Rich-List Case Study: Stratis #2

Rich-List Case Study: Stratis #2

It has now been three weeks since the initial rich-list case study post was published on Stratis; and yes, I was supposed to update this series biweekly but, having published a number of other posts last week, triweekly will have to suffice. In truth, the interval utilised in this approach is discretionary and many will opt for whatever is apt for their lifestyle.

For those that missed the first instalment of this series, you can find it here. In it, I outline the exact approach for rich-list analysis and the preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from the initial data set.

For today’s post, we will be updating our findings by evaluating the activity that has occurred over the past three weeks within the top 20 richest addresses on the Stratis network. I will make the assumption that anyone reading this has read that first instalment and thus this will be far briefer, as there is no need to repeat the methodology.

As such, we begin our evaluation by looking at the top 20 richest addresses, as can be seen below:

25th November 2019 - Top 20 Balances and Distribution

Immediately, if you compare this screenshot to that of the top 20 from three weeks ago, a few differences should be obvious:

  • Firstly, the top address (owned by Binance) has grown by ~2mn STRAT, indicating that more users are storing their STRAT on the exchange.
  • Some of the actual addresses in the top 20 that appeared in the first screenshot are no longer there; this is suggestive of large transfers between privately-owned addresses.
  • Of the addresses that remain from the first screenshot, many have changed positions due to changes in their balances. This is what we are looking for. Clearly, there has been enough activity over the past three weeks to disrupt the original positioning of the richest 20 addresses…

So, before we move onto individual addresses, note how the top 10 addresses now control 37.79% of the STRAT supply, up ~1% from the previous screenshot.

The next detail to highlight is that there are 5 inactive addresses, relative to 6 from the prior screenshot; more of the top 20 addresses have become active since our first glance (i.e. have had transactions over the past 30 days). As such, there are 15 individual addresses of importance (well, 14 once we exclude Binance’s address, the reasoning behind which is provided in that first post of this series).

What we do now is simply follow the approach: note down the current date, address rank, the address balance on the date of the previous screenshot, the current address balance and, finally, the net change in balance across the period for each of these 14 addresses. For those addresses that have been replaced by a new address within the top 20, start a new record.

The results should appear like so:

  • #1: N/A (Binance staking address)
  • #2: -38,840 STRAT
  • #3: +4,144,795 STRAT (replacing #3 from prior screenshot)
  • #4: N/A (only staking across period – was previously #5)
  • #5: -150,812 STRAT (was previously #4)
  • #6: +1,519,860 STRAT (replacing #6 from prior screenshot)
  • #7: N/A (only staking across period)
  • #8: +238,573 STRAT (new address)
  • #9: N/A (inactive address – was previously #8)
  • #10: N/A (only staking across period – was previously #9)
  • #11: N/A (inactive address – was previously #10)
  • #12: N/A (only staking across period – was previously #11)
  • #13: N/A (inactive address – was previously #12)
  • #14: N/A (only staking across period – was previously #13)
  • #15: +124,900 STRAT (was previously #17)
  • #16: N/A (inactive address – was previously #14)
  • #17: -43,751 STRAT (was previously #15)
  • #18: N/A (inactive address – was previously #16)
  • #19: N/A (only staking across period – was previously #18)
  • #20: N/A (only staking across period  – was previously #19)

As was the case with the first instalment, our initial expectations were not met, as there are far fewer active addresses once staking-only addresses have been accounted for. In fact, only 7 addresses in the top 20 had any transactions since the previous screenshot. Further, we can quite clearly see the number of position changes that have taken place, with many addresses moving down in the top 20.

Most importantly, we can see that, of the 7 active addresses, 3 experienced net outflows and 4 experienced net inflows; however, 2 of the 4 that experienced inflows simply replaced the addresses that were previously found with similar balances, indicating a likely private transfer of holdings rather than accumulation. As such, addresses #3 and #6 are discounted from our evaluation. Thus, the total change in balance of the top 20 addresses since 4th November was +130,070 STRAT.

To conclude this second instalment of the rich-list case study on Stratis, I’d like to outline my conclusions subsequent to these findings:

  • Cumulative net inflow to the top 20 addresses continues from the first data set, though at a muted rate, accounting for possible private transfers.
  • Majority addresses are inactive, with only 7 of the 20 making any transactions. Of these 7, 3 addresses were in active distribution. This is the same number of distributing addresses as in the first data set and represents a minority.
  • Net inflows are occurring whilst price remains range-bound at historical support (see the chart below).
  • The top 10 control ~1% more of the circulating supply.


STRATBTC - 25th Nov 2019

I hope the second instalment of this rich-list case study series has been useful in some way or other.

Based on today’s results relative to the prior data set, my confidence has grown a little in the view that current prices for Stratis are attractive to smart money, given the increase in holdings over the period of the top 20 addresses. I am expecting this pattern to continue whilst price remains range-bound.

I look forward to writing up the next instalment of this rich-list case study in December.

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


Leave a Reply