Blockchain technology has been hailed as one of the most transformative technological advancements of the last decade. However, its potential has been limited by the lack of interoperability between different blockchain networks. Bridging platforms have emerged as a solution to this problem, enabling different blockchains to communicate and transfer value between each other.

Recently, the blockchain community has witnessed the launch of a new bridging platform called Squid Protocol. Squid Protocol aims to bridge different blockchain networks, enabling seamless communication and transfer of value between them. Squid Protocol is not alone in this field, as there are several other bridging platforms that have gained traction in the market. These include Thorchain, Stargate Finance, Celer Network, Anyswap, Hop Protocol, Synapse, and Wormhole.

The launch of Squid Protocol has garnered attention in the blockchain community due to its unique approach to bridging different blockchain networks. It utilizes a unique architecture that enables it to provide faster and cheaper cross-chain transactions compared to other bridging platforms. The Squid Protocol also boasts of advanced security features that ensure the safety of users' funds during transactions.

As blockchain technology continues to gain adoption, the cost of transactions has become a crucial factor in the success of blockchain-based applications. Fees and gas usage are two key components that contribute to the cost of transactions on the blockchain. Fees are typically charged by the blockchain network to process transactions, while gas is used to determine the amount of computational work required to execute a transaction.

Bridges, which enable cross-chain interoperability between different blockchain networks, also play a crucial role in facilitating decentralized finance (DeFi) applications. However, the cost of using bridges can be significantly higher than using native blockchain transactions, due to the additional complexity involved in cross-chain transactions.

In this context, it is important to analyze the cost of fees and gas usage on bridges, in order to understand the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of different liquidity routers. Squid Router, along with other popular liquidity routers such as Stargate, Anyswap, Thorchain, Celer, LiFi, among others, have become increasingly popular in the DeFi ecosystem, and it is important to evaluate their performance in terms of fees and gas usage.

In this analysis, we will take an overview of how Squid Router fees and gas usage have evolved since its inception, as well as compare it with other liquidity routers. By comparing the fees and gas usage of different liquidity routers, we can gain insights into the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of each platform, and help users make informed decisions when choosing a liquidity router for their DeFi transactions. The dashboard displays key metrics such as swaps, swappers and any gas related metrics starting from gas usage and ending to average transaction fee. Furthermore, the reader can choose the granularity of the data displayed, including daily, weekly, or monthly.

The dashboard offers a comprehensive view of the bridging platforms' gas usage and spent fees, providing users with valuable insights into the market trends and performance of these platforms over time. Users can track the cost of the platforms since the launch of Squid Protocol, compare the metrics of different platforms, and identify trends in the bridging market.

Looking at the data related to the number of daily users on each platform, we can see that Stargate and Thorchain are the most popular ones, both attracting around 1k users per day. It is worth noting that the number of daily users has been increasing since April for both platforms. On the other hand, Squid has been going up as well, but it is still far from reaching the numbers of the other two platforms.

It is important to mention that the number of daily users is a key metric to determine the success of a platform since it represents the level of adoption among the community. In this sense, both Stargate and Thorchain seem to be more consolidated in the market, with a significant number of daily users using their liquidity routers. Nonetheless, Squid has shown an upward trend, which can be seen as a promising sign for the platform's future.

From the analysis of the data, we can extract several key insights:

• Squid is increasing in terms of total fees paid and gas usage since its launch but its still far from tops. However, in terms of average transaction fee, Stargate Finance is the most expensive platform.

• Before the Squid launch, LiFi was leading in terms of gas usage, and Thorchain in fees paid. However, since the Squid launch, Squid has gained momentum and is now reaching 20% in both gas usage and fees paid.

• While the average gas cost per swap has remained stable over time, the average transaction fee has increased for most platforms, especially for Stargate Finance.

• In terms of daily users, Stargate and Thorchain are currently the most popular platforms, with around 1k daily users each. Squid has shown an upward trend, but it is still far from reaching the numbers of the other two platforms.

To sum up, these insights suggest that Squid has been gaining traction since its launch, and it has become a strong player in the market, leading in both gas usage and fees paid. However, it still needs to attract more daily users to compete with the most popular platforms such as Stargate and Thorchain. The analysis also highlights the importance of considering different metrics to have a more comprehensive understanding of the performance of a platform.

The results obtained from the analysis provide valuable insights into the fees and gas usage of different liquidity routers, including Squid, Stargate, Thorchain, Celer, LiFi, and Anyswap.

Firstly, when looking at the total number of fees in USD and the total gas used since inception, Thorchain is leading the pack, followed by LiFi and Stargate Finance. Squid are increasing in numbers, mainly in terms of gas usage situated now on the top 3 since its inception, this suggests that Squid has been successful in attracting a significant amount of transaction volume, resulting in higher fees and gas usage. It is worth noting, however, that the total fees in USD and gas usage do not provide a complete picture of the efficiency of the platform, as they may be influenced by the transaction volume and market conditions.

Secondly, when looking at the average transaction fee, Stargate Finance is the most expensive platform, with an average fee of over $3 per transaction, followed closely by Squid with an average fee of almost $3. LiFi is in third place in terms of average transaction fee. This indicates that Stargate and Squid may not be the most cost-effective platforms for users who prioritize low transaction fees.

Thirdly, considering the average gas used per platform, it can be seen that Celer cBridge and Squid are registering similar values, followed by Stargate Finance and LiFi. This suggests that Celer and Squid may be more gas-efficient than other platforms, resulting in lower gas costs for users.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights that while Squid may be leading in terms of total fees and gas usage, it may not be the most cost-effective platform for users who prioritize low transaction fees. On the other hand, Stargate Finance may not be the most gas-efficient platform, resulting in higher gas costs for users. It is important for users to consider their priorities and preferences when choosing a liquidity router for their DeFi transactions, and evaluate the fees and gas usage of different platforms accordingly.

Finally, the analysis shows that the average gas cost per swap has remained relatively stable over time across all platforms, with Thorchain registering the lowest values and Celer Network being at the top. Since the launch of Squid, it has situated itself in the second position with a significant difference against Celer Network.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the significant impact of Squid on the DeFi space, becoming the leader in terms of gas usage and fees paid since its launch. While Stargate Finance may not be the most cost-effective platform for users, Squid and other platforms may offer more competitive transaction fees. Additionally, while Celer Network and LiFi have consistently shown high values in terms of average gas used, Squid has become more gas-intensive since its launch, surpassing these platforms. It is important for users to consider these metrics when selecting a liquidity router for their DeFi transactions.

The analysis of the evolution of gas usage, fees paid, and average transaction fees and gas usage over time in different liquidity routers provides valuable insights into the performance of these platforms.

Firstly, the data indicates that prior to the launch of Squid, LiFi was the leader in terms of gas usage, while Thorchain dominated in terms of fees paid. However, since the launch of Squid, LiFi still on the top but it has become one of the leaders in both metrics reaching around 20% of them, indicating that it has been successful in attracting more transaction volume.

The results obtained from the analysis provide valuable insights into the fees and gas usage of different liquidity routers, including Squid, Stargate, Thorchain, Celer, LiFi, and Anyswap.

Secondly, looking at the average transaction fees, the majority of the platforms show an uptrend from around $2 to over $10 for Stargate Finance, with something similar but not as high for LiFi, Anyswap, and Celer, while Squid has maintained below $7. This suggests that Stargate Finance may not be the most cost-effective platform for users who prioritize low transaction fees, while Squid and the other platforms may offer more competitive transaction fees.

Thirdly, considering the average gas used per platform, Celer Network and LiFi have consistently shown the highest values over time, with these values being maintained. However, since the launch of Squid, its numbers have started to increase and have surpassed those of the other platforms, indicating that it may be more gas-intensive than other platforms.