Osmosis is the first IBC-native Automated Market Maker(AMM). It is an advanced AMM protocol built on the Cosmos SDK, which allows developers to build, design and deploy their very own customised AMMs. with Osmosis, cryptocurrency holders of IBC compatible blockchains can seamlessly swap their tokens.

While most DEXs rely on bonding curves, Osmosis allows dynamic adjustments of swap fees, multi-token LPs and custom curve AMMs.

Osmosis can even enable interchain staking — you essentially stake Cosmos and earn Cosmos rewards, along with rewards from other tokens the validator is validating, for example, LUNA/CRO.

Stakers rewarded for everything else which are linked through ICS for securing the entire network.

In the traditional DeFi industry, token holders face a choice between providing liquidity or generating yield from staking.

Superfluid staking changes the entire game. $OSMO, the governing token of Osmosis, can be used for staking and liquidity simultaneously. This maximizes rewards without having to decide on committing into one option or another.

LPs on Osmosis will earn rewards from providing liquidity and staking whereas other platforms require token holders to make a tradeoff.()

In this bounty we were asked to analyze how users join pools on Osmosis. We had to do analysis for headfirst (add both assets; joinpool) and carefull providers (singleside; join swap extern amount in).

\n

In the above charts, you can see the total and weekly count of liquiduty adding transactions, count of liquidity providers and USD volume of provided liquidity for both one asset abd two asset providers, separately.

==As you can see, total number of transactions and users who added liquidity for both assets was about 2 times more than one asset providers. While the USD volume that both asset providers, added to the pools was about 13 times greater than the volume that one asset providers added to the pools.==

Count of liquidity providing transactions and users(one and two asset providing) increased sharply until March 2022, but after that month, these parameters decreased sharply. Count of transactions and users that provided two assets, was about 2 times greater than count of transactions and users that privided one asset, until May 2022, but from June these counts got very close to each other.

There was 4 big spike(2 of them was very big) in the USD volume of liquidity providing for two assets. There on June, August, and 2 bigs in October.

In all the weeks, volume of providing liquidity for two assets was bigger than providing liquidity for one asset, except in 6 weeks.

The averagd volume of providing liquidity for two asset was 2.76 K USD, while this parameter for one asset was 631 USD.

In the below charts you can see a similar analysis based on the symbol that users added liquidity to them.

==The highest count of liquidity providing transactions was on Osmo, Atom and Stars tokens, respectively.== This was for both one asset and two assets providers.

The highest count of liquidity providers(who added liquidity for two assets) was on Osmo, Atom,Juno and Stars tokens, respectively. While the highest count of liquidity providers who added liquidity for one asset was on Osmo, Atom, Stars and Juno, respectively.

Osmo and Atom were the two main assets that the highest USD volume of liquidity was provided for them(both one and two assets providers).

LUM, IXO and XPRT were the 3 assets that had the highest average USD volume of providing liquidity for 2 assets providers. While, LUM, NETA and ATOM were the 3 assets that had the highest average USD volume of providing liquidity for 1 asset providers.

In the below charts, you can see a more deep analysis for one and two assets providers separately:

One asset provider:

==Count of transactions== increased sharply until mid of March. Then it decreased sharply and from mid of May, was less than 20 K transactions in each week. In all the weeks count of Osmo providing transactions was more than other tokens. From mid of Jan to July, STARS, ATOM and HUAHUA had the highest count of transactions after OSMO. From the last week of Sep, Evmos was in the second rank of of liquidity transactions after OSMO.

==Count of users== who added liquidity to the pools increased sharply until mid of March. Then it decreased sharply and from mid of May, was less than 6 K liquidity provider in each week. In all the weeks count of Osmo providers was more than other tokens. From mid of Jan to July, STARS, ATOM and HUAHUA had the highest count of providers after OSMO. From the last week of Sep, Evmos was in the second rank of of liquidity providers after OSMO.

In all the weeks, OSMO, had the highest ==USD volume of provided liquidity==, except in 4 weeks that USD volume of provided liquidity for ATOM was greater than OSMO. Although the highest count of providing liquidity transactions and liquidity providers was on mid of March, but the highest USD volume of liquidity provided was in the last week of Feb.

Second week of Jan, the highest avg USD volume of liquidity was provided, which was for XPRT.

Two assets provider:

==Until the last week of Sep, users could only add liquidity to 7 assets. but after that it got more diverse.==

==OSMO was added to the pools in the last week of Sep. Before that date, ATOM had the highest count of transactions for liquidity proving and count of liquidity providers. But by adding OSMO to the pools, it got the highest count of providers and also the USD volume.==

==Count of transactions== increased sharply until the last week of Feb. Then it decreased sharply and from June, was less than 25 K transactions in each week. Before adding Osmo, in all the weeks count of ATOM providing transactions was more than other tokens. but by adding OSMO in the last week of Sep, it got the highest count of providing liquidity transactions.

==Count of users== who added liquidity to the pools increased sharply until the last week of Feb. Then it decreased sharply and from June, was less than 10 K liquidity provider in each week. Before adding Osmo, in all the weeks count of ATOM liquidity providers was more than other tokens. but by adding OSMO in the last week of Sep, it got the highest count of liquidity providers.

In all the weeks before adding OSMO to the pools, ATOM, had the highest ==USD volume of provided liquidity==, but after adding OSMO to the pools, it got the highest USD volume of provided liquidity especially in the first week that it was added to the pools(last week of Sep). USD volume of providing liquidity, decreased sharply from June and was less than 8 M in all the weeks.

Second week of Jan, the highest avg USD volume of liquidity was provided, which was for REGEN and IXO.

Conclusion:

Based on above analysis, we can see that liquidity providers on two assets was by far more active than one asset providers. So they most headfirst (add both assets; joinpool) and less do they wade in carefully (singleside; join swap extern amount in).

****