Introduction

In this dashboard I have used several tables from Osmosis data base to gathered needed data to analyze users who has joined Osmosis pools in two manners in which first one are users who dive in headfirst and add both assets and users who wade in carefully or singleside.

For gathering data I have used tables below:

• ==osmosis.core.dim_labels==
• ==osmosis.core.dim_prices==
• ==osmosis.core.fact_swaps==

And for determining users with different manners i used

when to_currency is null then 'singleside' else 'both assets' end as activities

Code above separates users who wade in carefully as singleside when their to_currency equals zero and users who dive in headfirst as both assets when their to_currency do not equals zero.

> Charts below shows numbers and percentage users who joined Osmosis pools by staking in them with two different manners that are defined as both assets which are people who dive in headfirst and singleside as users who wade in carefully

As shown above number of users who add both assets is 408.614K and number of users who singleside is 26.067K

As shown above percentage of users who add both assets is 94% and percentage of users who singleside is 6%

From two charts above drawn for percentages and numbers of users with different manners we can see that people who dive in headfirst has the majority in which they own 408.614K of 434.681K users which its 94% and its more than 15 times of users who wade in carefully or singleside.

> Charts below shows pool depth of users who discussed above and analyzes their depth based on average swap volume of each token to it’s traders and average swap USD volume of each token to it’s traders 

Bar chart above shows pool depth of each token of 114 tokens based on their volume for each type of users which are both assets and singleside, in which as we see three tokens of LUNC, HUAHUA and CRBRUS are three tokens with high average of their swapped volume to their traders with pool depths of:

• 4.45M both assets/4.56M singleside for LUNC
• 2.19M both assets/1.4M singleside for HUAHUA
• 3.3M both assets/2.414M singlside for CRBRUS

Other tokens as can bee seen have pool depth of few thousands which is much lower than three tokens above.

Bar chart above shows pool depth of each token of 114 tokens based on their USD volume for each type of users which are both assets and singleside, in which as we see IOV with it’s high depth for both type of users has diminished other tokens depth but as explained below its highe surge of price on October 2021 has caused this.

LUM and ROWAN are two tokens with most depth after IOV with:

• 75K both assets/28K singleside for LUM

• 28.5K both assets/38K singleside for ROWAN

Other tokens as can bee seen have pool depth of mostly around few thousands dollars which is much lower IOV depth.

Line chart above shows price of IOV in early days of October 2021 which it’s price went up from $0.082 on Oct 1, 2021 to $21.535K on Oct 3, 2021 then decreased to $0.06 afterwards which shows more than 250K times increase in it’s price.

> Daily price of IOV during first 9 days of October 2021 is shown below

Conclusions

This dashboard showed us that the number of users who enter the liquidity pools of Osmosis network by diving headfirst is more than the number of users who enter the liquidity pools by wading in carefully and the preference of users is to dive in headfirst. By examining the depth of liquidity pools, we saw that, except for a few tokens with deep pools such as LUNC, etc., the majority of tokens have a common and defined pool depth in both volume and USD volume of tokens.