analysis, since it seemed like most coins and tokens, especially the ones with smaller market caps, had way more orders on the sell side than on the buy side. To compare exchanges, I therefore used the sum of all buy orders on an exchange within a range of 2% of the current price in each trading pair.

Total buy orders (price to -2%) per exchange lower than 10K USD
Let’s start with the lowest liquidity exchanges. 22 exchanges of the considered 179 exchanges had less than a total of 10k USD in buy orders within 2% of the current price across all trading pairs. Most of them offered hardly any liquidity at all, while others only had decent liquidity in trading pairs with their own exchange token. See all 22 exchanges in the following graphic:
RANKEXCHANGETRADINGPAIRSBUY ORDERSIN 2% RANGE158ATOMARS1509.2K USD170BITSTEN30.9K USD164DEX-TRADE865.0K USD176DEX.TOP3.1K USD160BGOGO485.8K USD172CHAINRIFT11.6K USD166C-PATEX384.3K USD178DRAGONEX10 USD163VINEX115.2K USD175SWIFTEX11.1K USD169STAKECUBE342.2K USD159KRYPTONO378.3K USD171CHAINEX26.8K USD165BITHUMB SINGAPORE184.9K USD177BOA.EXCHANGE31.1K USD162NEGOCIECOINS35.3K USD174ALTMARKETS88.1K USD168TOKPIE112.9K USD161COBINHOOD345.4K USD173SATOEXCHANGE45.2K USD167FATBTC1063.6K USD179OEX90 USD-2% BUY ORDERS < 10K USDEXCHANGES
Total buy orders (price to -2%) per exchange lower than 100K USD
45 of the 179 considered exchanges had a total sum of buy orders within 2% of the current price across all trading pairs between 10k USD and 100k USD. This list contains decentralized exchanges such as Binance DEX or Switcheo but also newer exchanges like Beaxy. You can also find exchanges in this list, that claim to have a daily trading volume of over 100 million USD, but their combined order book depth implies, that most of their trading volume is artificial. See the results:
RANKEXCHANGETRADINGPAIRSBUY ORDERSIN 2% RANGE113KUNA EXCHANGE2397.3K USD125INSTANT BITEX4258.5K USD119BITMART20775.7K USD131TRADEOGRE7842.1K USD115COINZO1585.5K USD127COINGI650.9K USD121BITEXLIVE5570.6K USD133EXX11141.4K USD118BITKUB2280.3K USD130BTC-ALPHA14942.7K USD124KKCOIN2063.3K USD114BEAXY1796.7K USD126BITHUMB GLOBAL8657.7K USD120GO EXCHANGE1175.4K USD132DOVE18042.0K USD117BITEX180.9K USD129SOUTHXCHANGE26144.7K USD123BITOPRO2969.1K USD116TOKENOMY2482.3K USD128LATOKEN25248.6K USD122BITALONG3870.4K USD134BITCI4839.9K USD139BITKER6232.7K USD145COINFINIT2619.7K USD141GRAVIEX26126.5K USD147EXMARKETS2516.3K USD144ALTILLY31020.1K USD140FINEXBOX19427.0K USD146OOOBTC1217.4K USD143CODEX3221.7K USD142SWITCHEO6522.1K USD148OVEX1715.9K USD135BITHASH4038.5K USD137TIDEX8036.0K USD136BINANCE DEX8336.3K USD138TIDEBIT535.2K USD149SAFETRADE3515.3K USD151BANKERA1213.7K USD150COINFIELD5514.7K USD152TXBIT2712.7K USD153DOBITRADE12612.7K USD155CPDAX2711.8K USD154QTRADE1312.5K USD157ALLCOIN4410.4K USD156COINMEX4211.0K USD-2% BUY ORDERS < 100K USDEXCHANGES
Total buy orders (price to -2%) per exchange lower than 1M USD
Of the 179 considered exchanges, 61 had a total sum of buy orders within 2% of the current price across all trading pairs between 100k USD and 1 million USD. Those are already respectable numbers, especially given that some of these exchanges offered just a small number of trading pairs. Coincheck is one of those exchanges, that had only one trading pair listed (BTC/JPY) but buy orders worth 773k USD within 2% of the current price. Other exchanges were building up a bigger total of buy orders across many trading pairs (for example Hotbit or CREX24 with ~660 trading pairs). Find the ranking below:
RANKEXCHANGETRADINGPAIRSBUY ORDERSIN 2% RANGE52BX THAILAND28976K USD64AEX134767K USD58OKCOIN27883K USD70GDAC37624K USD54COINBIG37931K USD66ECXX15712K USD60ZAIF20846K USD72WHITEBIT63597K USD57BW155890K USD69BIONE43638K USD63COINCHECK1773K USD53CATEX124942K USD65COINTIGER175765K USD59BITSO17851K USD71BAMBOO RELAY40619K USD56OMGFIN126917K USD68COINJAR9644K USD62BITASSET110820K USD55BTCTURK7929K USD67EXRATES183656K USD61BTCMARKETS22830K USD73VINDAX101591K USD78QBTC168488K USD84COINBENE212333K USD100COINFLEX4181K USD80ETHFINEX226450K USD96WAZIRX84229K USD86BIGONE132301K USD102VELIC29175K USD83BITSONIC67335K USD99CITEX114185K USD79HB.TOP56466K USD85LBANK134324K USD101P2PB2B527176K USD82ACX13357K USD98CBX32212K USD81COINDEAL47393K USD97MAX MAICOIN36217K USD87OCEANEX63285K USD103BILAXY151155K USD74BITFOREX225573K USD76THEROCKTRADING16550K USD75RADAR RELAY18571K USD77HOTBIT659542K USD88CHAOEX78279K USD104MERCADO BITCOIN3141K USD90LUNO9270K USD106BTCEXA59131K USD89PROBIT169272K USD105SHORTEX16133K USD91BIBOX205255K USD107IDEX351127K USD92DARB FINANCE12247K USD108BITOFFER48110K USD94COINEGG84243K USD110COINZEST68107K USD93CREX24660243K USD109PIEXGO35109K USD112COINEXCHANGE736103K USD956X34238K USD111CRXZONE4103K USD-2% BUY ORDERS < 1M USDEXCHANGES
Total buy orders (price to -2%) per exchange lower than 8M USD
41 exchanges in the data sample had a sum of buy orders within a 2% range of the current price between 1 million USD and 8 million USD. Those numbers already indicate a very high liquidity per exchange. Again, some of these exchanges had this amount of liquidity even though they only offered a few trading pairs (itBit, Gemini or Bitflyer), while others built up a higher order volume with hundreds of different trading pairs (e.g. HitBTC, Gate.io or Kucoin). See the ranking below:
RANKEXCHANGETRADINGPAIRSBUY ORDERSIN 2% RANGE11BITRUE1727.33M USD23HITBTC866*4.04M USD24GEMINI153.85M USD17POLONIEX1015.05M USD30MXC2022.60M USD13BITHUMB916.16M USD26GATE.IO4093.62M USD19LAKEBTC94.49M USD32GMO JAPAN52.48M USD16DSX305.20M USD29FLOAT SV132.99M USD22XT1774.39M USD12ITBIT56.86M USD25ZB1773.64M USD18BKEX1084.98M USD31COINHE292.50M USD15ZBG995.58M USD28BITSDAQ663.28M USD21TOKENIZE304.42M USD14COINALL1286.02M USD27BITMAX1793.50M USD20FCOIN1324.44M USD33COINONE472.35M USD37BIKI1982.04M USD43BCEX931.43M USD39IDAX1931.83M USD45CEX.IO531.36M USD42INDODAX581.47M USD38BITFLYER32.00M USD44EXMO1491.38M USD41TOKOK861.61M USD40GOPAX491.73M USD46KORBIT201.34M USD34FTX (SPOT)42.21M USD36KUCOIN4542.04M USD35BITLISH112.11M USD47BITBANK81.30M USD49COINEAL821.17M USD48SISTEMKOIN3701.20M USD50COINEX2031.09M USD51BIT-Z2331.03M USD-2% BUY ORDERS < 8M USDEXCHANGES
TOP 10
The TOP 10 exchanges in this ranking all had buy orders within 2% price range worth 8 million USD or more. Binance offered by far the highest liquidity with buy orders worth 51 million USD. Kraken was placed in the second spot while Huobi Global was placed third. Bittrex, OKEx and Liquid also had a total of over 10 million USD in buy orders, while Bitstamp, Digifinex, Bitfinex and Coinbase Pro all had buy orders over 8 million USD. Find the results in the graphic:
RANKEXCHANGETRADINGPAIRSBUY ORDERSIN 2% RANGE1BINANCE55051.1M USD7BITSTAMP149.7M USD3HUOBI GLOBAL52914.4M USD9BITFINEX848.8M USD6LIQUID14611.6M USD2KRAKEN7916.4M USD8DIGIFINEX2389.2M USD5OKEX46011.7M USD4BITTREX35613.4M USD10COINBASE PRO518.4M USD-2% BUY ORDERS > 8M USDEXCHANGES
Conclusions
Ranking exchanges by overall order book depth with data provided by Coingecko reveals the exchanges with high liquidity way better than a ranking by (inflated) trading volume. Most exchanges seem to be honest about the liquidity in their order books, although a few of them might have inflated their books with fake orders.

The results of this analysis display, that liquidity of an exchange can be divided among few very liquid pairs or many different smaller liquidity pairs. It can be discussed, whether the sum of buy orders per exchange (within 2% of the current price) is the best comparison method – one could also use the average or median buy order volume per trading pair. However, such a ranking would favor exchanges that only list few selected high market cap coins, while it would disadvantage exchanges with many different small cap coins. Therefore, I think the sum of buy orders within a different range is the better comparison method.

Critical Discussion
This analysis can’t guarantee, that the collected data on order book depth is 100% correct. Some exchanges might have inflated their numbers or there might have been errors in the data collection process, since order book depth is still a new feature. Adding to that, even if the numbers are correct, order books change every second and therefore the numbers in this analysis might be different from current order books.

Furthermore, a high ranking in this analysis only indicates a high reported liquidity but doesn’t necessarily indicate whether an exchange is great from an overall perspective. A high-liquidity exchange can still block withdrawals or get hacked at any time. I would advise everyone to DYOR before using an exchange and to not keep too many funds in the exchanges’ wallet.

Wrap-up
The recent implementation of order book depth per trading pair and per exchange on different coin comparison sites enable users to rank exchanges by liquidity instead of ranking them by inflated trading volumes. In this analysis, buy orders not further away than 2% of the current price of a coin were collected from 179 exchanges and the exchanges were then ranked by the sum of those buy orders per exchange. The results show, that order book depth can differ vastly per exchange and I hope this article emphasizes the importance of this new metric.



Articles, that may interest you:

Skycoin Distribution

Skycoin Distribution
DISTRIBUTION
23.08.2019
PAST AND FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OF SKYCOIN
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
The cryptocurrency market is well accustomed to the ICO model. Most projects use the approach of an initial coin offering to finance their idea via crowdfunding, with investors receiving a substantial portion of the coins of the invested project in return. From the start of these projects, most of the coins are held by investors and there will be little to no influx of new coins. Only a few projects use a long-term distribution model, in which just a slight portion of coins is released at a time and the distribution is executed over years. Skycoin belongs to this group of long-term distributed coins and we will take an in-depth look at how its distribution is executed.

Circulation
A total of 100 million Skycoin were generated in the genesis block.1,2 On April 2nd in 2015, these 100 million Skycoin were separated into 100 addresses with each of it having a balance of 1 million Skycoin (transaction).3 These addresses are known as the distribution addresses. Each Skycoin, that is not contained in these addresses, counts as circulating supply.4 Since April 2015, coins are successively taken from the distribution addresses and are put into circulation. I analyzed all transactions of the distribution addresses and displayed them in a chart, that shows how many Skycoin were distributed over time:
16 m14 m12 m10 m8 m6 m4 m2 m020152018201920172016+77%+127%+92%CIRCULATING SUPPLYSKYCOIN
Distribution events – General
As the chart shows, the circulating supply increased periodically. It looks like the distribution was either made directly from the wallet (slow growth) or the coins were taken out of a distribution address completely and were then distributed (sudden growth). Nonetheless, there were some distribution events, that we can attach to this chart.

Distribution events – 2015 & 2016
The first initial public offering was announced in early 2014.5,6 It was held one year later in April and May 2015,7,8 where about 450 thousand Skycoin left the original distribution addresses. To be fair, it was not an usual IPO, it was more a private sale to dedicated early followers/contributors,9 who would not shy away from compiling the wallet on Linux.10 Because of the difficulties that came along with this early IPO, the team offered to continue selling Skycoin for the same BTC price of the IPO, until a circulating supply of about 2 million Skycoin would be reached.11 If they actually sold more than 2 million from the first 3 million Skycoin distributed in 2015 and 2016 is hard to determine. What we know so far, is that 1 million Skycoin were sold to a large investor or a consortium of investors, that were held in one address. The coins were sent to this address in September 2015 and have recently been sold.12 Concluding from that, an amount of 1.45 million Skycoin have evidentially been distributed via sales in 2015. Therefore, I would estimate that another 550k were sold to early followers, while the remaining 1 million Skycoin from the first 3 distribution addresses were distributed to team members and project contributors.

Distribution events – 2017
After some testing of a Skycoin distribution on a third-party platform,13,14 the next big distribution event was held on the exchange C2CX in early 2017. About half a million Skycoin were sold in this event.15 Followed by this success, another distribution event was held on C2CX in August 2017, where 1 million Skycoin were eligible to be sold to the public.16 However, since I couldn’t find any source indicating how many Skycoin were sold of these 1 million Skycoin available and the coins were sold for twice the market price Skycoin was traded at back then, the distribution event probably wasn’t very successful. I would guess, that about 10% (100k Skycoin) of the available coins were sold in the event. Overall, the Skycoin distribution was pushed forward in November and December 2017 with over-the-counter sales, with Skycoin being both sold manually and fully automated via the Skycoin website. About 50 thousand Skycoin were distributed in the automated OTC, which can be seen in the Skycoin explorer (automated OTC address).17 Determining the amount of Skycoin sold via manual over-the-counter sales is more difficult. The amount of Skycoin sold in these sales was rather high, as Synth has stated in an interview.18 One address alone has received 1 million Skycoin in December 2017, which I suppose is an OTC sale to a large investor (or a consortium of investors). Given that 4 million Skycoin were put into circulation in 2017, I would estimate, that another 1 million Skycoin were sold via OTC sales in addition to the 1 million Skycoin distributed to the large investor address.

Distribution events – 2018
In 2018 many smaller distributions took place. It started with the distribution of Skycoin to buyers of the official Skyminer, which was sold for one BTC each. The first batch of 300 Skyminers was handed to buyers alongside 450 Skycoin each,19,20 whereas the second batch of 300 Skyminers included a rebate of 650 Skycoin per buyer.21,22 These miner rebates add up to a total of 330 thousand Skycoin. Then in May, Skycoin was listed on Binance. Since Binance is one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges it presumably required a listing fee (which might have been paid in BTC or in SKY) and a certain amount of Skycoin to ensure liquidity in the orderbook. Finding out how many Skycoin were distributed to Binance for these purposes is difficult, a look at Binance’s Skycoin withdrawal address can provide some hints however. The trading of Skycoin on Binance started on May 24, deposits were enabled one day earlier.23 The Skycoin withdrawal address on Binance was filled for the first time on May 25 with an initial amount of 503 thousand Skycoin. With the help of the Skycoin blockchain, I traced back the largest amounts of SKY deposited to Binance from this initial amount and it included 85 thousand Skycoin, that originated from a distribution address opened 5 months earlier. Therefore, I assume that these 85k Skycoin were given to Binance to provide the orderbook with liquidity. In June, Binance also held a trading competition and a lucky draw in cooperation with Skycoin, in which they gave away 50 thousand SKY.24 From June onwards, the Skywire testnet went live and rewards were handed to participants monthly. 14 months later, these rewards have accumulated to a total of 530k Skycoin.25 In July, around 700k Skycoin were distributed to an OTC seller, which became apparent after the investor sold all his coins on Binance a few months later (see his Binance deposit address for more information).26

Distribution events – 2019
In December 2018, the circulating supply started to increase from 10 million to 15 million Skycoin at the end of March 2019. It can be assumed, that most of these coins were distributed via OTC sales,27 so I would estimate around 4 million from these 5 million SKY introduced to the circulating supply from December 2018 to March 2019 have been distributed via over the counter sales. Skycoin also started trading at the crypto exchange LBank, which (according to an analysis of Skycoin’s blockchain) has received around 50k Skycoin for liquidity and airdrops. Another 1 million SKY has been released at the end of June 2019, which according to my research has been only used for payments/mining/bounties thus far. The circulating supply is currently at 16 million Skycoin.
530KSkywireTestnetRewardsSince June20184MOTCSale(est.)Dec – Apr2018/1950KBinanceTradingComp.June2018700KOTCSaleJuly201850KLBankAirdrop &LiquidityJanuary201985KLiquidityBinance(est.)May2018330KMiner RebateSkyminerBuyersJan/Jun201850KAutomatedOTCDec/Jan2017/181MDistributionto largeinvestorDecember20171MManualOTC(est.)Nov/Dec2017100K2. Distributionvia C2CX(est.)Aug/Sep2017500K1. Distributionvia C2CXJan – April2017550KSale to earlyfollowers –(est.)April – Dec20161MDistributedto largeinvestorSeptember2015450KFirst PublicOffering ofSkycoinApril/May2015DISTRIBUTION EVENTSSKYCOIN
Allocation of the total supply
The numbers shown in the graphic add up to a total of 10.395 million Skycoin, that have been mostly distributed via sales. The circulating supply is currently at 16 million SKY, although we have to consider that the Skycoin project didn’t necessarily distribute the coins directly from the distribution addresses, but rather took them out all at once and then placed them in several smaller distribution addresses. It is therefore possible that the real amount of Skycoin in circulation is lower than the amount displayed in the Skycoin explorer. Nevertheless, I can’t tell how many of these have been distributed, so let’s say 16 million is the actual circulating supply. Considering that approximately 9.7 million Skycoin were sold, (only) 60% of the circulating amount of Skycoin have been distributed via sales. So, what has happened to the other 40% of coins in circulation, that were not sold in distribution events?

A part of the Skycoin distribution strategy is to not offer all Skycoin to speculators, who might only be interested in short-term profits. Certainly, coins are sold to gather funds and provide liquidity to the market, but a vast amount of coins is distributed to people who contribute to the success of the project. Of the 25 million Skycoin that are immediately available for distribution,28 10-15 million will be offered in ICO and OTC sales.29 Another 10 million Skycoin are reserved to incentivize Skywire by either handing out mining rewards or offering a Coin Hour buyback.30,31 However, we don’t know if these 10 million Skycoin are fully part of the first 25 million distributable Skycoin. Furthermore, the Skycoin project is willing to fund interesting, dedicated projects within the Skycoin ecosystem, that move the project forward.32 There are also bounties available for individual contributors to the Skycoin project.33 So, going back to the 40% of coins in circulation that were not allocated for sales, it is assumable that they were distributed to contributors of the project (alongside 500k for Skywire Testnet rewards).34 In general, based on these numbers I would estimate that of the first 25 million Skycoin a minimum of 10 million SKY will be sold, while a maximum of 5 million SKY will be available to incentivize Skywire. I would further estimate that around 10 million SKY will be used to reward contributors to the project or fund projects, that move the Skycoin ecosystem forward. Let’s visualize these numbers:
10MPAYMENTS &BOUNTIES10MSALEmin5MSKYWIREmaxALLOCATION OF 25 MILLIONSKYCOIN
Maximum supply
As we have seen, 25 million Skycoin are immediately available for distribution. As soon as this mark of 25 million Skycoin in circulation is reached, another 5 million Skycoin become available per year, until there is a maximum of 100 million Skycoin available for distribution.35 In addition to that mechanism, there is an unknown group of developers involved in the distribution process, who need to agree to unlock 5 million Skycoin. If just one of these developers votes against distribution, it can stop the whole process.36 It is currently under consideration, if the growth should not be slowed down even more.37 Adding to that, each core developer can receive up to 1 million Skycoin, which are locked for several years.38 There are different mechanisms in place, that prevent the core developers from dumping the coins.39,40

So, how could a concrete distribution plan look like? We saw, that it took 4.5 years to distribute 16 million Skycoin. Let us assume, that 6.5 million Skycoin will be distributed per year in 2019 and 2020, which is already a high amount compared to the distribution in the past. This would mean, that it would take until the end of 2020, until the immediately available 25 million Skycoin are distributed. After that mark would be reached, 5 million Skycoin would be unlocked per year. If, for the following 15 years, each of these Skycoin would be distributed in the same year, the whole amount of 100 million Skycoin would be in circulation at the end of 2035. Let’s visualize it:
20272015201720192021202320252029203120332035100m80m60m40m20m025mESTIMATED DIST. OVER TIMESKYCOIN
The reasons behind the long-term distribution
After looking at how the past distributions were executed and depicting, how future distributions might look like, you are probably still wondering, why the Skycoin project made the decision for this long-term approach. It is in fact such a different approach compared to the distribution of the majority of coins and tokens. Most new cryptocurrency projects choose the distribution method of an ICO, where they sell a large portion of their coins, because they require a decent amount of funding to execute their idea. It is basically a crowdfunding approach to finance their project. However, this did not apply to the Skycoin project. The early developers of Skycoin claim, that they were very early into cryptocurrencies. They say, they owned Bitcoin before it reached the mark of one US dollar and are therefore pretty well off.41 Additionally, they stated that a lot of the early development of Skycoin was funded by a bunch of different companies,42 meaning the Skycoin project didn’t need to fundraise money to finance the development. So, unlike the majority of other coins, they could thoroughly plan their distribution. In their opinion, it is the best approach to distribute coins gradually, with the influx of new coins decreasing over time, which is similar to Bitcoin’s distribution rate.43 They aim to sell small amounts of Skycoin at a time, and will reinvest the received funds into the project’s development and infrastructure.44 To not effect the price per Skycoin negatively by increasing the circulating supply, they intend to release coins slower than the growth of their userbase.45

Wrap-up
Unlike most other cryptocurrencies, the Skycoin project prefers to use a long-term approach for the distribution of Skycoin. Of 100 million Skycoin, about 16 million were distributed in four and a half years since the first ICO in April/May 2015. I estimated, that 6.5 million Skycoin could be distributed in both 2019 and 2020, until 25 million Skycoin would be in circulation at the end of 2020. After that, 5 million Skycoin could be distributed per year, so that there could be 100 million Skycoin in circulation at the end of 2035. Talking about the target audience of these distributions, the project wants to not only distribute Skycoin via ICO and OTC sales, but also use the coins to incentivize bandwidth providers in the Skywire network and to generally reward people who contribute to the project. All in all, I hope this article increases the transparency about the Skycoin distribution and provides answers towards most questions around this subject.


Sources – General supply
1
“Skycoin has a total supply of 100 million coins created in the genesis block.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Understanding the Skycoin Supply & Distribution; 25.01.2018
2
“So there’s one hundred million total and the reason that number was chosen was that one million coins is exactly 1% of Skycoin.”
Synth; Youtube; Coin interview with Skycoin; 30.10.2017
3
“The 100 million coins are being sent, 1 million coins to each of 100 addresses with multiparty lock system to prevent theft. There is also a time capsule lock on the private keys.”
Skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 01.04.2015
4
“unlocked means it can be distributed, locked means it cant be distributed, circulated means distributed”
Steve [Sky Dev]; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 01.11.2017
Sources – Distribution events
5
“How the IPO Will Work: 1 million coins (1%) will be sold for 50k in Bitcoin.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 18.04.2014
6
“IPO pre-registration begins in a few hours. Trying to get binaries compiled and making sure this bitmessage library works. Pre-registration will last two weeks. Until the 6th of September. Pre-registration will be required for the IPO.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 22.08.2014
7
“2500 Skycoin per Bitcoin. Which is about $0.10 / Skycoin. Bitcoin to USD is too volatile so just set it to that. … I think we started getting bitmessage requests for IPO in about two months ago and are just sending out coins now. … There are about fifty people in the IPO so far. The average amount is $2000. About half the coins in the allotment are already accounted for. Very good so far.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 18.04.2015
8
“25% of the IPO receipts have been processed. I am this far down list now. I have not even gotten to processing the orders for the Skycoin devs yet.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 02.05.2015
9
“This IPO is for developers, people who have been following for a while and experienced people who know what they are doing. This is more of a private offering and not really an IPO. The purpose is to get Skycoin trading and work on bugs.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 07.02.2015
10
“We did a ghetto ICO, by hand on bitmessage a few years ago. To software developers who had to compile the wallet from source, on linux.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 25.12.2016
11
“Yes we reserved 2% of the coins for people on the Bitcoin talk thread, at the ICO price. Bitmessage did not work for a lot of people. We tried to do sale over Tox bot and that failed and people had problems. Also, no wallet builds and difficult to buy. We have developers we are reserving coins for, because they have not been able to get compilation working on their platform.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 10.10.2016
12
Please refer to my blockchain analysis of Skycoin, where I dedicated one paragraph to this address.
Christian Ott; Refering to my chain analysis of Skycoin; 19.07.2018
13
“We have an invite only ICO on third party platform, that you need QR code to access. 25 people have code right now, and it is open to anyone who posted on the Bitcoin talks thread in the past 4 years. More information later.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 23.11.2016
14
“Now we are testing ICO on third party website.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 25.12.2016
15
“Last distribution was 500,000 coins. That took 4 months to sell. But then in last month someone wrote one article and skycoin was put on one website and whole ICO sold out in two weeks”
Synth; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 22.04.2017
16
“On August 8, 2017, 1% (1 million) of Skycoin will be sold at a fixed price of 0.002 BTC / SKY.”
Skycoin; Skycoin official website; Distribution; 13.08.2017
17
“-The OTC price adjusts when we adjust it -The OTC wallet is bxpUG8sCjeT6X1ES5SbD2LZrRudqiTY7wx you can see how many coins are in it. There’s about 20BTC worth at these prices -We add coins to the OTC wallet manually. This reflects the amount available for sale. -The OTC price is kept higher than market price for reasons stated 100 times in chat and also in blog posts”
Steve [Sky Dev]; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 09.01.2018
18
“I have 300 people messaging me for the OTC. Until we have the automated system in place, which is just being turned on now, I had to do these things by hands, so we were getting 100 messages an hour for OTC sales. It took three weeks I think for me to finish all of the OTC sales … So we have these OTC orders and some are like 5, 10, 200 Bitcoin…”
Synth; Youtube; Coin Interview with Skycoin 02; 11.12.2017
19
“For the cost of 1BTC you receive the miner (value of 0.05 btc +/-) and you receive a rebate in the form of .95BTC worth of Skycoin (450 Sky at the moment)”
MrHodlr | Systems Integrator | Skycoin; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 30.01.2018
20
“Shipping schedule: – 50 miners are available for shipping immediately- 250 miners should be available by the 2nd week of February.”
Steve [sky dev]; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 10.01.2018
21
“About 300 I think.” (Responding to the question how many Skyminers will be sent out)
Steve [sky dev]; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 26.05.2018
22
“Miner rebates were at 650”
therealssj; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 23.07.2018
23
“Binance will open trading for SKY/BNB, SKY/BTC and SKY/ETH trading pairs at 2018/05/24 09:00 AM (UTC). Users can now start depositing SKY in preparation for trading.”
Binance; Official Website; Binance Will List Skycoin (SKY) on 2018/05/24; 23.05.2018
24
“Skycoin Competition … Trading Competition: a total of 20000 SKY to win! … Lucky Draw: 30000 SKY + 10 Skyminers to win!”
Binance; Official Website; Binance | Skycoin – Lucky Draw; 07.06.2018
25
The following amounts of Skycoin were sent to miners per month: 25k SKY – June 2018; 25k SKY – July 2018; 30k SKY – August 2018; 30k SKY – September 2018; 60k SKY – October 2018; 40k SKY – November 2018; 40k SKY – December 2018; 40k SKY – January 2019; 40k SKY – February 2019; 40k SKY – March 2019; 40k SKY – April 2019; 40k SKY – May 2019; 40k SKY – June 2019; 40k SKY – July 2019
PSA Skywire; Telegram; Channel PSA Skywire; Starting from 28.07.2018
26
“huge OTC investor who was time locked; at $35 dollars a coin, just had coins unlock, so may be dumping”
Synth; Telegram; Skycoin trading channel; 27.10.2018
27
“Some OTC at market and some to investment funds. And some for coin hour buy backs.” (Answering the question on how coins are being distributed)
Synth; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 01.01.2019
Sources – Allocation of total supply
28
“75 million coins (75%) are timelocked (hardcoded in skycoin.go scroll down to bottom) and 25 million coins are currently unlocked.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Understanding the Skycoin Supply & Distribution; 25.01.2018
29
“We will set the total cap of the OTC sale to bring Skycoin’s distributed percentage to be between 10% and 15%. Currently, Skycoin is at 6%. The remainder is reserved for the Skywire network subsidy, until we hit the 25% timelock cap and enter a maximum 5% per year distribution.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Skycoin Distribution Plan; 09.10.2017
30
“We have decided we will distribute a portion of the Skycoin over time to people running Skycoin meshnet nodes. To promote network usage and to get users on to the network and balance out the whales.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 09.03.2017
31
“We have 10 million skycoin allocater for coinhour buybacks over a few years to bootstrap the skycoin to coinhours market.”
Synth; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 25.11.2017
32
“However, if 1% of currency is created each year and invested in activities that increase the value of the coin network, by more than the cost, then doing so maximizes the value for all coin holders. If $1 in investment in meshnet deployment, PR, advertising or lobbying nets $5 in coin market cap then coins which use this mechanism will out-compete coins that are unable to. The market-cap and values of coins pursuing this strategy will grow significantly faster than the alternative.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Development Update #45; 17.12.2014
33
“If you come in and you do a VPN app or videosharing app or a messaging app on Skycoin, we might give you half a million dollars of Skycoin. We fund our developers. We invested in a lot of different development teams and we distributed the coins to the people that are doing the work and promoting it. If you are doing a meetup, we will give you Skycoin. If you are doing T-Shirt designs, we will give you Skycoin. If you help with translations, we have a bounty program. So, we are busy distributing the coins to people moving the project forward.”
Synth; Youtube; AMA hosted by Crypto Brahma; 11.03.2018
34
“We are going to be distributing coin bonuses to about thirty contributors, on a vesting schedule over the next few years. For example – one project manager who has help fix over a hundred fifty bug tickets is getting 250,000 SKY over the next four years (about 40k USD in SKY at price when he joined project) – website guy/content/marketing/design guy who was critical is getting 60,000 SKY over next two years – some contractors and major contributors are getting 5,000 SKY to 30,000 SKY distributions over the next two years for work on mesh network, bounties, bug fixes, etc”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Ask the developers #8; 25.12.2016
Sources – Maximum supply
35
“The Skycoin distribution is timelocked. This means that, of the undistributed Skycoin, 25% are immediately distributable. The remainder cannot be distributed until the first 25% have been distributed. Once the first 25% have been distributed, an additional 5% is unlocked for distribution. For each subsequent year thereafter, an additional 5% is unlocked for distribution. This gives Skycoin a 14 year distribution timeline, after the first 25% is distributed. We may extend the unlocking process to take up to 25 years, but we will never shorten the timelocking schedule. There is no requirement that the yearly 5% be distributed. The unlock only enables that amount to be distributed. The locked Skycoin are allocated for expansion of the Skywire Network via targeted network subsidies and for bounties for platform development.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; [SKY] Skycoin Distribution Plan; 09.10.2017
36
“The 75 million (75%) undistributable Skycoin cannot be distributed until the first 25 million (25%) have been distributed. After that is done, for each subsequent year thereafter, 5 million coins (5%) are unlocked via an unanimous consent (1 vote against distribution can stop the whole process) of an unknown group of developers. This does not mean that each year 5 million coins have to be distributed, they are just unlocked and it is possible to distribute them.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; [SKY] Understanding the Skycoin Supply & Distribution; 25.01.2018
37
“We are considering slowing down the timelock even further: * 5% each year for 5 years * 4% each year for 5 years * 3% each year for 5 years * 2% each year for 5 years * 1% each year for 5 years This make it last for 25 years instead of 14, and is better suited to our growth forecasts. Note that for technical reasons, locking is handled in 1% chunks, otherwise we would be doing exponential decay.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 28.08.2017
38
“Each of the core developers is only getting 1% each and they are locked for several years.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Ask the developers #7; 07.05.2015
39
“We are putting technical and human measures in place, to ensure that if any of the key contributors starts dumping that it would only be temporary. We want to avoid a situation where someone has 30% of the coins and the community has 2% and that person could dump their coins everyday on the market for a decade before they ran out. That is what happened with NXT and we wanted to avoid that.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 04.04.2017
40
“Future Measures: – we are going to time lock the addresses in the future, so the node will reject transactions spending their outputs – we are going to put constraint in the code, so the blocks have to be distributed in sequential tranches”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 04.04.2017
Sources – Reasons for the long-term approach
41
“All of our lead developers were in Bitcoin before it was at a dollar, so they are pretty well-off. Then we had an ICO and even the developers had to buy in the ICO and that was when Bitcoin was less than a hundred dollars and Bitcoin is over 10,000 dollars now. Actually, we never even had budgeting until very recently, because the Bitcoin price was just going up and up and up and no matter how many people we hired, we couldn’t even spend it.”
Synth; Youtube; AMA hosted by Crypto Brahma; 11.03.2018
42
“Skycoin is more like a consortium. There is a bunch of different companies, that are all using the infrastructure or are contributing to the infrastructure and funding developments. In the beginning we didn’t do a huge ICO to raise money, most of the development was funded by our corporate partners and also the personal contributions of the developers who made a lot of money on Bitcoin and just wanted to see this technology built.”
Synth; Youtube; AMA hosted by Crypto Brahma; 11.03.2018
43
“Our distribution schedule is very similar to Bitcoin. – We are not doing a large sale of 30% of the coins at once like Ethereum. We think this distribution schedule sells to many coins and limits the upside for investors and will destroy the long term price when the speculators/miners dump. – We are not hoarding 98% of the coins like Ripple (the Ripple free float is a lie) – We think a gradual distribution with the number of new coins decreasing over time is the best distribution schedule. – If the distribution negatively impacts the price, we will cut the distribution back and if it continues to fall we will begin buybacks. – We have a professional market maker partner who is invested for the long term and will provide liquidity on both sides of the order book. We think the Bitcoin distribution schedule is the most natural and has been the most successful. We do not have miners and no new coins are created, so it has to be done by hand, but we think that is best way to allow gradual long term appreciation.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Ask the developers #7; 07.05.2015
44
“The Skycoin distribution schedule and philosophy is identical to Bitcoin’s distribution rate, or how Facebook or Google stock was distributed. Google did not distribute 80% of its shares by doing a massive Ethereum style crowd sale, before any of the work was done. It sold off fixed, small slices of equity at each step at an increasing price. Then they dumped the money into development and increasing the value of the equity for all stakeholders by investing the money raised in infrastructure. This is what makes sense for funding a large, long term project whose value is increasing. We are using this model, because it works.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Ask the developers #9; 13.04.2017
45
“There are two conflicting things we have to deal with – The community wants us to distribute at a rate so the coin becomes less centralized over time – The community does not want us to distribute so quickly that it drives the price down … We want to distribution coins, slower than the rate of user growth – If we distribute 10% of the current free float (10% inflation in free float) – Then the user base growth for Skycoin should be at least 10 or 20% over the same period … The max any one person holds, is 1% of the total coins. 1 million SKY. These are early developers, who have been working on the project for years. This is to eliminate dumping and prevent NXT/Ripple style situations as people join and leave the project team. We have an extremely tight coin supply. No one person is in a position to do major damage, like what happened with NXT or Ripple. We studied every way, that every previous coin had failed and then explicitly designed our rule set to avoid those methods of failure.”
Skycoin; Skycoin Blog; Ask the developers #8; 25.12.2016

Altseason

Altseason Altseason Bitcoin and Altcoin seasons
CRYPTO SEASONS
17.01.2020
BITCOIN BULL SEASON VS. ALTSEASON
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
There are currently 5,035 cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap but with Bitcoin, just one cryptocurrency is accountable for over 50% of the total crypto market cap. With so much dominance of the whole market cap and Bitcoin also being a trading pair for most coins, the whole Altcoin market is highly depending on the largest cryptocurrency. Therefore, crypto cycles are mostly divided in Bitcoin bull cycles, where most Altcoins lose value against Bitcoin, or Altseasons, in which most Altcoins gain value against Bitcoin. In this article, I want to discuss and analyze both types of seasons.

Identifying Bitcoin and Altcoin seasons
First of all, we have to identify Bitcoin seasons and Altseasons. While there are certainly single days, in which Altcoins gain more than Bitcoin and vice versa, I prefer to identify these cycles in a macro perspective, allocating at least a few weeks to each season. The seasons can be identified best with the Bitcoin dominance chart provided by CoinMarketCap. When there is a period of rising Bitcoin dominance, it is a Bitcoin season, whereas a period with decreasing Bitcoin dominance signals an Altseason. Utilizing this method, I identified 7 Bitcoin seasons and 7 Altseasons since December 2014 – which are depicted in the following graphic. It also shows the BTC and ALTS dominance simplified from highest/lowest point at the start of a season to the lowest/highest point at the end of a season:
BTC DOMINANCEALTS DOMINANCEBITCOIN SEASONALTSEASON2015201620172018201920%0%40%60%80%100%DOMINANCEBITCOIN VS. ALTCOINS
The graphic displays Bitcoin dominance (colored in red) and Altcoin dominance (colored in blue) of the total crypto market capitalization. The two most obvious observations are: Bitcoin and Altcoin seasons are alternating patterns and Bitcoin’s dominance has decreased over time, even though it had a spike recently. While Bitcoin’s dominance was above 80% throughout 2015 and 2016, it went as low as 33% in January 2018. Since then, it has gone up to a value as high as 71% recently and is currently at 66%.

Length and frequency of seasons
Let’s have a closer look at the length and frequency of the seasons. On average, a Bitcoin season lasted 166 days, while an Altcoin season lasted 94 days. Considering particular months, the distribution of seasons is relatively balanced. Outliers in this dataset are the months May, July and October. In four of the last five years Altcoins gained against Bitcoin in May, while Bitcoin’s market cap rose higher percentage-wise against Altcoins in July and October. See the following graphic for more details:
JANDECFEBNOVMAROCTAPRSEPMAYAUGJUNJULALTSEASONFREQUENCY PER MONTHAVERAGE LENGTH OFALTSEASON94 DAYSJANDECFEBNOVMAROCTAPRSEPMAYAUGJUNJULBITCOIN SEASONFREQUENCY PER MONTHAVERAGE LENGTH OFBITCOIN SEASON166 DAYSSEASONSLENGTH AND FREQUENCY
Market cap during seasons
How did the market cap of Bitcoin and Altcoins change during their respective seasons? The average Bitcoin season made Bitcoin’s market cap increase by 125%, while the average Altcoin season made the overall market cap of all Altcoins increase by 663%. However, these averages are largely inflated by the price movement in 2017, where the Altcoin market cap increased by 3296% in the first half of the year, while the Bitcoin market cap increased by 605% in the second half of the year.

If we erase these two seasons from the average calculation, Bitcoin’s market cap increased by an adjusted average of 45% in a Bitcoin season while the Altcoin market cap increased by an adjusted average of 136% in an Altcoin season (since December 2014). Therefore, the Altcoin increases are nearly 3x higher percentage-wise in an Altcoin season than Bitcoin increases in a Bitcoin season. However, the performance of Altcoins in Bitcoin seasons is also worse than the performance of Bitcoin in Altcoin seasons. On average, the market cap of Altcoins decreased by 16% during Bitcoin seasons, whereas the Bitcoin market cap increased by 30% on average in Altcoin seasons. The following graphic contains all identified seasons since December 2014 and their respective market cap decreases and increases. I also added the current Altcoin season, that started in September 2019, although it is not included in the above-mentioned calculations yet:
18.12.2014 –18.05.2015-22%-68%18.05.2015 –10.07.201524%136%10.07.2015 –08.01.201667%-36%08.01.2016 –13.03.2016-7%255%13.03.2016 –27.12.2016136%-6%27.12.2016 –19.06.2017183%3296%19.06.2017 –07.12.2017605%129%07.12.2017 –12.01.2018-22%198%12.01.2018 –02.04.2018-49%-70%02.04.2018 –06.05.201837%102%06.05.2018 –12.09.2018-33%-72%12.09.2018 –31.03.2019-34%-13%31.03.2019 –06.09.2019170%9%SINCE06.09.2019-18%4%BITCOINMARKET CAPALTCOINSMARKET CAPMARKET CAPBTC- AND ALTSEASONSBITCOIN SEASONALTSEASON*PERCENTAGES REFER TO USD VALUATION
Critical discussion of the analysis
Criticism concerning this analysis can be targeted towards the rather small sample size. Bitcoin has been around for only 11 years and the Altcoin market as a whole is even younger. At the end of 2013, there weren’t even 100 Altcoins listed on CoinMarketCap, which is why I decided to start with this analysis at the end of 2014, when there were at least 500 Altcoins listed on CoinMarketCap. This provides us with five years of market data, that resulted in the identification of 14 different seasons, which is a small sample size. It’s not a failure of this analysis though, it is simply a result of the crypto market being relatively new. It will be interesting to see, whether the same patterns will be visible in several overhauls of this analysis during the next few years.

Wrap-up
Bitcoin and Altcoin seasons are alternating market movements in the crypto market. In this analysis, a prolonged increase of Bitcoin dominance in the whole crypto market capitalization was declared as a Bitcoin season, while a prolonged increase of Altcoin dominance was declared as an Altcoin season. This method identified 7 Bitcoin and 7 Altcoin seasons. A comparison of these seasons against each other outlined, that Bitcoin dominance decreased over time, even though Bitcoin seasons are on average 1.8 times longer than Altseasons. During the last 5 years, Altcoin seasons were more likely to happen in the first half of a year than in the second half. The analysis also displays that Altcoins on average increased by a larger percentage in an Altcoin season than Bitcoin increased in a Bitcoin season. However, the Altcoins’ USD market capitalization on average decreased during Bitcoin seasons, whereas Bitcoin’s market cap in fact increased on average during Altcoin seasons.



Articles, that may interest you:

Volume vs. Order Book Depth

Volume vs. Order Book Depth
VOLUME VS. DEPTH
24.03.2019
EVALUATING BITCOIN TRADING PAIRS BY VOLUME AND LIQUIDITY
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
Artificially created trading volume by crypto exchanges has become an increasingly concerning issue throughout the industry. With the interest in cryptocurrencies rising and their number one use case being speculation, the amount of crypto exchanges who want to get a share in the high-margin revenue market of trading fees is growing rapidly. However, most of these new exchanges use one of three common user interfaces and have the exact same digital assets integrated than other exchanges, so little to nothing sets them apart from their competitors. Accordingly, most of them have difficulties to attract a large number of customers and therefore decided to boost the position of their exchange in ranking sites like CoinMarketCap. As all of these rankings are currently based on trading volume, an increasing number of exchanges started to integrate bots that trade the same coins back and forth, creating hundreds of millions in trading volume even though some of those exchanges have hardly any users.

Order book depth as an alternative ranking method
So, how can we rank exchanges differently than by trading volume? Fairly recently, I introduced a method called “order book depth” to rank exchanges by their provided liquidity. The metric displays the amount of coins that can be bought/sold in an order book per market order, without moving the price by more than one percent. Fortunately, with Coinpaprika the first exchange ranking site has stepped up and started to implement the feature. However, in this article I want to make another step forward and run a little comparison of order book depth data against trading volume.

Most liquid Bitcoin exchanges
As a case study, I made a snapshot of the order books of 104 exchanges, that had an accessible order book and a 24-hour trading volume of above 200k USD in their most frequently traded BTC/Fiat or BTC/Stablecoin trading pair on 21-03-2019. By the time the snapshot was taken, on 15 of these 104 exchanges, one could have sold 100 BTC (currently around 400,000 USD) per market order and wouldn’t have hit buy orders 1% below the current market price. I ranked these 15 exchanges by order book depth and also added the reported 24-hour volume on these trading pairs (according to exchange ranking site CoinPaprika) to the graphic, showing that trading volume and order book depth are not necessarily correlated:
40.808 MILLION USD727 BTCBTC/TETHERBITFINEX27.903 MILLION USD343 BTCBTC/USDBITSTAMP53.110 MILLION USD486 BTCBTC/TETHERHITBTC20.287 MILLION USD430 BTCBTC/USDKRAKEN34.060 MILLION USD551 BTCBTC/USDCOINBASE PRO10.790 MILLION USD227 BTCBTC/USDGEMINI110.645 MILLION USD219 BTCBTC/TETHERHUOBI105.006 MILLION USD209 BTCBTC/JPYLIQUID13.185 MILLION USD162 BTCBTC/JPYBITFLYER60.933 MILLION USD119 BTCBTC/KRWBITHUMB91.355 MILLION USD121 BTCBTC/TETHERBINANCE184.408 MILLION USD110 BTCBTC/TETHERIDAX1.266 MILLION USD111 BTCBTC/IDRINDODAX55.386 MILLION USD109 BTCBTC/TETHERCOINALL6.592 MILLION USD114 BTCBTC/JPYCOINCHECKPAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:PAIR:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:24H PAIR VOL:EXCHANGESMOST LIQUID BITCOINHOW MANY BTC CAN BE SOLD ONTHESE EXCHANGES PER MARKETORDER IN A SPECIFIC TRADINGPAIR, WITHOUT THE PRICEDECLINING BY MORE THAN 1%:
As displayed in the graphic, the exchanges that have been around for a long time are also the ones, that have the highest liquidity. Bitfinex and HitBTC are positioned on the first and third spot of the list, providing enough depth in their BTC/Tether order books to sell over 700 BTC on Bitfinex and close to 500 BTC on HitBTC without hitting buy orders 1% below the current price. The biggest order book concerning the 1% price range of buy orders on the BTC/USD pair is provided by Coinbase Pro (551 BTC), followed by Kraken (430 BTC), Bitstamp (343 BTC) and Gemini (227 BTC). With Liquid, Bitflyer and Coincheck three exchanges also made it into the list, with a BTC/JPY (Japanese Yen) trading pair.

Majority of exchanges provide far less liquidity
However, in contrast to these 15 very liquid exchanges, 89 of the 104 exchanges failed to provide enough liquidity to sell over 100 BTC per market order without hitting buy orders 1% below the current price. Regarding the 1% price range, one could have sold 50-100 BTC on 12 exchanges, 20-50 BTC on 11 exchanges, 10-20 BTC on 15 exchanges and 1-10 BTC on 23 exchanges. On 28 of these 104 exchanges, which all had a daily trading volume above 200k USD in their most frequently traded BTC/Fiat or BTC/Stablecoin pair, one could not have sold more than 1 Bitcoin without hitting buy orders 1% below the current price.
SELLABLE AMOUNT OF BTCIN 1 PERCENT PRICE RANGENUMBER OF EXCHANGES PROVIDINGTHIS SELLABLE AMOUNT OF BTC010203040506070809010020406080EXCHANGESLESS LIQUID BITCOINNUMBER OF BTC THAT COULDHAVE BEEN SOLD WITHOUT THEPRICE DECLINING BY MORE THAN1% ON 89 LESS LIQUID EXCHANGES:
Correlation between order book depth and trading volume
How does the evaluated order book depth relate to the reported trading volume of the considered trading pairs on these 104 exchanges? The data suggests that there are three types of exchanges: Some don’t artificially inflate their trading volume, some partly inflate it but have significant real trading volume as well and some exchanges have mostly artificial trading volume and almost no real volume.

In the data set, the exchanges with the highest liquidity in their order books mostly generated a double-digit million USD trading volume in this specific trading pair. To name a few: Bitfinex was at 41 million USD, Kraken at 20 million USD, Bitstamp at 28 million USD and Bithumb was at 61 million USD. Remember, these are exchanges with a very high liquidity. Interestingly enough, the average daily trading volume in the evaluated trading pairs across all 104 exchanges was at 43 million USD. So, on average each exchange in the list had more daily trading volume than for example Coinbase Pro or Gemini.

To further analyze the connection between trading volume and order book depth, I ran a correlation test between the two. One should expect a slightly positive correlation between the two factors, since they seem to be intertwined. However, that wasn’t the case. While an outcome of 1 in the correlation test determines a perfect positive correlation and an outcome of -1 determines a perfect negative correlation between two input variables, the correlation coefficient between trading volume and order book depth was rated at 0.02. It shows, that both factors are completely uncorrelated and there is not even a slightly positive relationship between them.
BITSTAMP28MPAIR:BTC/USDUSDKRAKEN20MPAIR:BTC/USDUSDGEMINI11MPAIR:BTC/USDUSDAVERAGE43MPAIR:BTC/FIATSTABLEUSDPOSITIVECORRELATIONUNCORRELATEDNEGATIVECORRELATIONCORRELATIONVOLUME VS. DEPTHTRADING VOLUME OF TRADINGPAIRS ON EXCHANGES WITH AHIGH ORDER BOOK LIQUIDITYVS. AVERAGE TRADING VOLUMEOF PAIRS IN THE DATA SAMPLE:CORRELATION COEFFICIENTBETWEEN TRADING VOLUME ANDORDER BOOK DEPTH:
Discussing the relationship between order book depth and trading volume
Let’s declare the trading volume on Coinbase Pro, Kraken and Gemini as real volume. All of these have packed order books, but don’t have that much volume (compared to other crypto exchanges). For example, the order book depth of Gemini, Huobi and Liquid was in the same range in the analyzed data sample (around 200 BTC could be sold with the price not declining by more than 1%), but the trading volume on both Huobi and Liquid (each around 100 million USD) was 10 times as high as on Gemini (around 10 million USD). Adding to these, the daily trading volume on Binance for example was 2.5 times as high than the volume on Coinbase Pro, even though Binance had only 22% of Coinbase Pro’s liquidity in their order books.

Does that mean that all the volume on Binance, Huobi and Liquid is fake? No, it doesn’t. Does it mean, that the volume on Binance, Huobi and Liquid is partly inflated with artificial volume? Probably, but not necessarily. Probably the exchanges inflate their real trading volume with artificial volume to attract traders. Probably all their volume is real and caused by traders who just like to trade more on these exchanges than on other exchanges due to a better trading experience or lower trading fees. As long as an exchange provides decent liquidity in their order books, it is hard to prove that their volume is partly or entirely fake.

However, fake volume is pretty clearly generated by some exchanges that claim to generate multiple million USD in daily trading volume, but one cannot even sell a few BTC without crashing the price on the exchange. To give you an example: Of the analyzed 104 exchanges, 16 reported a daily trading volume of over a million USD in a BTC/Fiat or BTC/Stablecoin trading pair, but you could not even sell one (!) Bitcoin without making the price decline by more than 1%. These exchanges are clearly trying to trick customers and should be excluded from rankings by trading volume.

Critical discussion of the analysis
The biggest limitation of this analysis is its limited dataset. The reported order book depth is based on a snapshot of a single day and was partly refined with trading data from two other days. Unfortunately, there is not yet a central source available for order book depth, which makes the process of collecting data extremely time-consuming. Adding to that, some order books were not fully accessible and were therefore excluded from the analysis. However, that doesn’t mean the analysis is not significant – if an exchange failed to provide liquidity in the snapshot, it most likely can’t provide liquidity in general.

Additionally, it has to be noted that the amount of BTC used in the analysis originates from the order books provided by the particular exchanges. Some of these order books may be intertwined because an exchange might display order book entries of other exchanges on their own exchange, that are integrated through a trading API. Furthermore, alongside the reported trading volume, the entries in an order book can be faked. It would be possible for an exchange to make orders disappear in the second a user hits the buy/sell button and make these orders appear again, after the trade has been executed. However, it would certainly damage the reputation of these exchanges, so I am not sure, how long they could sustain a faked order book.

I also want to add, that the exchanges mentioned in the list are not necessarily the best crypto exchanges, just because they provide liquidity. A lot of controversy has been surrounding Bitfinex or Tether for the past couple of years and HitBTC has been in the news recently for not allowing their users to withdraw funds. However, this list and the underlying metric of order book depth is thought as an improvement towards ranking exchanges by volume, since trading volume is often understood as liquidity, but in the current state of the cryptocurrency market, reported trading volume and liquidity on an exchange are totally uncorrelated.

Wrap-up
In this article, I used the method of order book depth to evaluate the trading volume on exchanges. In a data set of the most frequently traded Bitcoin/Fiat or Bitcoin/Stablecoin pairs on 104 exchanges with a daily trading volume above 200k USD, I identified the 15 most liquid Bitcoin exchanges, where one could sell over 100 BTC without the price declining by more than 1%. In addition to these, I showed the allocation of sellable Bitcoin on less liquid exchanges. The average daily trading volume in the evaluated data set per trading pair on each exchange was at 43 million USD, which was higher than the trading volume on some of the most liquid exchanges. As a final conclusion, a correlation test showed that trading volume and order book depth were completely uncorrelated.



Articles, that may interest you:

In-Game Coins

In-Game Coins
IN-GAME COINS
14.03.2019
COMPARING FINANCIAL DATA OF NBA 2K AND EA’S ULTIMATE TEAM TO CRYPTOCURRENCIES
CHRISTIAN OTT
AUTHOR
Introduction
Utility tokens are a fairly new and innovative asset class. In difference to stocks, where the value highly depends on the performance of the company invested in, the utility token gains value depending on its usage. Whether it is just used as the fuel of a platform or has several use cases across different platforms and products, the price should highly correlate with its number of users. However, in the past we have mostly seen the downside of the utility token in the cryptocurrency market, with major price declines due to no usage and no adoption. With not many successful utility tokens in the market, it is difficult to estimate the potential market cap of utility tokens with adoption. However, outside of the cryptocurrency market, the gaming industry has successfully integrated virtual currencies into their products in recent years, giving us a glimpse of how successful utility tokens could be. In this article, I will take a look at two successful in-game currencies to see, how their financial data ranks among other cryptocurrencies.

Virtual Currencies in Games
Virtual currencies in games are a relatively new mechanism and have been introduced as part of the “Freemium” model. Freemium is a business model where users can play the basic features of a game for free but advanced features or the purchase of in-game items requires payments. After some Freemium titles revealed the potential revenue generated with virtual currencies, major video game publishers also started to integrate virtual currencies into their products. While in some games purchasable items can just be used to change the appearance of an avatar, in-game currencies have seen tremendous interest in games, where the purchasable items can give a gamer a competitive edge over other gamers. This is especially the case in sports games, where gamers can buy better players for their team with the help of virtual currencies.

NBA 2K
One of these sports games with a purchasable in-game currency is the NBA 2K series. Video game publisher Take-Two has introduced virtual currencies in NBA 2K13 and they have seen tremendous interest ever since. While Take-Two already called the sales of virtual currencies in NBA 2K13 “high-margin revenue”, sales of virtual currencies in the NBA 2K series grew by an incredible rate of 150% in both 2014 and 2015 and by about 70% in both 2016 and 2017. Growth in 2018 has slowed down a bit but is still at a high-flying 34%.

Unfortunately, Take-Two doesn’t disclose the total revenue generated with virtual currency sales in NBA 2K publicly, however, they have named the increases in revenue generated by the NBA 2K series in fiscal year 2017 (265.8 million USD) and 2018 (159.4 million USD). Valuing these numbers against the increases in copies sold and the percentage increase of revenue with virtual currencies enables us to estimate the increase in revenue with virtual currencies in NBA 2K for the fiscal years 2013 to 2018, which can be seen in the following graphic. Don’t take these numbers as an exact value (it is just an estimation) but they should be good enough to give us a hint of how much revenue Take-Two is generating with virtual currency sales in the NBA 2K series.1-11
NBA 2K VC(IN USD – ESTIMATED)T2'S YEARLY NET REVENUE FROM00.1B0.2B0.3B0.4B0.5B201820172015201620142013
EA’s Ultimate Team Mode
Aside from the NBA 2K series, the sports gaming sector is dominated by EA with yearly releases in the FIFA series, Madden NFL series, NHL series and NBA Live series. All of these games have an integrated “Ultimate Team” mode, where gamers can collect players and build a team to compete against each other online. Players can be obtained with coins or points, whereby coins can be gained with in-game success and points can be bought with fiat money. Points enable gamers to buy item packs with different players included in them, which might be better than the players already included in the gamers’ team but might also be a lot worse.

These in-game buys with fiat money are an extremely successful revenue source for Electronic Arts and accounted for 21 percent of EA’s net revenue in fiscal year 2018, which roughly equals 1.1 billion USD. In-game purchases in Ultimate Team are growing at a tremendous rate – in fiscal year 2017 its net revenue was at around 775 million, while it was at around 660 million in fiscal year 2016. Unfortunately, EA doesn’t disclose percentages or totals of their Ultimate Team revenue per game, so we just have to regard it as a total per all Ultimate Team modes.12-15
ULTIMATE TEAM(IN USD)EA'S YEARLY NET REVENUE FROM00.2B0.4B0.6B0.8B1.0B1.2B2018201720162015
Rank among other Cryptos
So, how would these in-game currencies rank among other cryptocurrencies regarding financial data? They are different from most cryptocurrencies, since those mainly have a fixed supply and an increase in demand results in an increase in price. However, an increase in demand for these in-game currencies just leads to an increase in tokens sold, NBA 2K’s VC or EA’s Ultimate Team points don’t have a max supply and therefore stay at the same fixed price (unless they issue a discount). It makes them easier to compare to ICOs than to the market cap of cryptocurrencies, because with ICOs we usually look at amount of money raised (which is the actual amount of money put into this ICO) while the market cap just multiplies the current price of a cryptocurrency with its circulating supply (e.g. 10 million invested in a coin might result in a 100 million increase in market cap).

Rank among other Cryptos – ICOs
Positioning these two in-game currencies in a ranking of money raised by ICOs shows their huge success. EA’s net revenue with the sale of virtual currencies in their Ultimate Team mode from fiscal year 2015 to 2018 is at around 3.1 billion USD and might even surpass 4 billion once fiscal year 2019 is completed on March 31, 2019. The estimated net revenue generated by Take-Two with the sale of virtual currencies in the NBA 2K series from fiscal year 2013 – 2018 is at around 1.2 billion USD. There are only two ICOs that raised comparable numbers with the EOS ICO (4 billion USD raised) and the Telegram ICO (1.7 billion USD raised). Adding to that, these ICOs are huge outliers concerning amount of money raised, no other ICO has raised even close to a billion U.S. Dollars and only a small number out of thousands of ICOs has raised over 100 million USD.16
RANKINGIN-GAME CURRENCIES AND ICOSESTIMATED NET REVENUE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2013 – 20181.2 BILLION USDNBA 2K VCAMOUNT OF MONEY RAISED IN THEIR ICO1.7 BILLION USDTELEGRAMNET REVENUE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2015 – 20183.1 BILLION USDEA'S ULTIMATE TEAMAMOUNT OF MONEY RAISED IN THEIR ICO4.1 BILLION USDEOS
Rank among other Cryptos – Market Cap
This net revenue generated in both sports game series by sales of their respective virtual currencies could be viewed as their market cap in the current form the tokens are sold. Every sold token moves from the infinite total supply to the circulating supply with every token having a fixed price. Ranking these market caps in CoinMarketCap’s top 100 ranking places both in-game currencies among the top cryptocurrencies. With a market cap of 3.1 billion USD, EA’s Ultimate Team is ranked below EOS and above Bitcoin Cash on place 6. NBA 2K’s VC would be placed on position 13 with a market cap of 1.2 billion USD below Cardano and above Bitcoin SV.
RANKINGVC, UT AND COINS – MARKET CAPMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)0.9 BILLION USDMONEROMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)1.2 BILLION USDBITCOIN SVESTIMATED NET REVENUE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2013 – 20181.2 BILLION USDNBA 2K VCMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)1.2 BILLION USDCARDANOMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)1.5 BILLION USDTRONMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)2.0 BILLION USDSTELLARMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)2.0 BILLION USDTETHERMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)2.1 BILLION USDBINANCE COINMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)2.3 BILLION USDBITCOIN CASHNET REVENUE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2015 – 20183.1 BILLION USDEA'S ULTIMATE TEAMMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)3.3 BILLION USDEOSMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)3.5 BILLION USDLITECOINMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)12.9 BILLION USDXRPMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)14.1 BILLION USDETHEREUMMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)68.8 BILLION USDBITCOIN
Market Cap vs. Money invested
Nonetheless, with the market cap just being an indicator of how much an investor would pay for a purchase of the total supply at the current price, it does not represent how much money went into or out of a particular asset. For example, with just a 24-hour volume of 26.4 billion USD, the overall market cap of cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap fell from 395 billion USD to 330 billion USD on February 6, 2018, which is a market cap decline of 2.64 times the volume the coins were traded at. So, the question is how much does the market cap of a cryptocurrency increase, if it has a fixed circulating supply and a certain amount of money is invested in it?

According to an estimation by Thomas Lee, the overall cryptocurrency market cap increases by 25 billion, every time 1 billion USD goes into the crypto market.17 That estimation might have its origin in the bull market and honestly, I think 25 times as a figure is quite high but I generally agree that a billion invested in the crypto market leads to a multi-billion increase in market cap, due to thin orderbooks and a lack of liquidity for large buy orders as we have seen in 2017. Vice versa, a billion cashed out of the market leads to a multi-billion decrease in market cap, which we witnessed in 2018. Let’s go with a more conservative approach than Thomas Lee and say, that the cryptocurrency market cap increases by 5-10 billion for every billion invested in it. The following graphic shows the hypothetical market cap of the two in-game currencies under the consideration of a multi-billion dollar market cap increase for every billion invested in the asset:
RANKINGHYPOTHETICAL MARKET CAPHYPOTHETICAL MARKET CAP = 25x NET REVENUEHYPOTHETICAL MARKET CAP = 10x NET REVENUEHYPOTHETICAL MARKET CAP = 5x NET REVENUENET REVENUE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2015 – 201877.5 BILLION USD31.0 BILLION USD15.5 BILLION USD3.1 BILLION USDEA'S ULTIMATE TEAMHYPOTHETICAL MARKET CAP = 25x NET REVENUEHYPOTHETICAL MARKET CAP = 10x NET REVENUEHYPOTHETICAL MARKET CAP = 5x NET REVENUEESTIMATED NET REVENUE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2013 – 201830.5 BILLION USD12.2 BILLION USD6.1 BILLION USD1.2 BILLION USDNBA 2K VCMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)12.9 BILLION USDXRPMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)14.1 BILLION USDETHEREUMMARKET CAP ON 12.03.2019 (ACCORDING TO CMC)68.8 BILLION USDBITCOIN
Conclusion
Due to the fixed price of Ultimate Team points or the VC sold in the NBA 2K series, we know how much money was invested in these during the last couple of years. Take-Two had an estimated net revenue from selling virtual currencies in the NBA 2K series of around 1.2 billion USD in the last 6 years, with an estimated 470 million from fiscal year 2018 alone. However, they did all that with just 9 million copies sold of NBA 2K18 in fiscal year 2018. While this is certainly a high number for a sports game, think about the potential we are talking here.

Let’s say an application can create the same demand than the NBA 2K series for their virtual currency but has 90 million users instead of 9 million users. Then we are not talking about 470 million USD put into the token in one year but rather 4.7 billion USD. Connecting that to the fact that one billion USD invested leads to a multi-billion USD increase in market cap, shows us the potential of a very successful utility token. Let’s say it leads to 5 times the market cap, then we are looking at a 23.5 billion USD market cap for that 90 million user application, which is currently around 2x the market cap of Ethereum or XRP. Let’s say it leads to 10 times the market cap (47 billion USD) or Tom Lee’s suggested 25 times increase, then we are looking at a 117.5 billion USD market cap for the application, which is around 50 billion higher than Bitcoin’s current market cap and underlines the huge potential of highly demanded utility tokens.

Wrap-up
While utility tokens are an innovative new financial asset, the cryptocurrency market has seen its majority of utility tokens stay without many use cases or users, resulting in heavy price declines of these tokens. On the contrary, the gaming sector has successfully integrated virtual currencies into video games. Especially the sports gaming sector has created a huge demand for their tokens by providing gamers with better players in exchange for purchasable in-game currencies. The NBA 2K series or EA’s Ultimate Team mode are perfect examples for this success with the generation of multiple billion USD in net revenue by selling their virtual currencies. If a cryptocurrency reaches a comparable or even higher demand than these games, it would certainly be placed among the top cryptocurrencies and could reach a market cap higher than Ethereum’s or XRP’s current market cap, with even a chance to surpass Bitcoin’s current market cap.



Articles, that may interest you:

Sources
1
A big thank you to “Thinking Gamers”, who made a terrific job of collecting information about the numbers behind virtual currency in NBA2K and gave me a ton of input for the NBA 2K section of this article.
Thinking Gamers; Medium; Financial Slam Dunk: The Numbers Behind Virtual Currency in NBA2K; 18.10.2017
2
“Delivered the top-ranked and top-selling basketball video game for the 11th year in a row with the release of NBA 2K12. The title received the highest Metacritic score in the history of 2K Sports and, for the second consecutive year, sold-in over 5 million units and led 2K Sports to achieve profitability.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2012; 2012
3
“Delivered the top-ranked and top-selling basketball video game for the 12th year in a row with NBA 2K13. The title won more than 38 editorial honors and quickly became the most profitable sports release in the history of 2K. This was the third consecutive release of our annual basketball series to sell-in over 5 million units.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2013; 2013
4
“In addition to DLC, we are also now receiving high-margin revenue from in-game purchases of virtual goods, both in front-line titles such as NBA 2K13, and in mobile and online titles, many of which are free-to-play.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2013; 2013
5
“Delivered the highest-rated and top-selling basketball video game for the 13th consecutive year with NBA 2K14. The title was our first for next-gen and has surpassed NBA 2K13 as our highest-selling sports release, with sell-in of more than 6.5 million units to date. The success of NBA 2K14 was enhanced by strong demand for the game’s virtual currency, sales of which increased 150% versus NBA 2K13.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2014; 2014
6
“Once again delivered the highest-rated and top-selling basketball video game with NBA 2K15. The title has sold-in over 7 million units to date, and overall revenue is up substantially versus the comparable period for NBA 2K14, driven by both higher sales and growth in recurrent consumer spending. During fiscal 2015, virtual currency sales grew 150% year-over-year, benefitting from increased online gameplay for NBA 2K15 and significant engagement with the MYNBA 2K15 companion app.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2015; 2015
7
“We released NBA 2K16, which remains the highest-rated and top-selling NBA simulation. The title outperformed our expectations and is poised to become our highest-selling sports game ever, with sell-in to date of nearly 7.5 million units – up double-digits versus the same period for the prior release. NBA 2K has benefited from strong player engagement, and sales of the game’s virtual currency were the largest contributor to recurrent consumer spending after Grand Theft Auto Online. During fiscal 2016, recurrent consumer spending on NBA 2K grew 64% year-over-year, driven both by online play and the MyNBA2K companion app.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2016; 2016
8
“We released NBA 2K17, which remains the highest-rated sports game of the current console generation, and is poised to become our highest-selling sports title ever with sell-in to date of nearly 8 million units. Engagement with and recurrent consumer spending on our industry-leading basketball series continues to grow, with over 2 billion games of NBA 2K17 played on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, up 16% over NBA 2K16. More than 1.3 billion of these games were multiplayer – a 40% increase. In addition, the average time that consumers spent playing multiplayer games increased by nearly 30%. This remarkably strong engagement helped to drive record Bookings from recurrent consumer spending on NBA 2K, which grew 71% during fiscal 2017.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2017; 2017
9
“For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, net revenue increased by $366.1 million, as compared to the prior year. This increase was due primarily to (1) an increase of $265.8 million in revenues from our NBA 2K franchise;”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2017; 2017
10
“We released NBA 2K18, which is now our highest-selling sports title ever with sell-in to date of over 9 million units – up 17% over last year’s release. In addition, our NBA 2K series continues to benefit from growing engagement and recurrent consumer spending. During fiscal 2018, average revenue per user, revenue per hour and unique multiplayer users all increased double-digits, and recurrent consumer spending on NBA 2K grew 34% to a new record.”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2018; 2018
11
“For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, net revenue increased by $13.1 million, as compared to the prior year. This increase was due primarily to an increase of $159.4 million in revenues from our NBA 2K franchise,”
Take-Two Interactive Software, inc.; Official Website; Annual Report 2018; 2018
12
“Our most popular live service is the Ultimate Team mode associated with our sports franchises. Ultimate Team allows players to collect and trade current and former professional players in order to build, and compete as, a personalized team. Net revenue from Ultimate Team represented approximately 21 percent, 16 percent and 15 percent of our total net revenue during fiscal year 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively, a substantial portion of which was derived from FIFA Ultimate Team.”
Electronic Arts Inc.; Fiscal Year 2018 – Annual Report; Our Games and Services; 2018
13
“In fiscal year 2015, net revenue from our Ultimate Team services, Battlefield 4 and FIFA 15 represented approximately 13 percent, 11 percent and 11 percent, respectively, of our total net revenue.”
Electronic Arts Inc.; Fiscal Year 2017 – Annual Report; Our Games and Services; 2018
14
“Our largest and most popular game is FIFA, the annualized version of which is consistently one of the best-selling games in the marketplace. Net revenue from FIFA 18, FIFA 17, and FIFA 16 represented approximately 11 percent of our total net revenue in fiscal years 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.”
Electronic Arts Inc.; Fiscal Year 2018 – Annual Report; Our Games and Services; 2018
15
“Electronic Arts Inc. and Subsidiaries – Year Ended March 31 – Net revenue: 5.15 billion in Fiscal Year 2018, 4.845 billion in Fiscal Year 2017, 4,396 billion in Fiscal Year 2016, 4,515 billion in Fiscal Year 2015, 3,575 billion in Fiscal Year 2014,”
Electronic Arts Inc.; Fiscal Year 2018 – Annual Report; Selected Five-Year Consolidated Financial Data; 2018
16
“EOS – Funds raised: $4.2b; Telegram – Funds raised: $1.7b; Petro – Funds raised: $735m; TaTaTu – Funds raised: $575m; Dragon – Funds raised: $420m; Hdac – Funds raised: $258m; Filecoin – Funds raised: $257m; Tezos – Funds raised: $232m; Paragon – Funds raised: $183m; Sirin Labs – Funds raised: $158m”
Bloomberg; Official Website; How’s That ICO Working Out?; 14.12.2018
17
“For every billion Dollars, that goes into crypto, it is turning into roughly 25 billion dollars of price appreciation. If Millenials put 10 percent of their savings flow – a 100 billion – into crypto, that’s a 2.5 trillion dollar rise per year and crypto is roughly a 500 trillion dollar market cap.”
Thomas Lee; YouTube; Thomas Lee Presents The Economics of Cryptocurrencies | Upfront Summit 2018; 21.02.2018