The previous dashboard was made with the next task in mind: -Compare and contrast at least three different networks and their NFTs markets.

• Total Sales
• Total Unique Buyers
• Total Volume
• Average Sales/Day
• Average Buyers/Day
• Average Sales Price/Day

Methodology

The whole lot of data came directly from Flipside’s database, specifically the nft_sales tables and price tables in the case of Algorand and Flow.

Some light tuning was required on the process which will be explained in form of data limitations.

Data limitations:

1.- For Ethereum early prices, before its boom during 2020, flipside’s data base doenst have the price conversion, so this alone would make this an aproximation on my part. Also, pice conversion was using all tokens prices available, given that Ethereum sales do move a few more tokens other than just ETH.

2.- Algorand sales had to be taken by parsing the sales into amount of sales per hour, then multiplied by the price of algo during that hour, which itself is taken in a measure of deviance from the price during that specific hour, this calculus is not entirely precise.

2.- Flow tables are not only limited by the time flipside’s has in it database, so, from 4/20, 2022. Also uses different tokens for which i had to “round” prices when they were available. But this did end up excluding a few rows of data, so Flow USD volumes should be reasonably considered under the realms of approximations. (being the limited data available the biggest issue)

Dont let the log scale fool you

Ethereum is really the big kahuna in terms of nft sales, in total there has been 27 million nfts sales across its major platforms.

But as the chart above let it reflect, Ethereum has been around for a while. And while Flow data inside flipside is not full yet, it hasnt been around for much more. Still, missing data aside, Flow has reach 3 millions of NFT sales. And a little more considering that missing data.

Algorand on the other hand, its also been around for a while, but it struggles to amase even a tiny fraction of what Ethereum moves. With just 564k NFT sales.

Total buyers

Keeping with the trend, Ethereum maintains the lead, with almost 2 billion buyers. (the log scale is confusing things)

While Flow keeps increasing its numbers, and with their recent NFL AllDay NFT collection booming with their actual football, their 84k distinct buyers could be increasing in the next days.

And Algorand with its 23k unique NFT buyers, doesn’t seem to be getting more traction any time soon. Its been a while for Silvio Micali’s brainchild, and people are yet to be crashing those ALGO doors.

Show me the money

Sixty seven billions, just in Ethereum’s NFT volume. Absolutely crazy. While a high number isnt a surprise for the blockchain that homes all those cryptopunks and apes, it doesnt make it easier to digest such a high number.

Flow on the other hand has moved around 79 millions in USD volume during May of this year. So, considering how Flipside’s tables are yet to be backfilled, it could be a few buckos more.

Finally on Algorand, with 24 millions in USD volume. Its really not great, but this doesnt mean its over for them, given that Algorand its still signing partnerships.

How about for a change

While yes, Flow does have a bigger average in daly sales, this might be due to different reasons. Data reasons.

When calculating average in Ethereum, one must consider all its periods, including those early days when there wasnt relevant sales numbers, and Flow data present on Flipside, does not account for its own early days. So, this difference might be causing this apparent superiority for Flow NFTs sales.

And Algorand, well, keep on keeping on.

And finishing on the same note from the beginning

Ethereum keeps on the “dailead” :sunglasses: averaging 78 millions in USD being transacted on NFTs on its biggest markets.

Flow does reach 295k in daily averages of USD volume.

With a final of 72k daily for Algorand, which considering how gloom it seems the only 333 average daily traders, is surprisingly more that one would expect.

It would seem that Algorand is not dead yet.

Daily buyers, in average

While Ethereum does have the biggest buyer base, Flow is not much far behind, with a little less than 2 millions daily buyers. Ethereum’s high usage fee is definitively pushing people to try less costing transactions. And Flow is one of the networks who do provides that. Specially around these days with the whole NFL championship.

Algorand is not doing too well, averaging daily some 333 users transacting NFTs on its halls. Silvio Micali’s network has seen better days.

It’s been a while since the whole NFT fever began. With Ethereum spearheading the adoption, it quickly became one of the keypoints in the blockchain adoption for the people. And since, almost every network has been introducing them to their platforms. And while competition between Ethereum and the whole line of L1 competitors might feel unfair (it totally is), that does not seem to hinder their ability to try.

So lets take a look at how Ethereum compares with another one of the senior blockchains, Algorand, and one of the newer ones, Flow.

Some closing words

Ethereum is not leaving its place as the NFT predilect ecosystem. Its high usage fees are obiously not a deterrent enough to jumpstart the adoption of new blockchains. With Algorand being a perfect example of a cheaper alternative not being enough reason to justify its adoption. While Flow do seem to be getting traction, and with each sports event launching their collectibles in it, it only grows bigger.

\