Solana It's The Catalina Whale Mixer

    In this analysis, the sales history and unique holder trends of Catalina Whale Mixer NFTs collection on Solana have been evaluated since its launch.

    Loading...

    Methodology

    The Catalina Whale Mixer NFT collection (CWM) is a web3 global entertainment franchise, created by the community. Its creators have been partnering with art and media leaders to create a universe inclusive of digital collectibles, videos, music, events, merchandise, and metaverse integrations. WAGMI Beach, the studio behind CWM, has been building a web3 Disney for adults, and the Catalina Whales are their Mickey Mouse.

    Read more on the Catalina Whale Mixer official website.

    The required data was selected from the NFT-related tables of the Solana database. To find the NFT addresses of the Catalina Whale Mixer collection, two approaches exist. They can be filtered and selected using either the contract_name column of the dim_nft_metadata table or the address column of the dim_nft_metadata table. The quantitative data of NFTs are stored in fact_nft_mints and fact_nft_sales tables for their mints and sales respectively. Finally, these fact tables were joined with one of the dim tables to be able to calculate the required indices for the NFT collection.

    Sales History

    The analysis of sales data demonstrated that the price of NFTs experience three jumps in its lifespan. At first and right after the launch of the project, the price increased 10 to 15 times and stabilized in the range of 10-15 SOL for the first 3 months. Then, it increased to around 30 SOL per each from late March to late April. And finally, it increased to the range of 90-100 SOL per NFT since the beginning of May.

    The buying behavior of NFT purchasers has shown that as the price increased over time, the number of buyers decreased. It can be accounted to either the interest over the project has decreased or each NFT is overpriced, hence the buyers are not willing to pay that to acquire them.

    Conclusion

    In the following chart, the last date that an NFT from the CWM collection has transferred between two parties has been measured. As it is demonstrated on the chart, almost 2000 of the 5555 collections have not moved since they were minted. Also, the chart shows that before May 11, the number of unique NFTs that have moved increased drastically which can be regarded due to the Bubblegoose Ballers NFTs.

    This chart is dynamic and if the NFTs have moved recently, the total number of moved NFTs can transit from an exponential-like curve into a hyperbolic curve, which will indicate an increased interest in the collection.

    Loading...

    The CWM collection consists of 5555 NFTs which were minted by 2169 addresses on December 17, 2021, for the price of a little below 1.01 SOL each. In the beginning, more than 50% of the minters were tier 1, less than 15% were tier 2, and one-third of the minters were tier 3. This data can be interpreted that the minters were either skeptical and did not want to invest too much in the project or they were believers and went all in to become a tier 3 holder.

    Mints Analysis

    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    db_img
    Loading...
    Loading...

    The analysis of daily and cumulative unique holders has shown that the number of daily unique buyers of the NFTs has decreased over time. Overall, calculating the cumulative holders has shown that more than 8k unique addresses had held at least one of the NFTs for once since the launch of the collection.

    Loading...

    In conclusion, the price of each NFT from the CWM collection has increased over time which has resulted in a decrease in the overall sales number. Nevertheless, projects other than CWM such as Bubblegoose Ballers created by the same studio resulted in an increase in the sales and average price of CWM NFTs.

    Loading...
    Loading...

    Most buyers purchased a single NFT per day, thus there has not been any particular trend over the increase of interest among the holders on a daily basis. The comparison of the share of each tier has shown that tier2 holders saw a 1% increase to almost 7% while tier1 holders decreased by 1% and remained slightly above 90%. At the same time, the share of tier3 holders remained almost the same at slightly below 3%.