Question:

To show any data on Arbitrum from Flipside’s data

NOTE: The data on some chains are from 15th June. So, only limited content has been shown from 15th June.

For other contents like top NFTs and top DEX’s the entire data from the start has been taken into consideration

Summary:

We will be looking into the following comparisons:

• Daily % Success Transactions across all chains
• Daily Users Across Chains
• Cumulative Users Across Chains
• Daily Transactions Across All Chains
• Cumulative Transactions across chains
• Daily Fees Across All Chains
• Cumulative Fees across all chains
• Distribution of number of users across chains
• Distribution of number of transactions across chains
• Average Transactions per block on various chains
• Maximum Transactions per block on various chains
• Minimum Transactions per block on various chains
• Average Time Taken per block
• Average Time taken per block over time
• Average Time taken per block Distribution
• Top types of Interactions made on Arbitrum
• TOP 10 DE-FI on Arbitrum
• TOP 10 DAPPS on Arbitrum
• Top NFTs on Arbitrum
• Top Contracts on Arbitrum
• Top Events on Arbitrum
• Top Tokens on Arbitrum
• Conclusions

Methodology:

• For the % success across all chains, we would be using the transactions table. The transactions table would also be used for daily users, cumulative users, daily transactions , cumulative transactions, daily fees, cumulative fees, distribution of new users and distribution of transactions among chains
• For average, maximum and minimum transactions in a block, the blocks table would be used. It will also be used for finding the average time taken between blocks, the average time taken over time and the average time taken per block distribution
• For types of interactions,top contracts, top events, top NFTs, top de-fi contracts, top dapps, top dex contracts, top tokens, the events_log and labels tables would be used

Introduction:

Arbitrum is one of the most popular chains but it has not been an established chain like Polygon.

Arbitrum's strength claims include:

• Ability to process transactions quickly (block processing claimed to be about 1 sec)

• Transaction fees are lower than Ethereum

  \

Among Arbitrum's weaknesses are:

• Not an autonomous blockchain: (Dependent on ETH network).

• No native token on chain

  \

In summary, some of it’s feature claims are:

• Lesser Fees

• More transactions

  \

Next, we divide the page into 2 sections: One would have the queries on the left and the other would have insights+ visuals on the right

Query 1:

-- A similar query is used for dex, dapps, events, tokens by replacing nft with the event type

select project_name, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs

from

(SELECT * from arbitrum.core.dim_labels

inner join arbitrum.core.fact_event_logs on contract_address = address)

where label_type = 'nft'

GROUP by 1

order by 2 desc

limit 10

Query 2:

Transaction fees with flow_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_id) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT payer) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets, 'flow' as type, '0' AS FEES, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_feesfrom (SELECT *, iff(tx_succeeded, '1', '0') as success,iff(tx_succeeded, '0', '1') as failed from flow.core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 ), osmosis_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_id) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT tx_from) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'osmosis' as type, sum(fee_)/pow(10,6) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(tx_status ='SUCCEEDED', '1', '0') as success,iff(tx_status='FAILED', '1', '0') as failed, replace(fee,'uosmo','') as fee_ from osmosis.core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' and contains(fee, 'uosmo') GROUP by 1 ),

eth_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT from_address) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'ethereum' as type, sum(tx_fee) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(status ='SUCCESS', '1', '0') as success,iff(status='FAIL', '1', '0') as failed from ethereum_core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 ), sol_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_id) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT signers[0]) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'solana' as type, sum(fee)/pow(10,6) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(succeeded, '1', '0') as success,iff(succeeded, '0', '1') as failed from solana.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 ), algo_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_id) as total_txs, '95' as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT sender) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'algorand' as type, sum(fee) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT * from algorand.transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 ), avax_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT from_address) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'avax' as type, sum(tx_fee)/pow(10,6) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(status = 'SUCCESS', '1', '0') as success,iff(status = 'FAILED', '0', '1') as failed from avalanche.core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 ), bsc_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT from_address) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'bsc' as type, sum(tx_fee) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(status = 'SUCCESS', '1', '0') as success,iff(status = 'FAILED', '0', '1') as failed from bsc.core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 ) ,

arbitrum_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT from_address) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'arbitrum' as type, sum(tx_fee) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(status = 'SUCCESS', '1', '0') as success,iff(status = 'FAILED', '0', '1') as failed from arbitrum.core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' and tx_fee < pow(10,4) GROUP by 1 ) , optimism_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT from_address) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'optimism' as type, sum(tx_fee) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(status = 'SUCCESS', '1', '0') as success,iff(status = 'FALSE', '0', '1') as failed from optimism.core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 ) , polygon_data as (SELECT date(block_timestamp) as day, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs, sum(success)/(sum(success)+sum(failed))*100 as percent_sucess, avg(percent_sucess) over (order by day) as avg_sucess, sum(total_txs) over (order by day) as cumulative_txs, count(DISTINCT from_address) as daily_users, sum(daily_users) over (order by day) as cumulative_wallets , 'polygon' as type, sum(tx_fee) as fees, sum(FEES) over (order by day) as cumulative_fees from (SELECT *, iff(status = 'SUCCESS', '1', '0') as success,iff(status = 'FALSE', '0', '1') as failed from polygon.core.fact_transactions) where day >= '2022-06-15' GROUP by 1 )

SELECT * from algo_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM sol_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM flow_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM osmosis_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM eth_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM avax_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM bsc_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM optimism_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM arbitrum_data UNION ALL SELECT * FROM polygon_data

Query 3:

with ava as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'avalnche' as chain from avalanche.core.fact_blocks), opt as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'optimism' as chain from optimism.core.fact_blocks), arb as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'arbitrum' as chain from arbitrum.core.fact_blocks) , poly as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'polygon' as chain from polygon.core.fact_blocks) , bsc as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'bsc' as chain from bsc.core.fact_blocks) , osm as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'osmosis' as chain from osmosis.core.fact_blocks) , sol as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'sol' as chain from solana.core.fact_blocks) , flow as ( SELECT avg(tx_count) as avg_txs_per_block, max(tx_count) as max_txs_per_block, min(tx_count) as min_txs_per_block, 'flow' as chain from flow.core.fact_blocks)

SELECT * from osm UNION ALL SELECT * from BSC UNION ALL SELECT * from opt UNION ALL SELECT * from poly UNION ALL SELECT * from arb

UNION ALL SELECT * from ava UNION ALL SELECT * from sol UNION ALL SELECT * FROM flow

Some Explanation:

• Arbitrum has about 49% successful transactions only among chains and is one of the worst performers in this criteria. Flow and Ethereum are some of the best performers here while optimism is the worst performer when it comes to number of successful transactions. Notably, even Polygon is also among the worst performers just like other L2s

• Arbitrum is the third last when it comes to number of users only behind Osmosis and Optimism. The best performers are BSC, Ethereum and Polygon which are the most popular chains in the crypto space.

• About 20k-50k users use Arbitrum daily since 15th June while ethereum and solana have 300k+ and 250k+ daily users on an average. Among L2s, Polygon’s the most valuable given that it has 200k+ users and given that an L2 has now started competing with L1s like Ethereum and Solana. On the other hand, Optimism performs even worse with about 5k-15k users using it daily.

• About 10M+ transactions have taken place on Arbitrum as compared to 250M+ transactions that have taken place since 15th June on Polygon. On the other hand Solana stands at 4B alone!

• Arbitrum has the second last number of transactions since 15th June among all chains in consideration only behind optimism

• About 25k$ has been collected on an average (as can be seen in the daily fees across L1s & L2s chart) for about 2.5M transactions (about 4M transactions daily on an average) which implies that it costs only about 0.01$ per transaction on Polygon

• In comparison, Solana has about 800M transactions at about 0.23$ per transaction implying that Polygon has lesser fees than Solana!

• Even for BSC, the average comes out to be 0.15$ which is much higher than that of Polygon (about 15x difference). Since about 600 BNB was paid for 780k+ transactions

  
  
  Next, let’s move on to stats on blocks and their performance:

Some more Insights:

• The top interactions made on Arbitrum in order are :

  • layer2(75% of the interactions type)

  • dapp(8%)

  • token(6%)

  • defi(6%)

  • dex (4.5%)

  • nft

    \

• The top Contracts on Arbitrum in order are:

  • WETH (37%)
  • USDC(23%)
  • USDT (6.5%)
  • ETH/USDC Uniswap LP (5.5%)
  • Galxe Space Station (5%)
  • Position Router (5%)
  • ETH and DAI HOP Tokens
  • Arbitrum Bridge(4.6%)

• It is notable that USDC is over USDT implying a higher level trust on USDC than USDT on the Arbitrum chain

  \

• The top NFT projects on Arbitrum in order are:

  • Smol Shark (80%)

  • Royal Crows (15%)

  • st0ked (3.6%)

  • OmniSea (1.5%)

  • 1912

    \

• Smol Shark is responsible for about 80% of the total NFT transactions while Royal Crows and st0ked account for 15% and 3.6% respectively

  \

• The top 10 Tokens on Arbitrum are:

  • treasure dao (60%)

  • dopex (30%)

  • mim abracadabra money(6.7%)

  • o3 swap

  • arbidoge

  • dx dao

  • volt protocol

  • connect financial

  • xtoken

  • taekwondo corp

    \

• Treasure Dao, Dopex and MIM account for 60%, 30% and 6.7% of all token transactions respectively

  \

• The top Dapps on Arbitrum are:

  • gmx (46%)

  • chainlink (15%)

  • livepeer (12.5%)

  • celer network (10.3%)

  • plutusdao (10.3%)

  • sperax

  • shogun war

  • layer2 dao

  • fiat24

  • apex protocol

    \

• Gmx accounts for a little less than half of the top Dapp Transactions . It’s followed by Chainlink, livepeer , celer network and plutusdao with weights 15%, 12.5%, 10.3% and 10.3% respectively.

  \

• The top DEX projects in order are:

  • Uniswap

  • Sushiswap

  • xpollinate

  • Balancer

  • curve finance

  • rubic exchange

  • mcdex

  • swapr

  • dodo dex

  • kromatika finance

    \

• Uniswap accounts for about 31% of the transactions while balancer for about 8% , Sushiswap for about 30%, xpollinate for about 15% and curve for about 7%

  \

• The top events on Arbitrum in order are:

  • Transfer

  • Approval

  • Swap

  • Sync

  • TokenSwap

  • AnswerUpdated

  • New Round

  • New Transmission

  • TransferSingle

  • Withdrawal Bonded

  • Mint

    \

• About 40% of all top 10 transactions were transfers while swap accounts for about 15% weight among these top 10 transactions. Notably 1% of all the top transactions were mints!

Some Explanation/Insights:

• For Maximum transactions in a block, Solana leads as it has about 7.6k transactions in a single block

• Solana is followed by polygon, osmosis, bsc,flow, avalanche, arbitrum and optimism with values of 1250, 600, 317, 265,165, 125 and 100

• Arbitrum has about 1.4 transactions in a block on an average and has the least average after Optimism! The highest in order are Solana, BSC, Polygon, omosis, flow, avax, arbitrum and optimism

• Arbitrum also takes the least time between blocks after Solana and Optimism .

• On an average over time, BSC takes about 2.2 seconds without much deviation from this.

• The most it has taken is 1.2 while 0.4 is the least and hence, it does not move in a tight band like Polygon which is in the range of 2.1-2.3 .

• Only Optimism has no zero transaction blocks while all others have their minimum transactions in a block to be zero

• Arbitrum has an average of about 0.95 seconds over time between blocks

• Solana takes the least time between blocks and the most transactions in a block making it a very fast chain

• Polygon on the other hand processes a lot of transactions on an average but takes 2.2 seconds to block finality and hence compensates equivalently

• Arbitrum processes lesser transactions on an average but takes lesser time as well to block finality compensating vice versa to that of Polygon

  \

Next, let’s view some other stats on Arbitrum:

Query 4:

select label_type, count(DISTINCT tx_hash) as total_txs from (SELECT * from bsc.core.dim_labels inner join bsc.core.fact_event_logs on contract_address = address) GROUP by 1 order by 2 desc limit 10

Conclusions:

Now, we’ll conclude as to how Polygon performed overall and some special insights:

• No, Arbitrum did not stand it’s promise of having lesser fees as it’s fee per transaction is at about 3$ which is way higher than many other chains. On some digging, it was found to appear in the news as well.

• But Arbitrum did process more transactions than Ethereum and has a little lesser fee than Ethereum on an average implying it did stand it’s promise but did not deliver it efficiently as most other chains did.

  \

• Arbitrum has about 49% successful transactions only among chains and is one of the worst performers in this criteria. Flow and Ethereum are some of the best performers here while optimism is the worst performer when it comes to number of successful transactions. Notably, even Polygon is also among the worst performers just like other L2s

• Arbitrum is the third last when it comes to number of users only behind Osmosis and Optimism. The best performers are BSC, Ethereum and Polygon which are the most popular chains in the crypto space.

• About 20k-50k users use Arbitrum daily since 15th June while ethereum and solana have 300k+ and 250k+ daily users on an average. Among L2s, Polygon’s the most valuable given that it has 200k+ users and given that an L2 has now started competing with L1s like Ethereum and Solana. On the other hand, Optimism performs even worse with about 5k-15k users using it daily.

• About 10M+ transactions have taken place on Arbitrum as compared to 250M+ transactions that have taken place since 15th June on Polygon. On the other hand Solana stands at 4B alone!

• Arbitrum has the second last number of transactions since 15th June among all chains in consideration only behind optimism

• About 25k$ has been collected on an average (as can be seen in the daily fees across L1s & L2s chart) for about 2.5M transactions (about 4M transactions daily on an average) which implies that it costs only about 0.01$ per transaction on Polygon

• In comparison, Solana has about 800M transactions at about 0.23$ per transaction implying that Polygon has lesser fees than Solana!

• Even for BSC, the average comes out to be 0.15$ which is much higher than that of Polygon (about 15x difference). Since about 600 BNB was paid for 780k+ transactions

• For Maximum transactions in a block, Solana leads as it has about 7.6k transactions in a single block

• Solana is followed by polygon, osmosis, bsc,flow, avalanche, arbitrum and optimism with values of 1250, 600, 317, 265,165, 125 and 100

• Arbitrum has about 1.4 transactions in a block on an average and has the least average after Optimism! The highest in order are Solana, BSC, Polygon, omosis, flow, avax, arbitrum and optimism

• Arbitrum also takes the least time between blocks after Solana and Optimism .

• On an average over time, BSC takes about 2.2 seconds without much deviation from this.

• The most it has taken is 1.2 while 0.4 is the least and hence, it does not move in a tight band like Polygon which is in the range of 2.1-2.3 .

• Only Optimism has no zero transaction blocks while all others have their minimum transactions in a block to be zero

• Arbitrum has an average of about 0.95 seconds over time between blocks

• Solana takes the least time between blocks and the most transactions in a block making it a very fast chain

• Polygon on the other hand processes a lot of transactions on an average but takes 2.2 seconds to block finality and hence compensates equivalently

• Arbitrum processes lesser transactions on an average but takes lesser time as well to block finality compensating vice versa to that of Polygon

• It is notable that USDC is over USDT implying a higher level trust on USDC than USDT on the Arbitrum chain (WITH USDC being used 4x more than USDT on an average)

• Smol Shark is responsible for about 80% of the total NFT transactions while Royal Crows and st0ked account for 15% and 3.6% respectively

• Treasure Dao, Dopex and MIM account for 60%, 30% and 6.7% of all token transactions respectively

• Gmx accounts for a little less than half of the top Dapp Transactions . It’s followed by Chainlink, livepeer , celer network and plutusdao with weights 15%, 12.5%, 10.3% and 10.3% respectively.

• Uniswap accounts for about 31% of the transactions while balancer for about 8% , Sushiswap for about 30%, xpollinate for about 15% and curve for about 7%

• About 40% of all top 10 transactions were transfers while swap accounts for about 15% weight among these top 10 transactions. Notably 1% of all the top transactions were mints!