Chain Analysis Chain Analysis
From currencies that resemble digital cash, to utility tokens that act as a fuel for blockchain ecosystems or security tokens, that represent shares in equity, the cryptocurrency market has seen several innovations since its inception. A relatively new addition to these innovations are fan tokens, which give fans the chance to interact with sports clubs, depending on which and how many tokens they are holding. These fan tokens are issued by, whose app has been live since October 2019. In this article, I will take a closer look at blockchain statistics of fan tokens as well as blockchain statistics of’s native utility token Chiliz. The data snapshot for this analysis was taken on March 1, 2020.

Chiliz Holders
Let’s start with the allocation of Socios’ utility token Chiliz among holders. Since CHZ is issued on both Ethereum and Binance Chain, we have to combine numbers of both chains to calculate the total amount of addresses holding CHZ. Currently, there are 216 addresses holding 1 million Chiliz or more, while 1,466 addresses are holding a minimum amount of 100,000 CHZ. Around six thousand addresses are holding at least 10,000 CHZ, whereas at least 1,000 CHZ are held by around seven thousand addresses.
Chiliz Transaction Growth
The number of holders (especially with smaller balances) should increase, the more utility CHZ provides. The transaction growth of CHZ on Ethereum already displays the growing utilization of Chiliz. While there were just around one thousand transactions in October 2019, the transaction numbers went up once the app went live in late October 2019. November 2019 already saw an 80% increase in transactions with 1,857 transactions compared to October. The transaction numbers then declined in December 2019 (1,492 transactions) and January 2020 (1,256 transactions). However, February 2020 saw a significant rise in transactions with a 400% increase compared to January 2020. This surge most likely happened due to several different fan token offerings going live on, that could only be purchased with CHZ.
Oct.2019Nov.2019Dec.2019Jan.2020Feb.20201,0301,8571,4921,2566,033TRANSACTIONS OF CHZ ON ETHEREUM PER MONTH:TRANSACTIONS OVER TIMECHILIZ
Fan Token Transaction Growth
Moving on to the transaction growth of fan tokens, we see a slightly different picture. In the first full month after the app release, the number of monthly fan token transactions already reached a peak of nearly 19 thousand transactions in November 2019. The following two months saw transaction numbers around the 15k mark, with 16 thousand transactions in December 2019 and 14 thousand transactions in January 2020. In February 2020, the number of fan token transactions declined to around 4 thousand transactions.

Fan tokens of seven clubs were distributed in this time span. Six football teams accounted for 96% of all fan token transactions, while one e-sports team caused 4% of all transactions. By far the biggest amount of fan token transactions were fan tokens of Juventus, they accounted for 71% of all fan token transactions. Paris Saint-Germain can be found in the second spot with 9% of all fan token transactions. The fan token transaction numbers of Galatasaray, Atlético de Madrid, AS Roma and OG are around the same mark with each accounting for 4-5% of all fan token transactions. FC Barcelona is the most recently launched fan token and although it has only been available in a few hour long token hunt so far, it has already accounted for 2% of all fan token transactions.

Obviously, the number of fan token transactions is highly dependent on the availability of different features in the Socios app. In the last four months, fan token transactions have been caused by either the token hunt or fan token offerings. The token hunt is a feature, in which users can catch fan tokens in an augmented reality setup while fan token offerings allow users to buy fan tokens in return for CHZ. Due to the nature of the token hunt, in which you can only catch one fan token at a time, it causes one transaction per each single token transfer. The fan token offering however, can distribute multiple fan tokens with one transaction. Therefore, the fan token hunt causes way more transactions than fan token offerings, which the data also displays: The fan token hunt wasn’t that often available in the Socios app during February, than it was from November till January, hence the declining transaction numbers.
Fan Token Distribution
All these fan token transactions distributed tokens to individual users. Some transactions distributed smaller amounts of just one fan token at a time to users, especially within the token hunt. Other transactions in fan token offerings distributed double-digit or even triple-digit amounts of fan tokens with just one transaction. Looking at the cumulative number of distributed fan tokens over time, we can see that already 54 thousand fan tokens were distributed by the end of November 2019. That number went up to 101 thousand fan tokens by the end of December 2019. At the end of January 2020, a total number of 124 thousand fan tokens were distributed, which increased to a number of 152 thousand fan tokens by the end of February 2020.

Similar to fan token transactions, Juventus is also in the lead when it comes to the share of overall distributed fan tokens per club. 73% of all fan tokens distributed until the end of February are fan tokens of Juventus. In the second spot, we can find Paris Saint-Germain with 11% of all fan tokens. Galatasaray is ranked third with 9% of all fan tokens. The remaining four clubs account for 7% of all fan tokens, with Atlético de Madrid accounting for 3%, AS Roma for 2% and OG and FC Barcelona for 1% each.

These numbers offer interesting insights. When we analyze the monthly numbers of distributed fan tokens, we can see that around 50 thousand fan tokens were distributed in each November and December 2019, while growth slowed down a bit in January and February 2020, with around 25 thousand fan tokens distributed per month. These numbers might be a bit surprising, since the fan token of Juventus was the only fan token available in 2019, while several other fan tokens were launched in the first two months of 2020, but it simply shows that the Juventus fan token has been the highest demanded fan token thus far.

Looking at other fan tokens, we can see clear discrepancies between tokens that have been only distributed via the token hunt versus tokens that also had a successful fan token offering. The fan tokens of Galatasaray accounted for just 5% of all fan token transactions, although they represent 9% of all distributed fan tokens. It outlines, that Galatasaray had the highest rate of distributed fan tokens per transaction with 4.5. The fan tokens of OG or FC Barcelona, that have been only distributed via the token hunt so far, have a ratio of one distributed fan token per transaction.
In this article, we discussed transaction and distribution numbers of’s utility token CHZ alongside their issued fan tokens. Currently, there are around six thousand addresses holding ten thousand CHZ or more. The monthly transaction numbers for CHZ on Ethereum went up 400% in February as soon as more fan token offerings were available in the Socios app. With the token hunt not being available so frequently in 2020 than in 2019, the growth of fan token transactions has slowed down over the last months. The number of overall distributed fan tokens has been growing with around 50 thousand fan tokens distributed in each November and December 2019 and 25 thousand distributed fan tokens in each January and February 2020. Considering numbers per club, the fan tokens of Juventus have been the highest demanded thus far with a share of 73% of all distributed fan tokens. All in all, it is really interesting to see the growth of the Socios ecosystem and it will be exciting to watch, how the numbers discussed in this article will develop over the upcoming months.

Articles, that may interest you:

Bitcoin Statistics

Bitcoin Statistics
Bitcoin’s infamous block 1 was mined on January 9, 2009. The network has been live ever since and has produced 618,657 blocks up to this point. It is the longest running blockchain and therefore, I have taken a look at it from a statistical standpoint in this article to conclude, how its key metrics have developed over time.

Transaction Growth
Let’s start with the transaction growth.1 In 2009, there were 32,716 Bitcoin transactions. That number went up by 566% in 2010, with then 185 thousand transactions. 2011 was the first year that saw over 1 million Bitcoin transactions with 1.91 million transactions. The transaction growth continued in 2012, with 8.44 million yearly transactions. The growth rate slowed down a bit from 2013 on, but was still with 19.7 million transaction 2.3 times higher than the year before.

Even in the bear market of 2014, the number of Bitcoin transactions continued to grow – the year saw 25.3 million transactions. Transaction growth accelerated again in 2015, which had with 45.7 million transactions 1.8 times as many as 2014. In 2016, transaction numbers went up to 82.6 million, while Bitcoin broke the mark of 100 million yearly transactions in 2017 with 104.1 million transactions. The bear market of 2018 led for the first time in Bitcoin’s history to a lower number of transactions compared to the year before with “only” 81.4 million transactions. However, 2019 saw a new all-time high for transactions with 119.8 million yearly Bitcoin transactions.

A closer look at the transaction numbers per half-year over time offers additional insights. We can see, that the transaction numbers varied quite a lot between different years, but didn’t change that much if you look at the difference between the first and the second half of a year. The highest transaction number per half-year has happened in the first half of 2019 with 60.9 million transactions, followed by 58.8 million transactions in the second half of 2019. The first half of 2018 saw the lowest number of Bitcoin transactions in the last four years with just 37.6 million transactions. The following chart visualizes the transaction numbers:
2H20161H20172H20171H20182H20181H20192H201944.252.251.837.643.858.860.9MILLION TRANSACTIONS PER 6 MONTHS OVER TIME:20090.03M20100.2M20111.9M20128.4M201319.7M201425.3M201545.7M201682.6M2017104.1M201881.4M2019119.8MTRANSACTIONS OVER TIMEBITCOIN
Daily Active Addresses
The daily active Bitcoin addresses offer similar insights than the transaction numbers.2 The average value of the number of daily active Bitcoin addresses has been increasing every single year from 2009 to 2017. While there was just an average of 92 daily active addresses in 2009 and 382 in 2010, the number exploded in 2011 with 10,276 average daily active addresses. Growth continued in the following years, with an average of 23k daily active addresses in 2012, 68k in 2013 and 154k in 2014. In 2015, the average number of daily active addresses reached the mark of a quarter million for the first time and rose even higher to 408k addresses in 2016. In 2017, the average number of daily active addresses peaked at 565k but wasn’t that far off from the top in the following years, with 468k addresses in 2018 and 529k in 2019.
Dormant Bitcoin
However, not only did the number of daily active addresses rise over the past decade, but also the number of dormant Bitcoin.3 Bitcoin are generally perceived as dormant, if they haven’t been moved for a certain time span. The number of Bitcoin, that have been dormant for the longest time span are 1.15 million. Those 1.15 million Bitcoin haven’t been moved for 10 years and are presumably coins that are owned by Satoshi. It is not only Satoshi’s coins haven’t been moved for a longer time span, though. A total of 1.9 million Bitcoin have been dormant for 9 years while 2.4 million Bitcoin haven’t been moved for 8 years.

Those Bitcoin are generally perceived as “lost”. It has been a widely adopted assumption that the owner of an address lost access to the private key, if they haven’t moved the coins for such a long time while Bitcoin’s price went up over 1000x. The number of 4 million Bitcoin, that have been perceived as lost4 is equal to the number of Bitcoin, that haven’t been moved for the last five years (3.96 million). Adding to that, around 28% of all Bitcoin currently in circulation haven’t been moved for the last three years. With 8.26 million Bitcoin, around 45% of all Bitcoin currently in circulation have been dormant for two years, while 13.15 million Bitcoin haven’t been moved for the last year.
Let’s move on from the number of dormant Bitcoin to the current distribution of Bitcoin among holders.5 The number of people who own at least 1 Bitcoin have been called members of the “21 million club”, since only a maximum of 21 million people could ever own one Bitcoin. However, a look at the blockchain shows that there are currently only 703 thousand addresses holding at least 1 Bitcoin, while a total of 2.7 million addresses are currently holding 0.1 Bitcoin and a total of 7.6 million addresses are currently holding 0.01 Bitcoin.

If there are less than a million addresses holding at least one Bitcoin, there need to be other addresses holding a balance of way more than 1 Bitcoin. Currently, there are 144 thousand addresses holding at least 10 Bitcoin and 14.5 thousand addresses holding at least 100 Bitcoin. Some of the biggest Bitcoin wallets belong to cryptocurrency exchanges. Huobi’s cold wallet is currently the biggest Bitcoin address with 256 thousand Bitcoin, followed by Bitfinex’ cold wallet with 177 thousand Bitcoin. Overall, cryptocurrency exchanges could currently store up to 2.5 million Bitcoin.6
In this article, we looked at Bitcoin’s blockchain statistics. Both transaction numbers and the average number of daily active addresses have been increasing in each of Bitcoin’s first 8 years. The yearly number of transactions had its peak in 2019, while the average number of daily active addresses peaked in 2017. Around 4 million Bitcoin haven’t been moved for the last five years, while 1 million Bitcoin have been dormant for the last decade. Currently, there are 702 thousand addresses which own at least 1 Bitcoin, whereas some of the largest Bitcoin addresses are considered to be owned by cryptocurrency exchanges.

Articles, that may interest you:

Information about Bitcoin transactions was taken from You can find the chart on under “data” -> “charts” -> “Total Number of Transactions”.; Total Number of Transactions; 10.02.2020
Information about daily active Bitcoin addresses was taken from You can find the chart on under “data” -> “charts” -> “Unique Addresses”.; Total Number of Transactions; 17.02.2020
Data about the cumulative sum of dormant Bitcoin can be found on You can find the chart under “Bitcoin” -> “Dormant” -> “Cumulative sum in dormant Bitcoin addresses”.; Dormant Bitcoin; 22.02.2020
“According to new research from Chainalysis, a digital forensics firm that studies the bitcoin blockchain, 3.79 million bitcoins are already gone for good based on a high estimate—and 2.78 million based on a low one.”.
Fortune; Exclusive: Nearly 4 Million Bitcoins Lost Forever, New Study Says; 25.11.2017
Data about Bitcoin holders can be found on You can find the chart under “Stats” -> “Address Rich List”.; Address Rich List; 10.02.2020
The website (mostly in Chinese) offers permanently updated data on the amount of Bitcoin held by exchanges. According to them, the biggest crypto exchanges could hold up to 2.5 million Bitcoin.; Rich List; 22.02.2020

Ethereum Statistics

Ethereum Statistics
With a total of over 600 million transactions and 85 million unique addresses, Ethereum is arguably the biggest blockchain currently in existence. The blockchain achieved all these numbers in just 4.5 years – Ethereum’s first block was mined on July 31, 2015. In this article, I will take a look at several statistics of the Ethereum blockchain and outline, how they developed over time. The sources for the underlying data were taken from Etherscan and Ethplorer.

Transaction Growth
The first aspect to look at is transaction growth. Ethereum started out with around 1 million transactions in the second half of 2015. This number rose to 5.5 million transactions in the first half of 2016 and 8.1 million transactions in the second half of 2016. The growth accelerated in 2017, with 19.3 million transactions in the first half of 2017 and 83.7 million transactions in the second half of 2017. The transaction number per half-year peaked in the first half of 2018 with 144.5 million transactions. Since then, the transaction numbers per half-year have stayed above the mark of 100 million transactions with 106.7 million in the second half of 2018, 117.9 million in the first half of 2019 and 125 million transactions in the second half of 2019.

19.3% of those transactions can be attributed to different entities. At least 12.5% of all transactions have been caused by centralized exchanges, although it has to be noted that this number only includes transactions of main exchange addresses and not transfers to individual users’ deposit addresses. The total number of transactions caused by centralized exchanges is therefore likely higher than 12.5%. The number of transactions caused by decentralized exchanges is with 4.3% of all transactions on Ethereum lower than the number of transactions caused by centralized exchanges. However, both decentralized exchanges Etherdelta and IDEX have each caused more transactions than the main exchange addresses of any other centralized exchange, except Binance. Looking at other areas than crypto exchanges, 1.7% of all transactions can be attributed to gaming dapps while 0.8% can be matched to gambling dapps.
Address Growth
Alongside transaction growth, it is also interesting to see the numbers of new addresses created over time on the Ethereum blockchain. An address is perceived as ‘new’ on the day it received funds for the first time. The blockchain started with 40 thousand transactions in 2015, the number then went up to 948 thousand unique addresses at the end of 2016. Again, growth accelerated in 2017, with 2.89 million new addresses in the first half of the year and 14.62 million new addresses in the second half. The number of new addresses created in a half-year period peaked in the first half of 2018, with 21.75 million new transactions. Since then, the total number of new addresses has been stable, with around 14.5 million transactions per half-year, which is also the same level we saw in the first half of 2017:
2015/20161H20172H20171H20182H20181H20192H20190.92.914.621.814.014.914.8NEW ADDRESSES (IN MILLIONS) PER HALF-YEAR OVER TIME:NEW ADDRESSES OVER TIMEETHEREUM
Let’s take a closer look at the assets on Ethereum. 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 a better metric 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.

In a ranking of ERC-20 tokens by addresses holding at least an amount of 100 USD worth of that asset, Tether (USDT) is ranked in the first spot. It has by far the most addresses holding a balance worth 100 USD with 186 thousand addresses. On the second spot, we can find Chainlink (LINK), which has 50k addresses holding 100 USD or more. The utility token of the Brave browser, Basic Attention Token (BAT) is ranked third with 44k addresses. On spot number 4 and 5 we can find OMG (38k addresses) and ZRX (28k addresses).

From the sixth spot on, the ranking becomes more compact, since the difference between addresses per tokens is not as huge, as we have seen with the first five tokens. Enjin is placed sixth with a total of 15k addresses holding ENJ worth 100 USD or more. On spot number seven, we can find HOT with 12k addresses, while spots number 8 and 9 go to NEXO (12k addresses) and GNT (11k addresses). NPXS is ranked tenth and is also the only remaining token with over 10k addresses holding an amount of 100 USD or more.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a complete rich list for Ethereum’s native coin Ether, since Ethplorer only provides rich lists for Ethereum tokens. The most detailed rich list of Ether holders was provided by Etherscan, however, they only listed the top 10,000 addresses, which all hold more than 750 ETH. Nevertheless, we can gather from that list that 1,211 addresses hold at least 10,000 ETH and 8,132 addresses hold at least 1,000 ETH.
In this article, we looked at blockchain statistics of Ethereum. Since its launch in mid-2015, both the network’s transaction and address growth have peaked in the first half of 2018. For the last 1.5 years, transactions have been over the mark of 100 million per half-year, while the amount of new addresses created per half-year has been at around 14.5 million. Looking at holders per asset, there are currently 10,000 addresses holding 750 ETH or more. A ranking of holders per asset with a balance of at least 100 USD, Tether (USDT) is ranked in the first spot, followed by Chainlink (LINK) and Basic Attention Token (BAT).

Articles, that may interest you:

NEO Chain Statistics

NEO Chain Statistics
The NEO blockchain has been live since the 4th quarter of 2016, when its first block was issued on October 16. Since then, the blockchain has not only hosted its own cryptocurrency NEO alongside its parallel currency GAS but has also become the home for several NEP-5 tokens, that were issued on the same blockchain. In this article, I want to look at statistics of the NEO blockchain and see, how various metrics have developed over time. As sources, I used the blockchain explorer of NewEconoLabs and the aggregated statistics websites Neodepot and NeoEconomy.

Transaction Growth
Let’s start with the transaction growth. Even though NEO went live in in mid-October 2016, there were already 345 thousand transactions in those last two and a half months of 2016. The number increased to a total of 5.792 million transactions in 2017, with 86% of those transactions coming in the second half of 2017. The first half of 2018 marks NEO’s peak for transactions per half-year: 9.857 million transactions were executed in the first six months of 2018. The second half of 2018 saw 7.764 million transactions, leading to a total of 17.622 million transactions in 2018. The total number of transactions in 2019 was at 8.479 million, with 56% of the transactions coming in the second half of 2019.

As can be expected, deposits and withdrawals from exchanges are causing many of those transactions. Interactions with the main exchange addresses of Binance, Bitfinex, Bittrex,, Kucoin and Switcheo have caused a total of 2.72 million transactions up to this point. Furthermore, I would expect Huobi to have caused at least 300k transactions as well – However, they split their NEO holdings over 30+ addresses (potentially even more), which makes it impossible to conclude their total transaction number. Adding to that, the transactions caused by main exchange addresses do not include user deposits to their individual exchange deposit addresses. Therefore, the total number of transactions caused by exchange deposits and withdrawals could very well be around 5 million, which would currently equal 15% of all transactions on the NEO blockchain. The following graphic summarizes these transaction statistics:
Address Growth
Alongside transaction growth, it is also interesting to see the numbers of new addresses created over time on the NEO blockchain. An address is perceived as ‘new’ on the day it received funds for the first time. In 2016, just 5,179 addresses received funds on the NEO blockchain. The number of newly issued addresses went up to 14,203 in the first half of 2017 before address growth really accelerated in the second half of 2017 to 457,115 new addresses. The number of newly issued addresses then saw a peak in the first half of 2018 with 807,059 addresses. The number has been decreasing ever since with 354,893 new addresses in the second half of 2018, 117,079 new addresses in the first half of 2019 and 87,386 new addresses in the second half of 2019. However, the number of new addresses created in the second half of 2019 is still six times higher than the number of new addresses created in the first half of 2017.
2H20161H20172H20171H20182H20181H20192H20195.214.2457.1807.1354.987.4117.1NEW ADDRESSES (IN THOUSANDS) PER HALF-YEAR OVER TIME:NEW ADDRESSES OVER TIMENEO
Holders of NEO and GAS
Let’s move on to the number of addresses holding the two most popular assets on the NEO blockchain. Currently, there are 180,040 addresses holding at least 1 NEO while 102,439 addresses are holding at least 1 GAS. A balance of at least 100 NEO is currently held by 29,273 addresses, while a balance of at least 100 GAS is currently held by 6,401 addresses. See the following graphic for more details:
Holders per NEP-5-Tokens
NEO and GAS are not the only assets issued on NEO’s blockchain. In fact, I found 36 NEP-5 tokens that are traded on crypto exchanges. In an analysis of holders with a balance of over 100 USD per asset, NEX is ranked in the first spot with 8,132 addresses. The ranks 2 – 4 belong to WWB, SWTH and TKY with around 1,800 addresses each. DBC is placed on spot 5 with 1,217 addresses, while CPX and QLC are ranked 6th and 7th with around 900 addresses each. SOUL and TNC are ranked on spot 8 and 9 with around 550 addresses. The other 27 NEP-5 tokens in the data sample have less than 400 addresses holding an amount of over 100 USD per asset.
This article discussed various statistics of NEO’s blockchain. With block 1 issued in October 2016, both the number of transactions and the number of newly created addresses have seen a peak in the first half of 2018. Looking at holders per asset, there are currently 180 thousand addresses holding at least 1 NEO. Of 36 publicly traded NEP-5 tokens, five have over 1,000 addresses holding an amount of over 100 USD of that particular asset.

Articles, that may interest you:

Skycoin – Chain Analysis

Chain Analysis of Skycoin
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:
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:
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
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.

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.

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.

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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.

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
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:
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:
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:
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, or Kucoin). See the ranking below:
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:
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.

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
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.

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:
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

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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
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
“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
“Now we are testing ICO on third party website.”
skycoin; Bitcointalk; [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement; 25.12.2016
“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
“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
“-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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“Miner rebates were at 650”
therealssj; Telegram; Skycoin main channel; 23.07.2018
“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
“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
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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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