Supplementary Information

• Author: NSA2000
• Twitter of the Author: @NSA2000C
• Discord of the Author: NSA2000#5651
• Data from FlipsideCrypto
• The author of this review dashboard is sincerely thankful to the authors of the following dashboards (Jackguy, 0xHaM-d, and Ali3N) for their most creative SQL codes that I have burrowed and employed to do my own analysis: * * *

Introduction

What is Osmosis?

Osmosis is a DEX blockchain that's a zone of the Cosmos Hub ecosystem, thus making it compatible with networks using the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol, like Terra. Osmosis has a customizable AMM that's different from ones like Uniswap and Curve because it allows users to deploy sovereign liquidity pools. This means that each Osmosis liquidity pool is like an independent decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), where liquidity providers can vote to change the parameters of the AMM formula for their pool.

Governance

The goals of governance on Osmosis are to give stakeholders a say in how their liquidity is used and for the deployment of liquidity pools with custom parameters that can adjust according to the market and compete with each other. While OSMO token holders get to vote on proposals for the Osmosis protocol as a whole, it's up to the liquidity providers of each self-governing liquidity pool to collectively decide the rules of their pool. This allows liquidity pools to experiment as a way of formulating a balance between liquidity and swapping fees.  

OSMO token

The OSMO token is the main governance token of the Osmosis Protocol as well as the native currency of the Osmosis blockchain. Osmosis is a proof of stake blockchain, which means validator nodes must have a certain amount of OSMO staked to confirm transaction blocks. Being a validator means taking responsibility for the network's security, so those who don't have the resources to do that can also delegate their OSMO to another validator and earn part of their rewards. []

How to use Osmosis

Osmosis is the biggest IBC blockchain by transfer volume because it's both a standalone blockchain and the biggest DEX in the Cosmos Hub ecosystem. To use Osmosis, you'll first need to install a Web3 wallet that's compatible with Cosmos—The Keplr browser wallet for Chrome is highly recommended. Then, since OSMO is not currently available to buy on centralized exchanges like Kraken, you'll need to transfer some ATOM crypto into your Keplr Cosmos wallet.

Staking

Once you have OSMO in your Osmosis wallet, one thing you can do is stake or "bond" it to help secure the Osmosis protocol. To do this you'll need to head over to Keplr, but hold your horses because the Osmosis interface has got you covered. Just click on 'stake' and you'll be automatically redirected to the Osmosis staking page in the Keplr app. There you'll see a list of active validators to whom you can delegate your OSMO as well as their 'voting power' (amount of OSMO that's staked with them) and commission rate (the percentage they charge from your staking rewards). []

Providing liquidity

Bonding is also the term used for providing crypto into liquidity pools and this is done in the 'pool' section of Osmosis. Liquidity providers must stake two crypto assets into a liquidity pool to earn the fees traders pay for utilizing that liquidity as a reward. While most pools require an equal dollar amount of each crypto, the value ratio can vary according to the parameters of the pool. 

Superfluid staking

Osmosis recently introduced Superfluid staking to some of its liquidity pools. Rather than having to choose to bond OSMO either with a validator or into a liquidity pool, Superfluid staking allows you to do both simultaneously. This can be done automatically on select ATOM/OSMO liquidity pools as well as those of a few other assets. Superfluid staking works by taking the gamma LP tokens of liquidity providers who choose to Superfluid stake and delegating an equal value of OSMO to validators.  [] [] []

Methodology

> # ==The data in this dashboard is obtained from the following tables:== > > * osmosis.core.fact_locked_liquidity_actions > * osmosis.core.fact_superfluid_staking > * osmosis.core.dim_prices > * osmosis.core.dim_labels > * osmosis.core.fact_swaps > * osmosis.core.fact_liquidity_provider_actions > * osmosis.core.fact_validators > >

> > # ==The aim of this analysis:== > > This dashboard aims to investigate the impact of a slashing event on the 16 available SuperFluid Staking (SFS) pools on Osmosis (1: ATOM / OSMO, 678: USDC / OSMO, 704: WETH / OSMO, 712: WBTC / OSMO, 674: DAI / OSMO, 722: EVMOS / OSMO, 9: CRO / OSMO, 604: STARS / OSMO, 497: JUNO / OSMO, 812: AXL / OSMO, 584: SCRT / OSMO, 3: AKT / OSMO, 481: EEUR / OSMO, 42: REGEN / OSMO, 463: NGM / OSMO, 15: XPRT / OSMO) by analyzing the distribution of superfluid-staked OSMO across these pools. Moereover, we will investigate the most popular validators who have the most SFS OSMO (in each pool and by total).

Slashing

Slashing is a mechanism built into Proof of Stake (PoS) blockchain protocols to discourage validator misbehavior. While the specifics of slashing are defined within each protocol, the mechanism is similar where a predefined percentage of a validator’s tokens are lost when it does not behave consistently or as expected on the network. []

Results and Discussion

> # ==The following charts show the weekly variation of the LP transactions number and volume (in USD) as well as the number of LPers and distributions theredof for the above-mentioned SSF pools compared to other pools.==

> # ==The following figures show the weekly variation of the delegate transactions number and volume (in USD) as well as the number of delegators and validators alongside their distributions for different SSF pools.==

> # ==The following charts show the weekly variation of the number of new delegators and their distributions for different SSF pools.==

> # ==The following charts show the weekly variation of pool token price as well as the depoist, withdraw, and net deposit volume for different SSF pools.==

> # ==The following charts show the most popular validators on different SSF pools.==

The above charts show that SSF pools after 28 Feb 2022 (the date of its launch) constitute a big share of the total number of LP transactions (40.9%) and users (42.4%). Moreover, the total volume of LP transactions for SFF pools is about 2.5B (21.4% of total share) which is significant compared to other pools. It must be pointed out that while the weekly variation of the LP transactions number and volume (in USD) as well as the number of LPers for SFF pools is rather constant, especially after May 2022 with some fluctuations, the weekly variation of the mentioned parameters is significantly decreasing especially since SFF pools have been launched, which in turn shows users are more interested in SFF pools.

As far as the weekly variation and distribution of the number of delegate transactions and users for different SSF pools is concerned, pools 1 and 722 have the upper hand. According to the number of validators (weekly variation and distribution), pools 1, 678, and 604 are superior among other SFF pools. However, it can be observed that the validators are rather distributed evenly between different SFF pools. Regarding the delegate transaction volume (in USD) and its distribution for different SSF pools, it can be seen that the majority of the volume is held by two pools 9 and 1, which in turn implies less negative effects of slashing on these pools.

These charts show that the new delegators are adding to the different SFF pools with a rather even distribution. However, among different pools, pools 1, 678, and 722 slightly have the upper hand.

The weekly variation of the price of the tokens used to access the LP, which in turn shows the value of the tokens held in the SSF pools shows a rather constant trend for different pools. The weekly variation of the LP deposits, withdrawals, and net deposits (in USD) show that overall the inflow (deposit) volume is superior compared to outflow (withdrawals) and net deposit amounts are mainly positive. The most volume of deposits is recorded on 21 Jan 2022 (23.55M) and the most volume of withdrawals is recorded on 21 Mar (25.39M). Pool 1 is the most active pool among other SFF pools and the net deposit volume (USD) belongs to this pool.

These charts show that the staked OSMO is almost equally distributed between the pools and this can be a good sign that implies lower negative effects of slashing. However, the most popular validator according to these charts is Cosmostation, after that ShapeShift.DAO and AUDIT.ONE have the upper hands, respectively. It is worth mentioning that Cosmostation, ShapeShift.DAO and AUDIT.ONEas the most important validators are mostly attracted to pool 1.

> # Summary

> # ==This dashboard aims to== investigate the impact of a slashing event on the 16 available SuperFluid Staking (SFS) pools on Osmosis. We have analyzed the distribution of superfluid-staked OSMO across these pools as well as the most popular validators who have the most SFS OSMO (in each pool and by total).

> # SSF pools after 28 Feb 2022 (the date of its launch) constitute a big share of the total number of LP transactions (40.9%) and users (42.4%).

> # The total volume of LP transactions for SFF pools is about 2.5B (21.4% of total share) which is significant compared to other pools.

> # While the weekly variation of the LP transactions number and volume (in USD) as well as the number of LPers for SFF pools is rather constant, especially after May 2022 with some fluctuations, the weekly variation of the mentioned parameters is significantly decreasing especially since SFF pools have been launched, which in turn shows users are more interested in SFF pools.

> # Pools 1 and 722 have the upper hand by regarding the weekly variation and distribution of the number of delegate transactions and users for different SSF pools.

> # Pools 1, 678, and 604 are superior among other SFF pools according to the number of validators (weekly variation and distribution).

> # It has been observed that the validators are rather distributed evenly between different SFF pools.

> # According to the delegate transaction volume (in USD) and its distribution for different SSF pools, it has been concluded that the majority of the volume is held by two pools 9 and 1, which in turn implies less negative effects of slashing on these pools.

> # It has been concluded that new delegators are adding to the different SFF pools with a rather even and steady distribution. However, among different pools, pools 1, 678, and 722 slightly have the upper hand.

> # One of the most important conclusions in this analyze was this that the staked OSMO is almost equally distributed between the pools and this can be a good sign that implies lower negative effects of slashing.

> # The most popular validator according to our investigation in this dashboard is Cosmostation, after that ShapeShift.DAO and AUDIT.ONE have the upper hands, respectively. These 3 most important validators are mainly attracted to pool 1.