Introduction

One of the indicators of blockchain expansion and development in cryptocurrencies is the increase in the number of unique wallets. Algorand was one of the top 10 fastest-growing crypto ecosystem in 2021 (https://www.etftrends.com/crypto-channel/terra-solana-top-fastest-growing-crypto-ecosystems/) and show a potential of growth in 2022 as well. It worth to revisit the growth of adoption in Algorand blockchain and check this indicator.

In this dashboard, we first depict the daily number of wallets created on Algorand, then we will see how this relates to two important events in Algorand ecosystem, namely Algorand governance period one and two.

Results

The graph below shows the number of wallets created per day. As can be see regardless of some exceptions the daily number of adoption (wallet creation) remains constant from October 2020 to October 2021. Before that period we have a rapid growth period between August and September 2020.

After that period we have a some ups and downs and again a relatively high jump in December 2021.

When we consider two periods of governance commitment we can see that the first period did not have any effect on the constant trend of growth. However, the second period causes a sharp growth of wallet creation. The graph is revealing but to have a better understanding we need to have a bigger picture and consider wallet closing as well.

The graph below shows the number of wallets closed per day. As can be seen, we have a spark in the number of wallet closures that overlapped with period 2.

The graph below shows the cumulative sum of non-closed wallets (created wallets - closed wallets). As can be seen since end of July 2020 there is a steady linear growth. This trend became sharper right before period 2. However, immediately, a large number of wallets was closed or removed.

Discussion

The data shows that, in general, Algorand experienced a linear growth in the number of wallets from mid of 2020 and towards the end of 2021. This trend was not influenced by the first period of governance commitment. Unlike the first period, the second period had a big influence on the unique wallet growth/decline. After a spark in the number of added wallets simultaneous with the beginning of the period we see a huge number of wallet closures.

I could not find news and articles to better understand the context, but my assumption is that to fight fraud closing wallets was an administrative action, and it did not result from a change in behavior of users.