Rich-List Case Study: Constellation #2

Rich-List Case Study: Constellation #2

Welcome to the second instalment of the rich-list case study on Constellation.

If you missed the first post in the series, you can find it here. I’d recommend giving it a read if this is your first interaction with a rich-list case study, as it will help clarify many of the points I cover and the reasoning behind my evaluations.

Now, let’s begin by taking a look at an updated screenshot of the top 20 addresses, accurate as of 10th February 2020:

Top 20 Overview 10th Feb 2020

The first thing I’d like to clear up is which of these addresses are team-owned, as I now have a document detailing these addresses, which can be found here. In the previous post, I had failed to make this clear.

Having compared the addresses listed in the document to the current top 20 addresses, I found the following:

  • Address #1 (the richest address) is the Validator address, containing reserves for the Mainnet to be distributed over a 10-year period.
  • Address #3 is the Foundation and the tokens are currently locked.
  • Address #4 is 288mn DAG that has been burned and is thus no longer part of the supply.
  • Address #5 contains tokens from the private sale.
  • Address #8 contains token reserved for the Community, distributed for bounties etc.
  • Address #10 is another Foundation address that is currently out of circulation.
  • Address #11 contains tokens for partners and advisors.

As such, among these addresses, all but #5 and #11 can be ignored for our purposes.

Now, let us first take a look at whether any changes have occurred within this top 20 regarding the list’s composition; are there any new addresses and how has the concentration of supply among the top 10 altered, for example?

Well, regarding the latter, ownership among the top 10 is now equal to 84.02% of the total supply, up 1.5% from the previous post.

Regarding address alterations, the only address that has changed is #18, which has been replaced by a new address – all the other addresses are exactly the same and, what’s more, are in the same position they were two weeks ago.

Moreover, addresses #5, #6, #9, #12, #13, #14, #16, #17, #19 and #20 are inactive since the previous post was published. Thus, the only active, relevant addresses are actually #11 and #18. The rest are team-owned, locked up or exchange-owned, or they’re simply inactive.

Given all of the above, here are the results for Constellation as of February 10th, 2020, detailing any changes since January 25th, 2020:

  • #1: N/A (Validator address)
  • #2: N/A (Kucoin)
  • #3: N/A (Foundation)
  • #4: N/A (Burned supply)
  • #5: Inactive
  • #6: Inactive
  • #7: N/A (Kucoin)
  • #8: N/A (Community Fund)
  • #9: Inactive
  • #10: N/A (Foundation)
  • #11: -2,314,814 DAG (Partners and Advisors)
  • #12: Inactive
  • #13: Inactive
  • #14: Inactive
  • #15: N/A (Hotbit)
  • #16: Inactive
  • #17: Inactive
  • #18: +15,011,00 DAG (Transfer of balance from previous #18)
  • #19: Inactive
  • #20: Inactive

In the first instalment of this series, there were 7 inactive addresses for the preceding 30 days; as of today, there are 10, excluding exchange and team addresses. This indicates that larger holders are doing less, and this is likely due to the upcoming token swap. This is supported by the fact that there was only really a single address that actively reduced its balance and that was #11 (the address with tokens allocated to partners and advisors). Beyond this, there was minimal change among the top 20 addresses.

The total cumulative net outflow of the top 20 addresses since January 25th 2020 was -2.314mn DAG, equating to ~$30k.

Please find a price chart below for context:



I will be publishing the final instalment to this rich-list case study on Constellation in a fortnight, after which I will draw my conclusions. For now, I hope this second instalment has been an enjoyable read.

As ever, if you have any questions, feel free to leave them below.

Leave a Reply