In this article, we'll look at which blockchain has the best deposit rates on AAVE V3. Let's look at the best tokens to deposit, as well as look at the history of DAI deposits.

How lending works on Aave

Traditionally, to get a loan, you'd need to go to a bank or other financial institution with lots of liquid cash. The bank will ask for collateral—in the case of a car loan, that would be the car title itself—in exchange for the loan. You then pay the principal to the bank every month, plus interest.

DeFi is different. There is no bank. Instead, smart contracts (which are computer codes that automate transactions, such as selling if a token price reaches a certain threshold) do the heavy lifting. DeFi removes the middlemen from asset-trading, futures contracts, and savings accounts.

Here's how that works: Users deposit digital assets into "liquidity pools." These become funds that the protocol can then lend out. Anyone who deposits their tokens into a pool and thereby "provides liquidity," receives new aTokens. (The "a" is for "Aave.") So, if you deposit DAI to the liquidity pool, you'll receive aDAI in return.

As an aToken holder, you'll get a cut of the platform's flash loans as well as interest on those aTokens. If you're depositing tokens to a pool that already has a lot of surplus liquidity, you won't earn much. But if you're depositing tokens the protocol is in desperate need of, you'll make more.

In March 2022, Aave launched v3 of the protocol, which includes a feature called Portal. Portal allows Aave to operate seamlessly across all blockchains. That means using Aave, you can now participate in lending or borrowing protocols on chains like Solana or Avalanche.

We will use tables from Dune Analytics for this analysis. Let's take several blockchains for analysis:

• Ethereum (V2)

• Polygon (V3)

• Optimism (V3)

I. Market liquidity.

In this section, we present a liquidity and interest rate analysis for the Aave deposit markets. The total amount of blocked leverage for the largest Aave V2 and V3 markets is shown in the chart below.

https://dune.com/embeds/195391/367107/5a0c0296-5401-4e99-a7c7-7468fe820045?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/585043/1093295/13169d32-7769-4509-9bb6-08b114f6cf82display=iframe

Let's look at specific tokens and take AAVE V3 on Polygon as an example

https://dune.com/embeds/675741/1253929/889b9128-9539-4003-930d-998be8344c76?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/675741/1253693/665172b8-0d19-418a-a698-2e5c43e2953fdisplay=iframe

You can see that ETH and USDC account for most of the funds in AAVE V3. If we look at AAVE V2 - the situation is similar (historical chart below). So we will focus on these markets for an in-depth analysis. It is clear from Figure 1 that these three markets are very similar in terms of average deposit levels and utilization rates, especially for USDC and ETH.

https://dune.com/embeds/196617/367128/8dcff414-ef26-4dce-84dd-7e5d41ed4a17?display=iframe

The available liquidity for loanable funds for anasset is given by the difference between the total supply and totalborrows in the respective market. High liquidity allows actors toborrow funds at lower rates, while guaranteeing suppliers of fundsthat funds can be withdrawn at any point in time.

Periods of low liquidity have several implications for market participants. On one side, high utilization implies lucrative interest rates for suppliers of funds, there by attracting new liquidity. On the other hand, suppliers are faced with the risk of being unable to redeem their funds, for example, in the case of a ‘bank run’.

II. Case: DAI on AAVE V2 and V3

In the context of liquidity, we present a case study of the interest rate behavior of the DAI market on AAVE, focusing on the 90-day period to date and its interest token aDAI. The figure below shows that this market has been exposed to various levels of utilization during its existence, experiencing periods of relatively high liquidity, but also periods of illiquidity.

https://dune.com/embeds/1184728/2027820/75325c5d-9b54-48f0-be41-ed8cc31e7da4?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1184350/2027273/61de50db-df12-4bad-b601-48278f119491?display=iframe

As we can see there were two periods during this time that we will look at:

• Early 2021 to May 2021.

• August 2021 to November 2021

At the beginning of (1) of these periods, the interest rate parameters were changed to values ranging from a minimum of 1.65% to a maximum of 23%. Here we consider the behavior of supply rates, but the behavior of borrowing rates is broadly similar.

The figure below shows the market size or supply model (red line) as well as outstanding debt (blue line). Two things should be noted: (i) there seems to be a good growth of both supply and debt parameters during the first period and (ii) after April 2021 there was a sharp growth of all indicators by a factor of 10 (for example from 160M to 1.6B for the supply parameter).

https://dune.com/embeds/1184755/2027875/f0541626-19c3-4a51-9b5a-a3a7a84ef4d3?display=iframe

The second period also marked the growth of all indicators and with it the growth of interest rates on the DAI. However, this time the difference between supply and debt is significant - supply is 20% more than debt, unlike the first period where the difference was about 15%.

II. Summary

We saw that, especially for the DAI, there were several periods of illiquidity, and that they were often distributed between the two versions of the protocol (since January 2022, liquidity on V2 fell, while liquidity on V3, such as Polygon (Figure 1), rose substantially). Finally, we analyzed the behavior of DAI interest rates on AAVE and showed that in all observation periods, interest rates were clustered around liquidity growth and the difference between supply and borrowing.

III. Best deposit rates

In this section, we look at the efficiency of capital investment for the AAVE protocol. Thus:

• First, we will compare the interest rates on all versions and blockchains

• Then we will choose the best rate in terms of the rate itself, as well as the risks.

• Look at the history of this rate over time

For this we will use the website: https://aavescan.com

Figure 2 shows that the highest paying tokens are several, including AMPL, USD, SUSD and SNX. I have been following this AMPL market closely because of the strange behavior. It seems that the economics of this credit market are completely disrupted by the individual realization of the AMPL token and the corresponding debt token by the AMPL team. The realization does not relocate the debt token, leaving a very tempting opportunity for arbitrage against lenders who deposit AMPL in AAVE. The borrower can simply borrow the AMPL, watch its balance grow in positive overbalance, and repay the unreasonable debt pocketing the difference. Note that the borrower doesn't even need to sell the AMPL to benefit, so it's not even a short position. The borrower profits simply from the fact that the borrowed asset is actually accounted for as an asset other than the borrowed asset. As long as the borrower repays to negative overbase, he is guaranteed a very substantial profit at the expense of the lenders.

Therefore, I believe that we will exclude such high bets and leave only bets that start with BAL.

To provide the data for V3, let's go back to Dune analytics and do some simple queries.

https://dune.com/embeds/1184390/2027286/d20a2fb8-5798-4165-854b-7bc4fab29e1c?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1184390/2027384/da8b7023-0a08-46d6-bca0-3038ecf5afc5?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1184448/2027398/70d54f83-33f0-402b-b1bd-d82e788360f1?display=iframe

For example, let's look at Polygon: the following will be updated data, so the exact numbers may change, but the trends are likely to remain the same for the not-too-distant future. So, comparing for example the BAL rate - at the time of writing this article: Polygon has ~6% and Ethereum 40%. Capital dominance is clearly visible (29k and 14k on polygon VS 450k and 257k on Ethereum by Supply and Borrow, respectively). Comparing for example DAI, which is on all blockchains we get the following picture:

• ETH: 0.95%

• Arbitrum: 1.5%

• Avax: 1.6%

• Optimism: 3.3%

• Polygon: 0.86%

From this we can conclude that Optimism is the best blockchain for deposits and Ethereum is not the best. However, these are myths - we can go to Optimism right now and make a deposit of our DAI, will come as our friends and their friends, etc., and thus the rate will fall and can reach the same Avalance or Arbitrum. This is called deposit arbitrage.

Crypto arbitrage is when you buy an asset at one place and then sell it at another where it costs more. This is a relatively low-risk way to profit from crypto, and that’s why it’s preferred by many.

With the inception of the blockchain-based loan industry, crypto lending arbitrage opportunity has also emerged. This one refers to taking out a cryptocurrency loan at one service and then lending it at another one at a higher interest rate.

If we talk about the situation here and now, it is worth noting the CRV, which has a pretty good percentage on all platforms. And if, for example, to build a graph for the entire period of time for version 3 of AAVE, we get the following: there was a lot of volatility, but then the interest rate fixed a plateau at 2%.

https://dune.com/embeds/1184918/2028199/a91325c3-2070-4ef2-b628-d98b27863c95?display=iframe

III. Summary

Thus, we can assume that in general the markets within AAVE V2 and V3 may not currently be fully efficient - it is impossible to say exactly which token is better to deposit as well as on which blockchain, and it seems quite plausible that these results are not only true for AAVE. Overall, we find evidence of cointegration between the different markets. In turn, this suggests that to some extent, interest rate changes in one blockchain/version are related to interest rate changes in another, which perhaps in turn suggests that agents are interested in changing protocol because of the rates they observe.

IV. Conclusion

In this article we present the relevant work on interest rates in the AAVE project. We analyze the three largest blockchains in terms of market liquidity, activity and popularity.

From the point of view of market liquidity, we found that individual interest rate fluctuations often work during periods of high growth, and, moreover, often these periods of high growth are common to all versions and blockchains.

From the point of view of market efficiency, we consider whether the parity of certain interest rates is observed. In general, we believe that this is not the case, assuming that token markets are currently relatively inefficient.

V. Appendix

1. AAVE

   https://aave.com

2. AAVE scan

   https://aavescan.com

3. AAVE Mega Dashboard

   https://dune.com/KARTOD/AAVE-Mega-Dashboard

   a) Polygon

   https://dune.com/KARTOD/AAVE-Polygon

   b) Optimism

   https://dune.com/KARTOD/AAVE-V3-Optimism-Main-information

https://dune.com/KARTOD/AAVE-Mega-Dashboard

What is the AAVE Mega Dashboard?

The AAVE Mega Dashboard is a metrics reviewer that provides access to public information about borrow, deposit, repay, withdraw transactions, smart contracts, addresses, and other AAVE project data. Using Mega Dashboard as a search engine, users can find all AAVE project data in the public domain. You can also use the Mega Dashboard profile header to quickly find a topic of interest to you.

AAVE Explorers

First, you need to understand why you need to use Explorer and keep track of what's going on in the project. Summary: Obtaining data about the way you interact with a blockchain or project helps you better understand the processes involved in DApps and transactions, as well as keeping yourself safe and identifying suspicious activity.

For example, searching for whale addresses can be used to learn about the movement of large amounts of cryptocurrency. You can also track transactions made by founders within a project.

How do I find the Explorer? Deposit and Withdraw explorer as well as Borrow and Repay explorer are at the bottom of the following pages:

https://dune.com/KARTOD/AAVE-Polygon

https://dune.com/KARTOD/AAVE-V3-Optimism-Main-information

https://dune.com/embeds/1138065/1943070/a0025225-55ea-44d4-82d5-d6b6c6133845?display=iframe

The main function of the AAVE Explorer is transaction tracking. To gain access to other users' transaction data, all you need to do is learn how to track your own transactions. Imagine that you sent 50 USD (USDC) from your wallet to an AAVE deposit. After the transaction, the following HASH will be displayed in our explorer:

• \x669022d048735df35a93d994d6653ed180dec37ad0866becd112feeb6fa7eaba

To do this, enter the hash of this transaction in the search box:

Main information page

Lending protocols allow you to deposit funds and receive an annual yield in return. Besides depositing they also allow you to borrow tokens against your deposited tokens as collateral.

Aave's core business is to generate interest income from lending operations. To maximize lending revenue and profitability, there are three key levers the company can manage beyond simply raising fees: capital efficiency, attracting new customers and improving profit margins. To that end, the following features have been added to the home page:

• User growth by sector

• Market Size, Borrowed, Available and LTV on AAVE V3

• As well as explorer, which will eventually be redesigned

Deposits/Borrow/Flash loans and Liquidation

The Aave offered two types of borrowing:

• Lending - Borrowing: Collateralized infinite loans at a variable or stable rates, with no fee, only borrow interest rates.

  Lending - Borrowing mechanism:

  1. Lending: Users deposit assets into Aave and receive aToken at a ratio of 1:1 with the amount of deposited assets.

  2. Borrowing: Users deposit assets into Aave to be used as collateral.

• Flash Loans: Non-collateralized loans lasting only one blockchain transaction block, with users only paying the 0.09% fee.

In these panels, we briefly analyze deposits, borrowings, flash loans, and liquidations.

Using the data from the aave_v2/aave_v3 table of Dune Analytics, we measure the number of daily deposits (borrowings, etc.), and in all the panels you can change the number of days you want to see and also the time interval, such as day/week/month...

All these charts show both deposits (borrowings, etc.) in terms of total volume in USD, users and pure transactions, as well as we further divide these figures into different assets.

AAVE AIPs

AAVE Governance V2 enables rapid protocol upgrades via short-term lock executors and governance upgrades via long-term lock executors.

Holders of AAVE and stkAAVE can either create proposals themselves or delegate that power to another actor with V2 governance! Vote delegation is definitely a thing in V2, but one of the most innovative features is that AAVE holders can separate proposal power and voting power.

We will now look at past proposals that have been made by Aave management in the past. This panel includes a graph showing the total number of votes cast by AAVEE/stkAAVE holders for governance proposals.

What is the number of users participating in the voting process on submitted governance proposals? In another chart, we can see both the total number of wallets that voted for the proposal and the percentage of wallets that supported or rejected it.

AAVE token analysis and Financial Statements

n this panel, we will look at the many different characteristics by which the health of the AAVE token can be understood. We will also try to briefly describe some of these metrics.

Circulation supply

The term circulating supply refers to the number of cryptocurrency coins or tokens that are publicly available and circulating in the market.

The circulating supply of a cryptocurrency can increase or decrease over time. For example, the circulating supply of Bitcoin will gradually increase until the max supply of 21 million coins is reached. Such a gradual increase is related to the process of mining that generates new coins every 10 minutes, on average. Alternatively, coin burn events like the ones performed by Binance, cause a decrease in the circulating supply, permanently removing coins from the market.

Binance Academy

Total / Outstanding supply

Total supply refers to the number of coins or tokens that currently exists and are either in circulation or locked somehow. It is the sum of coins that were already mined (or issued) minus the total of coins that were burned or destroyed.

Therefore, the total supply includes both the circulating supply and the coins that are yet to hit the open market. For instance, coins that are being held under a lockup or vesting period, which typically follows a private sale or Initial Coin Offering (ICO) event.

Binance Academy

Non-Circulating Supply = Total supply - Circulating Supply

AAVE and another project

I began my analysis by finding out which projects were used most often in terms of US dollars. The first graphs show the deposit fees for each AAVE competitor. Aave and Compound are the two most popular cryptocurrency lending protocols with competitive rates. Thus, Aave and Compound are often compared.

The most important credit platforms to emerge are Aave, MakerDAO and Compound - they dominate the category in terms of TVL. However, while Compound was a strong favorite, however, after the start of 2022, Aave took the lead.

When it comes to comparing Aave and Compound, an argument can be made that Aave has surpassed Compound in terms of innovation and execution. Aave provides a greater variety of cryptocurrency assets, and offers unique products such as Flash Loans. However, there is still plenty of room for Compound to grow.

Summary

The AAVE Mega Dashboard is a free and user-friendly dashboard that can provide more information than Wallet or Etherscan (including both Polygon and Optimism). Any user can quickly browse the large number of features offered by the Dashboard. Mega Dashboard is also the basis for other Dashboards such as Polygon ♾ - Mega Dashboard, Uniswap🦄 - Mega Dashboard V2 and others. Whether you want to confirm transaction information or view TVL on different blockchains, this dashboard is a great solution.

Launchpads are platforms where crypto startups can raise capital. Funds can be needed for various purposes, such as refining or launching crypto. Another goal of such actions is to create a cryptocommunity that would bring developers and potential investors together. Such an approach would be a win-win for both parties - the creators get the finances needed for further work, and investors get early access to a novelty, which, in the future, may have a high profit potential.

Are we winning, guys?

Thanks to launchpads,token sales are taking on a more classic format. But unlike IPOs, the conditions for accessing large amounts of investment are minimal.

This model allows investors to purchase a project's token at a more favorable price, which can grow several times more after listing on the exchange. For example, early investors in startup TOP Network were able to increase their investments by more than 250% immediately after the token was listed on Huobi Global, and the value of one of last year's NFT coins increased by a record 3,800% after listing on the same launchpad.

The cryptocurrency market has faced a lot of problems lately. Market capitalization has fallen by almost 60%, and public sales activity has been quite weak. However, a closer look reveals many positive signals in the development of the crypto market. Let's delve into recent cryptocurrency fundraising activity to get more information.

In comparison mode, we'll try to take apart all aspects of the different Launchpad sites on the BSC blockchain. As such, we will choose:

• Pancakeswap IFO

• DAO Maker

• Impossible Finance

How often do users interact with contracts?

https://dune.com/embeds/1011486/1850047/0f34179b-bf4a-4f69-8436-701e735cdb8a?display=iframe

Over the past few months, the crypto market has shown mediocre performance.

https://dune.com/embeds/1011486/1850052/e298f5d7-9b10-4317-8d5d-e61d3fc54a1e?display=iframe

On Thursday, May 12, Bitcoin quotations fell below $27,000 and Ethereum price tested the level of $1800. The former asset fell 13.5% in 24 hours, while the latter lost more than 21% of its value, according to CoinGecko.

So, the activity shows a dismal result. The graph below shows the number of interactions with staking / IDO / IFO contracts for different platforms. Of course, Pancakeswap IFO contracts have the most events. To gain access to a newly issued token on PancakeSwap, place LP tokens in the appropriate pool. And it is clear why this is the case: PancakeSwap is the largest AMM project on the Binance Smart Chain (BSC), with a number of innovative features.

https://dune.com/embeds/983265/1703475/10313f23-d119-41dd-97de-c804f0540709?display=iframe

The first point I want to notice is a lot of activity in November-December 2021, and then a declining trend in interactions with staking contracts. To see this, remove the Pancakeswap "splashes". To do this, click on Pancakeswap in the legend.

https://dune.com/embeds/983265/1724377/dbaa2707-a4dc-4d4e-ba2b-6c58759b7229?display=iframe

As a result, we have the following results for the past year:

• 4M transactions for IFO contracts at Pancakeswap

• 417k transactions on Impossible Finance's Staking and IDOs contracts

• 213k transactions on Seedify’s Staking contracts

• 93k on Polkastarter's Staking contract

And we understand why Pancake is so popular. PancakeSwap is the largest AMM project on the Binance Smart Chain (BSC) with a number of innovative features. To access a newly issued token on PancakeSwap, place LP tokens in the appropriate pool. But why is Impossible Finance ranked #2 in this indicator?

Success?

To begin with, let's look at the projects that have been launched at Impossible Finance, namely everything that the average user cares about - the prices of a token. And also below is the daily ROI for each token. Of course crypto-stagnation has put a lot of pressure on most of these tokens.

https://dune.com/embeds/1006928/1740267/f1b356dd-de97-470d-813a-1c2995dde38d?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1006928/1740558/fed7fe5a-9c6c-468c-a88c-b7bf50f98644?display=iframe

The above data was taken from Dune Analytics. As you can see from the chart, the most prominent of all the tokens was Sportium. Sportium is a multi-faceted sports NFT platform with the goal of bringing traditional sports to the Metaverse. However, the market made further adjustments. Although even today, Sportium is the leader in terms of Current ROI (see below).

https://dune.com/embeds/1007082/1740571/7670460f-4766-4446-b48d-8f4fbf7a6016?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1007089/1740540/86fce8f4-09c5-4351-96c6-224aad5788a6?display=iframe

Second in this indicator is Genopets. Genopets won the Metaplex Community Impact Awards in the Games category, which recognizes projects, people and initiatives that have a significant impact on the future of NFT and Web3. Unlike Sportium though, Genopets lost less in terms of ROI - 41% maximum ROI and 11% current.

https://dune.com/embeds/1007287/1740735/dbfdbe2a-f523-476b-859d-7ee5bf9d1761?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1007290/1740741/92eb3be4-9a65-4f66-9384-356cd0287538?display=iframe

We also see the following data: Current average ROI of IDOs and Average ATH ROI of IDOs. We see pretty good results, and to check it let's turn to Cryptorank.

As you can see from the chart, Impossible Finance leads in Current Average ROI of IDOs. We exclude PEAKDEFI and Lighthouse, as they only had one IDO each, and ETHPad only runs on Ethereum mainnet. This highlights how the projects we work with can grow and perform after launch on our platform regardless of market conditions.

https://dune.com/embeds/995686/1724440/3c09ba59-39ab-40d4-a386-b4ccf97b6c4e?display=iframe

Since this is a relatively new platform that held its first IDO on August 30, 2021, the number of IDOs that Impossible Finance has held is only 12.

This is because the Impossible team prioritizes quality over quantity in their efforts to champion our vision and mission. Thus, the research team always conducts thorough research, evaluating many factors before approving an IDO launch.

For a better understanding of all the aspects, I recommend this video where Calvin Chu, CEO of Impossible Finance, explains the details of this project.

Need to understand all depth of our depths

Three launchpades are walking down the street, papa launchpad, mama launchpad, and baby launchpad. Baby launchpad starts lagging behind. The papa launchpad gets really angry, goes back and squishes him, says: “Be nuance”

It seems like a hundred years ago: the art of selling tokens in the cryptocurrency world was very simple - it was enough to announce a new project to the market and allow everyone to participate in the exchange of their BTC and ETH for new tokens.

Project teams have realized that offering a discount on tokens or a bonus when investing early can increase demand.

The market demand for bonus tokens became so high that potential ICOs figured out that it was possible to pass ICO costs on to other investors who wanted to get into the project even earlier. That's when seed funding emerged.

The projects made selling tokens more difficult by adding another layer of complexity, but realized that many participants were entering for short-term profits and trying to convert coins quickly. This spawned a movement toward closed sales.

Closed sales participants-funds, partner blockchain projects, venture capitalists, and advisors-were the first to enter at a substantial discount (or bonus). The sales were conducted through SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens) agreements and often involved a lock-in period to prevent token conversion immediately after going public.

But there is a price to pay for that.

• The ICO must be invested by those who will use the token. Completely closed financing contradicts these values. This means that the token will be in the hands of pure speculators, not consumers.

• Selling tokens is one of the biggest opportunities to present the real utility of a token to as many people as possible. Putting a token in the hands of 50,000 people who have actually researched the project and bought tokens is the best form of mass-market engagement that increases a project's chances of success.

That's why we need to understand where the speculators who will sell their tokens as soon as they get them, and where the "experts" who will hold theirs tokens, such as MATIC from 2017, are sitting.

Let's look at an example

As we can see the total number of users on the DAO Maker launchpad differs from Impossible Finance by a factor of 10. Primary note: we're looking at users who use launchpads on BSC.

https://dune.com/embeds/978487/1694982/28cecf54-2695-4f79-8089-c0f251c58ed4?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1024912/1768712/ac9a8401-da26-4310-ad32-8b310681edb0?display=iframe

But are these users "good"? To do this, I suggest that you refer to the de-board from ahkek, which shows the Impossible Finance rank of the user. Brief description:

• ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Score > 80 - Super active - Super huge amount of staking or purchasing

• ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Score > 50 & < 80- Active - Large staking or purchase

• ⭐⭐⭐ Score > 40 & < 50- Intermediate- Moderate- Moderate staking or purchase

• ⭐⭐ Score > 20 & < 40- Less Active- Less staking or purchase

• ⭐ Score < 10 - Inactive- Very less staking or purchase

https://dune.com/ahkek/impossible-super-users-app

https://dune.com/embeds/978341/1694755/ad474f27-5bf2-443c-8484-212ef53d4d54?display=iframe

As we can see users with 1 or 2 stars are only about 18k, which is 80% of all users. These could be one-day accounts who then transfer everything to one wallet and then this wallet sells tokens from these accounts, they could be users who used Impossible Finance a couple of times and then abandoned it. In any case, that leaves about 3800-4000 users who actively use the platform, and the Loyalty program will reward top impossible users! 🔥🔥🔥

If we go a little deeper, taking the OURO project as an example, we can observe the tendency of users to sell, supply liquidity, the usual transfer and simple holding of token.

https://dune.com/embeds/904994/1581545/1fd02d27-c03d-4e1e-a52c-304bca8bcc2a?display=iframe

From the chart above it is clear that in OURO launch participated only 4875+867+100+260 = 6102 users. To understand: private 100 and 200 is for sharing a fixed size investment, whereas normal, it is not confirm size. That is, we can understand that people with a rate of 100$ and 200$ are 260 and 100 respectively. We can also say that 6102/22400 = 27% of Impossible Finance users participated in this sale.

https://dune.com/embeds/968692/1687451/7855feb9-6f20-439e-85e2-954a6fe7afe8?display=iframe

If we look at the end result of this sale, we find that most of the users did not sell their tokens (about 3,600 users), and a smaller portion sold part or all of them (2,500).

And the most active were the first 10 days, when tokens were bought, sold, sent to other wallets and supplied liquidity. Then there were only "strong" hands, which on rare days sold their tokens, but for the most part of users bought them back.

https://dune.com/embeds/953605/1663220/d67ddc5c-0eab-4ecf-af20-83e524f7a522?display=iframe

If we consider the events that occurred with other IDOs on the Impossible Finance platform, we get the following picture: the most "unsuccessful" IDO was Highstreet, which had 34% of users sold their tokens on the first day, although in terms of the number of these tokens is only 17%.

https://dune.com/embeds/1001230/1769292/512772ab-bb70-4da2-bc70-1cc1e48a5e44?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1001230/1732437/e8229dd8-07b2-4eed-a1f7-3eba6bca07d2?display=iframe

You can also see that OURO, Sportium and Starbot sold just over 30% of all distributed tokens in the first 24 hours. Also with OURO we see that there was the highest number of users who put liquidity in the first 24 hours. Note: users can overlap - so, for example, the same user can put liquidity and sell some of his tokens during this interval.

So let's draw a couple of conclusions:

• The average number of tokens sold (for all projects) is about 19% in the first 24 hours

• The average number of users who sold tokens (some or all) is about 18% in the first 24 hours

For comparison, let's look at the performance of DAO Maker. Gamium had the largest number of buyers. Gamium's mission was to innovate how humans interact in the digital space by building the truly Decentralized Social Metaverse. 631 users who totaled their tokens, 250 users who sold their tokens in the first 24 hours, which is about 40%, and in terms of all tokens sold, 30%.

https://dune.com/embeds/1015944/1754962/65b9dfe0-e1ad-4515-9619-2f135d95e369?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1015944/1754951/7dd110ec-e181-415b-b8b1-08252ceae4a8?display=iframe

https://dune.com/embeds/1015944/1754222/472c85f2-91c6-457f-894c-270b79bf3e5f?display=iframe

And for the BBS token, we see an amazing picture - 158% of tokens sold. However, please don't panic - this is all because users can also purchase issued tokens. And everyone has different goals - someone believes in the project and buys them with the hope for the future, someone redeems drawdowns and sells them at peaks and so on. Here is the proofs, where all transactions of purchases and sales of BBS token during the first 24 hours are presented (You can sort them by "types").

https://dune.com/embeds/1025353/1769507/7aac2801-0425-4a98-a274-6feeb0b645c2?display=iframe

But does that tell us it's a good thing? Not really, because you can't ruin statistics - a person can buy a token and then sell it - that person is a pure speculator, which I don't think is a priority for projects.

If you summarize the DAO Maker, we get the following, by analogy with Impossible Finance:

• 42% average number of tokens sold in the first 24 hours, at that we do not take into account projects with recalculation (>100% of tokens sold or transferred)

• That important to say, not everyone can participate in IDO. To participate in the DAO Maker launch panel, you must qualify using "DAO Power" . You can put a DAO token and exchange it for DAO Power at a 1:1 ratio, or you can provide liquidity for DAO pairs to exchange LP token for DAO Power at a 1:1.5 ratio. You can get DAO Power after locking your DAO for 5 days .

  Your position will then be placed in 1 of 6 available trenches (trench 0 is for first supporters/old users), followed by a random selection from a white list.

  1. Trench 0: 500-1999 DAO Power.

  2. Tranche 1: 2,000-3,999 DAO Power.

  3. Tranche 2: 4,000-9,999 DAO Power.

  4. Tranche 3: >10,000 DAO Power.

  5. Tranche 4: >25,000 DAO Power.

  6. Tranche 5: 50,000+ DAO Power.

• It is also important that the tokens are not unlocked immediately, but gradually. This is a noticeable plus, which helps reduce the probability of immediately destroying this token with its sales.

Conclusions:

This time we've broken down some of the main points about launchpads. Launchpad is not just about a quick sale. First and foremost, it's about security, cooperation only with proven companies, and mutually beneficial relationships.

We also compared two launchpads, namely Impossible Finance and DAO Maker (and only its IDOs on the BSC). We drew conclusions above, but you can draw your own conclusions. As we can see so far this industry on BSC is actively promoted by the Impossible Finance project.

https://dune.com/embeds/888233/1850023/bbb1bee2-93b2-4dd2-9023-b2938dff0ba3?display=iframe

All we have to say is that BSC is a dangerous environment in which a huge number of new contracts appears every day (you can see it in the chart below), because of the very low commissions at BSC. So take care and choose only proven tokens to buy.

Apendix

1. Blockchains analysis dashboard by @KARTOD

   https://dune.com/KARTOD/blockchains-analysis

2. Impossible Finance - Compare Launchpad platforms by @Impossible Finance

   https://dune.com/impossiblefinance/impossible-finance-compare-launchpad-platforms

3. Ouro IDO participant by @Ahkek

   https://dune.com/ahkek/ouro-ido-participant

4. Impossible Super Users App by @Ahkek

   https://dune.com/ahkek/impossible-super-users-app

5. Impossible finance launchpad participants by @Ahkek

   https://dune.com/ahkek/Impossible-finance-launchpad-participants

6. Launchpads and IDO Platforms - cryptorank.io

   https://cryptorank.io/fundraising-platforms