This analysis shares additional details about bidbots.
This is a completely separate article, but the previous article may also be helpful, so it's a good idea to check it out later.
Proof-of-Brain or Power-of-Bid(bot), that is the question.
First, we compute the number of accounts and the delegated SP by the month / year in which the delegation is first started in the bidbot, and then find out the number of accounts that are still delegated(=delegation retention rate) and the amount of SP that is currently delegated.
We also look at trends in the number of newly delegated accounts in the bidbot and the number of accounts whose delegation has been completely terminated, as well as the trends in the number of net flows.
Finally, we compare the actual STEEM account retention rate with the delegation retention rate and think about its meaning.
The data analysis period is the whole since the start of the STEEM chain, and the view time is January 11, 2019 at 23:00 UTC.
I hope this material is a little useful.
Aim of Analysis
- Delegation retention rate & change in delegation size (by delegation start month / year)
- Monthly delegate account inflows, outflows & net flows
- Delegation retention rate vs actual STEEM account retention rate
1. Delegation retention rate & change in delegation size
Everything is in the table below.
However, since it is complex, two important things are explained in detail.
48% of the accounts that originally started delegation to the bidbot are still delegated.
Specifically, 38% of accounts initiated in 2017, 49% of accounts initiated in 2018 are still delegating, and 92% of accounts launched in 2019 are delegated. In 2019, this period is short and meaningless.
The sum of the SP delegations for the accounts that initially started delegation to the bidbot was about 8.5M. However, it is now at 22.7M, with 14.2M more. The growth rate is as high as 168%.
This means that 52% of the accounts that started to delegate to bidbot have gone out, but the remaining 48% of the accounts have continued to increase their SP delegation. Of course, the increase in interest on SP will be partly due to the increase.
Interestingly, accounts that first started bidbot delegation in 2017 increased their SP delegation size by as much as 467%. The increase is about 10.6M and the current balance is 12.8M. In the end, it means that the initial miner accounts and minority whales that supported the bidbot business for the first time have a significant share of the bidbot business. This corresponds to 56% of the total.
Accounts that initially delegated SP to bidbot in 2018 increased their delegation size by about 58% and their current balance is about 9.7M. This is 43% of the total.
The total SP size currently delegated to bidbots is approximately 22.7M. Please refer to the table below.
It is shown in the table below.
But let's look at two important things too.
The delegation retention rate for the entire period is 48%. This ratio is similar to monthly by July 2018, but has steadily increased since August 2018, reaching 77% in November and December.
These accounts appear to have purchased STEEM at a low price since August and then assigned a new SP to bidbot. As a result, these accounts have a higher ability to withstand capital losses, and thus have higher retention rates.
Since the account that started bidbot delegation in 2017 increased the SP delegation size by 468%, the SP delegation size increased by 168% overall.
In 2018, SP delegation size grew by only 58% and is jagged monthly.
However, when the growth rate is low, it can be seen that the STEEM price was falling. See example of 2/5/8/11 month.
However, for the first time in December this year, accounts that started SP delegation to bidbot increased SP delegation size by 243%. This is probably because STEEM prices have completely collapsed and some users have realized the price advantage.
However, starting from 2018, we need to look at the fact that the sum of monthly delegation size is not large.
2. Monthly delegate account inflows, outflows, net flows
If we look at the number of new delegated accounts, the number of canceled accounts, and the differences on a monthly basis, we can get more insight.
Since April this year, the number of monthly net accounts to delegate SP to bidbots has begun to decrease. After declining to negative levels since September, STEEM prices plunged in December and turned positive.
Also, the fact that the absolute value of inflows, withdrawals and net inflows since April itself is low indicates that the number of users in the STEEM chain has decreased.
The table below is a detailed reference to the chart above.
3. Delegation retention rate vs actual STEEM account retention rate
To determine the actual number of STEEM accounts, I used the number of account that have been voted after that time period.
For example, the number 59,703 in January 2019 indicates that 59,703 accounts have been voted on since January 1, 2019.
Since the start of the STEEM chain, there are 1,096,463 accounts that have ever voted at least once. 59,703 are only about 5% of 1,096,463.
In other words, the actual number of STEEM accounts is 95% less than the peak and the retention rate is 5%. Since 2018, actual STEEM account retention is only 9%. (= 59,703 / 683,989)
Although the actual STEEM account retention rate is only 5%, it is somewhat surprising that the bidbot business has retention rate of 48%. Of course, there are quite a few accounts that do not vote, so the actual account retention rate may be somewhat higher than 5%.
① 『Bidbot maketh patience.』
Do you know what that means?
Even though the actual retention rate of STEEM accounts is 5% (9% since 2018), the retention rate of SP delegation in bidbot is as much as 48%.
In other words, the bidbot business makes the accounts invested in that business patiently.
One of the two accounts invested in the bidbot business is waiting to focus on increasing the number of STEEM from a long-term perspective, even though the STEEM price has fallen sharply.
Of course, it is also necessary to compare the delegation retention rate of major Dapps with that of bidbots.
② The STEEM chain requires far more "middle-tier" users.
However, the high patience of an account that has delegated SP to bidbot does not mean that it will prevent STEEM decline in the long run.
In the short term, it may be of some help in terms of reducing STEEM supply, but an essential aspect is that the bidbot business itself can hinder STEEM value improvements over the long term. (I've covered it in detail in a previous article).
The STEEM price will eventually converge to its intrinsic value, which is determined by the fundamentals. In the short term, it may be dependent on the systemic risk of the market and some supply and demand factors, but It's just a small twig.
The price of STEEM is low, but it is time to innovate the problems of the STEEM chain. If that happens, the middle class of the STEEM ecosystem will increase.
The long-term value of STEEM can only be improved under the more innovative STEEM system when the increased middle class takes good actions.
Of course, it would be better if SMT was well done.
It is only temporary personal opinion.
Thank you. Be more happy in 2019.
The Data and Queries
I did this analysis by connecting to the @steemsql db with MSSQL client(Microsoft SQL server management studio), Excel.
Refer to My Github
(My recently analysis)
Analysis of Voting Pattern: From posting to payout
SBD Debt Ratio Management Trend Analysis : Who removed our SBD?
(STEEM) All we need is time? Nope. More innovative action is needed.
The current (actual) inflation rate of STEEM is quite different from the design.
STEEM status and some doubt, based on account creation statistics
Proof-of-Brain or Power-of-Bid(bot), that is the question.