DEV Community: Dr. Artur Kirjakulov

XRPL Wallet Activity Analysis: 7 Million Wallets Reveal XRP Distribution Patterns

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Thu, 25 Sep 2025 14:04:26 +0000

An empirical analysis of wallet activity patterns across the XRP Ledger ecosystem*

Supply Overview

XRP Supply Structure (September 2025):

Total Supply: 100,000,000,000 XRP (fixed)
Circulating Supply: 64,685,868,147 XRP (analysed in this study)
Escrow/Reserves: ~35,314,131,853 XRP (not in circulation)

This analysis focuses exclusively on the circulating supply held in user wallets.

Executive Summary

This analysis examines 7,016,668 XRPL wallets containing 64,685,868,147 XRP (circulating supply) as of September 2025. The data indicates that wallets holding 84.2% of circulating XRP have been active within the past year, providing empirical context for understanding cryptocurrency circulation patterns. Analysis shows 3.8% of circulating supply (2.4 billion tokens) remains in wallets that have never sent a transaction.

Methodology

We analysed complete XRPL ledger state data, categorising wallets by their last transaction using ledger sequence numbers and 4-second block intervals. Each wallet was classified into activity periods based on days elapsed since their most recent transaction.

Dataset Parameters:

Wallets analysed: 7,016,668
Circulating XRP examined: 64,685,868,147 (out of 100 billion total supply)
Analysis date: 23 September 2025
Current ledger: 99,046,276

Note: This analysis covers circulating supply only. Approximately 35.3 billion XRP remains in escrow or reserves, not included in these calculations.

Key Findings

This analysis of 7,016,668 XRPL wallets provides empirical data on XRP distribution and activity patterns within the circulating supply:

Primary Observations

Supply Activity: 84.2% of circulating XRP (54.4B of 64.7B) is held in wallets that transacted within 12 months
Wallet Engagement: 49.8% of wallets showed activity within the past year
Large Holder Patterns: 98.6% of wallets containing 1M+ XRP maintained annual activity
Dormancy Distribution: 3.8% of circulating supply sits in wallets that have never sent a transaction, whilst 15.8% is held in wallets inactive for over one year

Supply Context

Circulating supply analysed: 64.7 billion XRP
Total XRP supply: 100 billion XRP
Escrow/reserves (not analysed): ~35.3 billion XRP
Effective liquid circulation: 54.4 billion XRP (84.2% of circulating)

Supply Liquidity Assessment

Liquidity Tiers

Liquidity Level	Time Frame	XRP Amount	% of Circulating
Highly Liquid	≤90 days	31.7B	49.0%
Liquid	91-365 days	22.7B	35.1%
Semi-Liquid	1-2 years	7.6B	11.7%
Illiquid	2+ years	2.7B	4.1%

Key Insight: XRPL demonstrates exceptional liquidity with 84.2% of supply held in wallets that transacted within a year. The distribution creates a liquidity pyramid - nearly half the supply sits in wallets that transact quarterly, whilst only 4.1% is held in wallets dormant for 2+ years. This profile suggests active portfolio management rather than traditional cryptocurrency "hodling" patterns.

Wallet Activity Distribution

Transaction Frequency Analysis

Time Period	Wallet Count	% of Wallets	XRP Amount	% of Circulating	Median XRP	Average XRP
Within 30 days	468,194	6.7%	22,540,263,477	34.8%	37	48,143
31-90 days ago	700,014	10.0%	9,138,872,983	14.1%	13	13,055
91-180 days ago	1,062,921	15.1%	19,420,787,516	30.0%	1,535	18,271
181-365 days ago	1,261,641	18.0%	3,338,234,127	5.2%	3	2,646
1-2 years ago	471,788	6.7%	7,569,192,110	11.7%	10	16,044
2-3 years ago	812,927	11.6%	110,419,716	0.2%	20	136
3-4 years ago	471,061	6.7%	45,645,212	0.1%	10	97
4-5 years ago	755,716	10.8%	69,002,672	0.1%	20	91
5-10 years ago	669,279	9.5%	24,373,441	0.0%	20	36
10+ years ago	34,391	0.5%	1,856,078	0.0%	21	54
Never sent TX	308,736	4.4%	2,427,220,816	3.8%	176	7,862

Key Insight: The data shows that recently active wallets tend to hold larger balances - whilst 6.7% of wallets transacted within 30 days, they hold 34.8% of circulating supply (average 48,143 XRP per wallet). The quarterly activity period (91-180 days) represents another 30% of supply, potentially reflecting regular portfolio management cycles.

Large Holder Activity Analysis

Wallets Containing 1M+ XRP

Total identified: 2,693 wallets
Active within 1 year: 2,656 wallets (98.6%)
XRP in active whale wallets: 38,985,977,965 XRP
Average whale balance: 14,676,871 XRP

Key Insight: With 98.6% of million-XRP wallets showing annual activity, large holders on XRPL maintain remarkably consistent engagement. Only 37 whale wallets (1.4%) have been dormant for over a year, indicating that high-value accounts remain actively managed rather than abandoned.

XRP Dormancy Analysis

Inactive Holdings by Duration

Duration	XRP Amount	% of Circulating
1+ years inactive	10,247,710,045	15.8%
2+ years inactive	2,678,517,935	4.1%
3+ years inactive	2,568,098,219	4.0%
4+ years inactive	2,522,453,007	3.9%
5+ years inactive	2,453,450,335	3.8%
10+ years inactive	2,429,076,894	3.8%

Key Insight: The data shows a significant transition at the 2-year mark, dropping from 15.8% to 4.1% dormancy. This 7.6 billion XRP difference represents wallets inactive for 1-2 years. After 2 years, dormancy levels stabilise at approximately 3.8-4.1%, which may indicate the portion of supply in inaccessible wallets. This figure is notably lower than commonly cited estimates for other major cryptocurrencies. The relatively stable dormancy rate after the 2-year point indicates that wallets either become permanently inaccessible relatively quickly or remain accessible indefinitely.

Value Distribution Analysis

Concentration by Activity Level

Distribution of circulating XRP by wallet activity:

Active ≤30 days: 22.5B XRP (34.8% of circulating)
Active ≤90 days: 32.1B XRP (49.6% of circulating)
Active ≤180 days: 44.6B XRP (68.9% of circulating)
Active ≤365 days: 54.4B XRP (84.2% of circulating)

Key Insight: Nearly 70% of all circulating XRP is held in wallets that transacted within the last 6 months, indicating highly active network utilisation. The concentration increases sharply with recency - half of all XRP sits in wallets active in just the past 90 days. This activity pattern suggests XRP holders actively manage their positions rather than simply holding static balances.

Receive-Only Wallet Analysis

Wallets that have never sent transactions:

Total count: 308,736 wallets
XRP held: 2,427,220,816 (3.8% of circulating supply)
Average balance: 7,862 XRP
Median balance: 176 XRP

Key Insight: The distribution is highly skewed - whilst the median receive-only wallet holds just 176 XRP, the average of 7,862 XRP indicates some very large balances in this category. These 308,736 wallets collectively hold 2.4 billion XRP and share one characteristic: they have only ever received XRP, never sent it. Without outgoing transactions, it's impossible to determine whether these represent inaccessible wallets, cold storage systems, or deliberate long-term holding strategies.

Network Growth Patterns

Historical Activity Distribution

Period	Wallet Count	% of Total
Within 1 year	3,492,770	49.8%
1-2 years ago	471,788	6.7%
2-3 years ago	812,927	11.6%
3-5 years ago	1,226,777	17.5%
5-10 years ago	669,279	9.5%
10+ years ago	34,391	0.5%
Never transacted	308,736	4.4%

Key Insight: Wallet activity clusters around specific time periods, with the largest historical group (812,927 wallets) last active 2-3 years ago. The data shows 49.8% of wallets maintaining recent activity, whilst genesis-era wallets (10+ years) comprise just 0.5% of the total network. Each time period's wallet count provides a snapshot of network adoption patterns over XRPL's history.

Market Implications

Supply-Side Factors

15.8% of circulating supply held in wallets inactive beyond one year
3.8% in never-transacted wallets within circulating supply
Quarterly activity patterns observed in 90-180 day periods

These dormancy patterns reveal XRPL's evolution into institutional-grade infrastructure. When we see only 3.8% of circulating supply potentially lost compared to Bitcoin's estimated 20%, combined with 98.6% whale activity rates, it demonstrates the network's adoption by sophisticated participants who maintain proper key management and active portfolio management.

Liquidity Characteristics

84.2% of circulating supply held in wallets active within 12-month period
49% of supply in wallets transacting quarterly
3.8% potentially permanent removal (never-transacted wallets)
Note: ~35.3B XRP in escrow/reserves not included in these metrics

Key Insight: The liquidity profile shows most XRP remains accessible, with the vast majority held by active participants. The quarterly activity of nearly half the supply suggests regular use or management rather than passive holding. When combined with the escrow/reserve system holding 35.3B XRP outside circulation, the effective liquid supply appears well-managed with predictable availability patterns.

Comparative Context

XRPL vs Other Networks

Based on circulating supply analysis:

Dormancy rate: 3.8% in never-transacted wallets (vs Bitcoin's estimated 20%+ lost)
Whale activity: 98.6% annual participation rate
Active supply: 84.2% held in wallets active within 12 months
Balance distribution: Median of 20-37 XRP vs whale average of 14.6M XRP

Key Insight: XRPL exhibits characteristics of an actively managed network. The low percentage in never-transacted wallets and high whale activity patterns distinguish it from networks with significant dormant holdings. The pattern of regular wallet activity indicates active portfolio management rather than passive "hodling" behaviour commonly seen in other cryptocurrencies.

Methodology Notes

Analysis Parameters

Ledger sequences used for precise timing (4-second intervals)
PreviousTxnLgrSeq field tracked for last transaction identification
Balance validation performed on all accounts

Limitations

Cannot distinguish between strategic holding and lost access
Exchange wallets may distort individual holder patterns
Some custodial solutions may appear as single wallets

Data Availability

Analysis based on public XRPL data accessible through standard node APIs. Reproducible using full ledger history and current state data.

This analysis represents a point-in-time examination of XRPL wallet activity patterns. Cryptocurrency networks are dynamic systems, and these patterns may evolve with changing market conditions, technological developments, and adoption trends.

Decoding XRP Ledger: How Protocol Requirements Shape the Network (September 2025 Update)

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 14:51:41 +0000

Key Highlights

Massive Dataset: Analysed the 250 most frequent balance values from ~7 million XRP wallets, representing 2,685,283 wallets (approximately 38.3% of the network)
The 1.00000100 Mystery: A single balance value (1.00000100 XRP) has exploded to become the #3 most common balance with 470,609 wallets (6.7% of entire network), potentially indicating network spam or automated wallet creation
Inactive Wallet Discovery: The persistence of exact reserve amounts (10.0 and 20.0 XRP as top 2 values) suggests significant wallet abandonment at historical minimums, creating "value fossils"
Protocol DNA: Reserve requirements from as far back as 2012 continue to shape the network's value distribution, with even 1000 XRP (2012 reserve) still appearing at rank #95
Round Number Dominance: The top two values alone (10.0 and 20.0 XRP) account for 16.13% of all wallets, showing extreme psychological anchoring
Digital Archaeology: The persistence of wallet balances from different eras reveals the network's growth history, similar to tree rings or archaeological strata
User Behaviour Pattern: Evidence strongly suggests users rarely delete their wallets, instead abandoning them with exactly the minimum reserve amount

The DNA of a Blockchain Network

Imagine taking a snapshot of all the balances in your bank's systems. You'd likely see a random distribution of values: savings accounts with odd amounts like $2,847.53, checking accounts with $143.28, and so forth. But what if 16% of all accounts had exactly the same two amounts: $10 or $20?

This is exactly what I found analysing the XRP Ledger ecosystem, which currently contains approximately 7 million accounts. By examining the 250 most common value patterns across all wallets, I discovered something peculiar: rather than a random distribution, the data reveals clear patterns that tell a fascinating story about how protocol rules fundamentally shape blockchain networks.

Methodology: Understanding the Data

This September 2025 analysis examines:

Source: ~7 million XRP Ledger wallets scanned
Sample: Top 250 most frequent balance values (mode analysis)
Coverage: These 250 values represent 2,685,283 wallets (38.3% of network)
Concentration: Top 50 values alone account for 34% of the network

This approach captures the dominant patterns in the network while filtering out the long tail of unique balance values.

The Reserve Requirement Effect

The XRP Ledger requires users to maintain a minimum reserve in each wallet, also know as wallet activation fee, to prevent spam and network abuse. This reserve has changed over time:

Time Period	Wallet Reserve	Exact Balance Count	% of Network	Rank	Notes
2012 (Launch)	1000 XRP	1,945 wallets	0.028%	#95	Still persists after 13 years
Early 2013	200 XRP	2,803 wallets	0.040%	#72	More common than 1000 XRP
Dec 2013 - Sept 2021	20 XRP	538,586 wallets	7.687%	#2	Second most common value
Sept 2021 - Dec 2024	10 XRP	591,510 wallets	8.442%	#1	Most common value in network
Dec 2024 - Present	1 XRP	507,341 wallets total*	7.241%	-	*36,732 exact + 470,609 at 1.000001

Like rings in a tree trunk, these values tell us about the network's history and growth. The most common values directly match these historical requirements, with each creating its own cluster of similar values.

Change Analysis: February 2025 vs September 2025

Reserve Level	Feb 2025 Count	Sept 2025 Count	Absolute Change	% Change	Trend
1000 XRP	3,748 wallets	1,945 wallets	-1,803	-48.1%	↓ Declining rapidly
200 XRP	2,930 wallets	2,803 wallets	-127	-4.3%	↓ Slowly declining
20 XRP cluster	748,140 wallets	~700,000 wallets*	-48,140	-6.4%	↓ Gradual decline
10 XRP cluster	894,220 wallets	~800,000 wallets*	-94,220	-10.5%	↓ Moderate decline
1 XRP cluster	348,832 wallets	507,341 wallets	+158,509	+45.4%	↑ Explosive growth
Network Total	6.2M wallets	7.0M wallets	+800,000	+12.9%	↑ Growing

*Cluster totals estimated from multiple related values in top 250

The data reveals a clear pattern: older reserve levels are declining while the newest 1 XRP reserve shows explosive growth, suggesting both new user adoption and possible migration to lower reserves.

Value Clusters Reveal Wallet Persistence

When we group variations of the same base values, the pattern becomes even clearer:

~20 XRP Cluster (2013 Reserve)

Exact 20.0 XRP: 538,586 wallets (Rank #2)
Variants around 20:
- 19.99998800: 42,333 wallets (Rank #6)
- 19.99998000: 35,612 wallets (Rank #8)
- 19.99999000: 17,494 wallets (Rank #18)
- 19.99998500: 17,321 wallets (Rank #20)
- Plus 15 more variations in top 250
Total cluster: ~700,000+ wallets
Pattern: High concentration at exact value with variations suggesting fee deductions

~10 XRP Cluster (2021 Reserve)

Exact 10.0 XRP: 591,510 wallets (Rank #1)
Slightly above:
- 10.00000100: 66,018 wallets (Rank #4)
- 10.00000200: 15,276 wallets (Rank #21)
Slightly below:
- 9.99999000: 32,996 wallets (Rank #10)
- 9.99998800: 27,575 wallets (Rank #12)
- 9.99998500: 26,135 wallets (Rank #13)
Total cluster: ~800,000+ wallets
Pattern: Largest single cluster with symmetric distribution around reserve

~1 XRP Cluster (2024 Reserve) - The Surprising Discovery

1.00000100 XRP: 470,609 wallets (Rank #3!) - The mysterious third place
Exact 1.0 XRP: 36,732 wallets (Rank #7)
Variants around 1:
- 1.00000200: 28,347 wallets (Rank #11)
- 0.99998900: 64,902 wallets (Rank #5)
- 0.99999100: 35,441 wallets (Rank #9)
Total cluster: ~650,000+ wallets
Pattern: Massive variation above 1.0, particularly the 1.00000100 phenomenon

The 1.00000100 XRP Mystery: Network Spam Revealed

The most striking finding is that 1.00000100 XRP is now the 3rd most common balance with 470,609 wallets (6.717% of the entire network). This phenomenon is almost certainly the result of memo-spam transactions:

The Spam Pattern:

When users fund new wallets with exactly 1 XRP to activate them, they instantly receive spam transactions
These spam transactions add exactly 0.000001 XRP, creating the 1.00000100 balance
This affects nearly half a million wallets - a massive spam campaign

Impact on the Network:

470,609 spam-affected wallets represent more than the bottom 200 balance values combined
These wallets likely belong to genuine users who activated with 1 XRP
Shows how vulnerable new users are to immediate spam upon wallet activation

This discovery reveals a significant problem: the precision of 1.00000100 XRP across nearly half a million wallets proves this is systematic, automated spam targeting new wallet activations. The lower 1 XRP reserve has attracted many new users, but these users are immediately hit with memo-spam upon activation. This can be an immediate risk on-boarding new users to XRPL network.

Why These Variations Exist: User Behaviour Patterns

The slight variations from exact reserve values reveal fascinating behaviour patterns:

Transaction Cost Effects: When users withdraw funds, they often leave tiny amounts of negative "dust" behind, typically equivalent to the transaction cost. This creates values like 9.99998800 or 19.99998800 XRP and indicates at least some historical transaction activity. In other words, when users abandon their wallets, their withdraw everything and send XRP elsewhere, going into a "debt" equal to the transaction cost.

Minimal Deposits: Some users deposit the bare minimum plus a small buffer. There are some other interesting values, like 1.2 XRP cluster, that accounts to about 17k wallets, as 12 XRP cluster, with around 11k wallet. These values clearly indicate at a activation fee + 1 trust line reserve fee. Skimming through the data more of similar pattern variations can be detected.

Reserve Persistence: Most importantly, I found strong evidence that users typically don't delete their wallets at all. Once a wallet is created with a specific reserve amount, it tends to keep that amount indefinitely, creating "value fossils" that persist for years.

Technical Implementation: Some variations stem from different wallet software implementations and how they handle precision. Values like 24.97750000 XRP (4,124 wallets) or 44.97750000 XRP (3,934 wallets)have a consistent 0.9775 pattern at different levels (25 and 45 XRP) possibly indicates an exchange that deducts exactly 0.0225 XRP, likely as a withdrawal fee.

Comparison: February 2025 vs September 2025

The evolution over 7 months reveals interesting trends:

February 2025 Analysis (Original Article):

From the original article's findings with 6.2M wallets total:

1000 XRP cluster (2012): 3,748 wallets (0.06% of network)
200 XRP cluster (Early 2013): 2,930 wallets (0.05% of network)
20 XRP cluster (Dec 2013): 748,140 wallets (12.06% of network)
10 XRP cluster (Sept 2021): 894,220 wallets (14.41% of network)
1 XRP cluster (Dec 2024): 348,832 wallets (5.62% of network)
Combined reserve clusters: ~32% of all wallets

September 2025 Analysis (7M wallets total, top 250 values):

1000 XRP (exact): 1,945 wallets (0.028% of network) - 48% decrease
200 XRP (exact): 2,803 wallets (0.040% of network) - 4% decrease
20 XRP (exact): 538,586 wallets (7.687% of network)
10 XRP (exact): 591,510 wallets (8.442% of network)
1 XRP area: 507,341 wallets total - 45% increase
Top 250 values: 38.3% of all wallets

Key Changes:

Network Growth: ~800,000 new wallets created (13% growth)
1 XRP Explosion: The newest reserve cluster grew by 45% in just 7 months
1.00000100 Phenomenon: This specific value exploded to become #3 overall
Early Reserves Declining: 1000 XRP wallets decreased by 48%
Concentration Increasing: Top values represent larger network percentage

The Power of Round Numbers

The data shows humans love round numbers, even in blockchain networks:

Exact Round Numbers in Top 250:

Powers of 10: 1, 10, 100, 1000 XRP
Simple multiples: 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 99, 110, 120, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 XRP
Other rounds: 11, 12, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 31, 33, 35, 45 XRP

Top 10 Round Numbers by Wallet Count:

10.00 XRP: 591,510 wallets (8.442%)
20.00 XRP: 538,586 wallets (7.687%)
100.00 XRP: 19,266 wallets (0.275%)
25.00 XRP: 17,372 wallets (0.248%)
50.00 XRP: 11,867 wallets (0.169%)
12.00 XRP: 10,255 wallets (0.146%)
30.00 XRP: 9,585 wallets (0.137%)
22.00 XRP: 5,643 wallets (0.081%)
21.00 XRP: 4,558 wallets (0.065%)
40.00 XRP: 3,622 wallets (0.052%)

This strong preference for round, memorable numbers persists across the entire dataset and tells us something fundamental about human psychology, even in technical settings.

Growth Story: From 1000 to 1 XRP

The frequency of values paints a picture of network growth and adoption waves:

The original 2012 reserve (1000 XRP) appears in only 1,945 wallets (0.028% of the network)
The early 2013 reserve (200 XRP) appears in 2,803 wallets (0.040% of the network)
The 2013 reserve (20 XRP) remains at 538,586 wallets (7.687% of the network)
The 2021 reserve (10 XRP) dominates with 591,510 wallets (8.442% of the network)
The 2024 reserve (1 XRP) already has 507,341+ wallets (7.241% of the network)

This suggests both accelerating adoption over time and the impact of lower entry barriers. As reserve requirements decreased from 1000 XRP to just 1 XRP, the network experienced waves of new wallet creation.

The Persistence of Wallets: Digital Archaeology

One of our most striking findings is that users rarely delete or fully empty their wallets. Wallet balances created during different reserve eras persist nearly unchanged:

1,945 wallets still hold exactly 1000 XRP from 2012
2,803 wallets still hold exactly 200 XRP from early 2013
538,586 wallets still hold exactly 20 XRP from 2013-2021 era
591,510 wallets still hold exactly 10 XRP from 2021-2024 era

This persistence creates a kind of blockchain archaeology, where we can trace the network's evolution through layers of wallet values, similar to archaeological strata or tree rings.

The data strongly indicates a "set it and forget it" pattern, where users who stop using the network rarely take action to close or reactivate dormant wallets, even when protocol changes could allow them to withdraw most of their locked funds.

Network Utilisation and Activity Insights

The concentration of balances at exact reserve requirements provides additional insights:

Adoption Waves: The large clusters at specific reserve values (10 XRP with 591,510 wallets, 20 XRP with 538,586 wallets) represent waves of user sign-ups during different eras, many of whom may have subsequently become inactive.

Transaction Indicators: Wallets with values slightly below round numbers show evidence of at least some historical transaction activity, as transaction fees would have reduced the balance from the exact reserve.

Network Utilisation: With the top 2 values alone representing 16.13% of all wallets, and these being exact reserve amounts, a significant portion of the network's accounts may not be actively contributing to network utility.

Concentration Metrics:

Top 2 values: 16.13% of all wallets
Top 10 values: 27.33% of all wallets
Top 50 values: 34.00% of all wallets
Top 250 values: 38.32% of all wallets

Why Do These Patterns Matter?

These patterns aren't merely statistical curiosities. They reveal:

Protocol DNA: Technical decisions fundamentally shape how users interact with networks
Lasting Impact: Reserve requirements create "value fossils" that persist for years
Adoption Patterns: The network growth rate can be traced through these value distributions
User Behaviour: Even in technical contexts, human preference for round numbers dominates
Activity Metrics: The distribution provides a passive measure of wallet activity levels
Technical Evolution: Small variations tell us about how the network implementation has evolved

What This Means for the Future

As blockchain networks evolve, these findings suggest several key insights:

Persistent Patterns: Protocol-level changes create lasting patterns in network usage
Migration Challenges: Many users never update from original configurations
Account Lifecycle: Most accounts remain in the ledger indefinitely
Technical Evolution: Small variations tell us about implementation changes
Future Design: New reserve requirements will likely create new dominant value clusters
Sustainability Considerations: Networks must plan for permanent account persistence

Beyond XRP: Universal Patterns?

Could these patterns appear in other blockchain networks? The evidence suggests these might be universal behaviours wherever protocol requirements set specific values or thresholds.

Looking across different networks with this lens might reveal similar "protocol DNA" shaping user behaviour and network configuration in ways not previously understood. The persistence patterns we've identified likely exist in other blockchain ecosystems but may be harder to detect without clear reserve requirements as reference points.

Methods Behind the Analysis

This analysis examined the 250 most frequent values across approximately 7 million XRP Ledger wallets. Values were grouped by magnitude, exact match, and proximity to known reserve requirements. Pattern analysis identified distribution characteristics and correlation with historical protocol changes.

Without additional data like last transaction date, our assessment of account activity is based on balance patterns, but the strong correlation between reserve requirements and the most frequent balances provides compelling evidence of behavioural patterns.

Conclusion

The XRP Ledger serves as a perfect case study in how technical protocol decisions create lasting behavioural patterns. With 38.3% of wallets holding just 250 specific values, and the top 2 values alone accounting for 16.13% of all wallets, we see clear evidence that blockchain networks aren't just technical systems, they're archaeological records of user behaviour, market cycles, and protocol evolution.

Each wallet balance tells a story: exact reserves reveal persistence patterns, slight variations show historical activity, and round numbers demonstrate human psychology persisting even in algorithmic systems. The explosive growth of 1.00000100 XRP to become the #3 most common balance shows how new patterns emerge in real-time.

As the network continues to evolve, these "value fossils" will remain, permanent reminders of the waves of adoption and abandonment that characterise blockchain ecosystems.

Updated September 2025. Previous analysis from February 2025 showed similar patterns with a smaller dataset of 6.2 million wallets.

Appendix: Raw Data - Top 30 Most Frequent XRP Balances

The complete dataset of 30 most frequent balance values from ~7 million XRP wallets:

Rank	Balance (XRP)	Count	Percentage	Cumulative %
1	10.00000000	591,510	8.442%	8.442%
2	20.00000000	538,586	7.687%	16.129%
3	1.00000100	470,609	6.717%	22.845%
4	10.00000100	66,018	0.942%	23.788%
5	0.99998900	64,902	0.926%	24.714%
6	19.99998800	42,333	0.604%	25.318%
7	1.00000000	36,732	0.524%	25.842%
8	19.99998000	35,612	0.508%	26.351%
9	0.99999100	35,441	0.506%	26.856%
10	9.99999000	32,996	0.471%	27.327%
11	1.00000200	28,347	0.405%	27.732%
12	9.99998800	27,575	0.394%	28.125%
13	9.99998500	26,135	0.373%	28.498%
14	1.80000100	25,872	0.369%	28.868%
15	1.19998900	23,028	0.329%	29.196%
16	100.00000000	19,266	0.275%	29.471%
17	1.00048100	18,339	0.262%	29.733%
18	19.99999000	17,494	0.250%	29.983%
19	25.00000000	17,372	0.248%	30.231%
20	19.99998500	17,321	0.247%	30.478%
21	10.00000200	15,276	0.218%	30.696%
22	1.20000100	13,662	0.195%	30.891%
23	1.20000000	12,698	0.181%	31.072%
24	50.00000000	11,867	0.169%	31.241%
25	1.00009100	11,192	0.160%	31.401%
26	0.99998800	10,797	0.154%	31.555%
27	1.39998900	10,578	0.151%	31.706%
28	19.99999100	10,463	0.149%	31.856%
29	1.00001300	10,427	0.149%	32.004%
30	12.00000000	10,255	0.146%	32.151%

Full dataset of 250 values available, reach me out if you need it.

What patterns have you noticed in blockchain networks? Share your observations in the comments below!

XPMarket launches $1 million fund to support XRPL projects

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Mon, 08 Sep 2025 11:53:31 +0000

XPMarket is announcing a $1,000,000 ecosystem development fund for projects building on the XRP Ledger (XRPL) and contributing to the XPMarket ecosystem. The fund mixes capital, platform credits, and liquidity so teams can launch, iterate, and reach users.

Why we are doing this

XPMarket has been an XRPL-native project for almost 4 years. In that time we learned how to build on XRPL, how to grow in a sustainable way, and where retail users get real value.

Ripple’s 1 billion XRP grant program raised our confidence in XRPL’s long-term development and was one of the reasons we chose this network over other chains. We later received a grant and went through an accelerator, which helped us ship faster and smarter. Now it is time to give back.

What the fund covers

The fund supports XRPL projects that also connect with the XPMarket ecosystem. This is not a strict requirement, but we will prioritise work that brings value to XRPL as a whole and to XPMarket users.

1) Direct investments

We will back teams with capital to build and scale. On successful investments and exits, we plan to allocate part of the proceeds to XPM buybacks. This ties XPMarket’s growth to ecosystem success and supports community confidence.

2) Credits on XPMarket services

Eligible projects can receive reduced or waived fees for listings, analytics, discovery surfaces, and other product integrations that help reach users sooner and at lower cost.

3) Liquidity boosts

For token projects, we will provide liquidity support via Token/XPM pools. Healthier liquidity helps price discovery, reduces slippage for traders, and improves the day-one user experience.

Areas of interest

We are focusing on retail-oriented use cases that can grow the ledger:

DeFi: protocols, tooling, wallets, and utilities that unlock new financial actions for users
GameFi: games and infrastructures that integrate XRPL assets and on-chain mechanics
SocialFi: social apps that connect communities with simple, safe financial features
Other XRPL utilities: projects that add clear day-to-day usefulness to XRPL

If your idea helps more people use XRPL, we want to hear about it.

Beyond funding

Selected teams will get practical help from builders who have shipped on XRPL for years. We will share playbooks on:

product and token design on XRPL
technical integration patterns with XPMarket and XRPL
go-to-market for retail audiences
sustainable growth and analytics
compliance and common pitfalls to avoid

We will also support visibility with platform placements and community activations when it fits.

A word from our CEO

“Ripple’s 1 billion XRP grant program gave us the initial confidence to build on XRPL. That initiative showed us the importance of ecosystem support, but it also highlighted how much depends on execution. This $1 million fund is aimed at practical and targeted help for builders focused on retail value in DeFi, GameFi, and SocialFi. When projects succeed, XRPL grows, XPMarket grows, and our community benefits.”

— Dr. Artur Kirjakulov, CEO, XPMarket

How to apply

Who can apply: XRPL projects at idea, MVP, or growth stage
What we look for: clear user value, fit for XRPL, realistic milestones, and transparent roadmap
What to prepare: short deck, team bios, links to code or demo, rough budget, and how XPMarket can help

Applications: hello@xpmarket.com

Timeline and process

Screening: we review the application for scope and fit
Deep dive: product and technical call, token or business model review
Offer: proposal with funding mix (investment, credits, liquidity) and milestones
Support: hands-on guidance and regular check-ins

We will publish accepted projects in periodic updates.

FAQ

Do I have to integrate XPMarket features to apply?

No. Integration is not required, but projects that create shared value for XRPL and XPMarket may be prioritised.

What sizes are typical?

We will tailor support to stage and need. The mix can include capital, platform credits, and liquidity.

Will you lead rounds?

We are flexible. We can participate alongside other backers or structure smaller checks plus services and liquidity.

How do XPM buybacks work?

On successful investments and exits, XPMarket plans to allocate part of proceeds to buy back XPM. We will publish details per case to keep the process transparent.

Closing thoughts

XRPL gave us the tools and the community to build. Ripple’s ecosystem support helped us make early progress. With this fund, we aim to help the next wave of teams who will grow real usage on XRPL and expand what the ledger can do for everyday users.

Build with us. Apply today.

Wallets on XRPL: Finding the Right Fit

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:44:35 +0000

The XRP Ledger has grown into one of the most active ecosystems in crypto, and with it comes a wide range of wallets. From the most trusted XRPL-native solutions to hardware devices and multichain mobile apps, there’s no shortage of options. But which one fits your needs best? Let’s walk through the landscape.

XRPL Native

If you’re looking for something built from the ground up for the XRPL, Xaman Wallet (formerly known as Xumm) stands out. It’s not only the most widely trusted option among the community but also offers full XRPL support and global fee coverage. For many, it’s the default choice when interacting with the ledger.

Hardware Security

For those who value security above all else, Ledger remains the gold standard. It keeps your assets safe offline, removing exposure to most online risks. That said, Ledger’s XRPL support is somewhat limited, so while it’s great for storage, it’s not the most flexible tool for active on-ledger interactions.

Mobile Wallets

Mobile-first wallets are becoming more popular, especially with WalletConnect support. Here, there’s a mix of established names and exciting newcomers:

Bifrost – A multichain favourite with a fee-free model. It now also supports XRPL’s Automated Market Maker (AMM), giving users seamless swaps and portfolio management directly inside the app.
Girin – Minimalistic, lightweight, and easy to navigate while still costing nothing to use.
Staticbit – A newer player, currently in public beta, but already showing promise as a zero-fee option.
Joey – A newcomer offering built-in wallet swaps (though those swaps come with fees).
Trust Wallet – Allows users to send and receive XRPL tokens but has notable limitations, like the inability to set trustlines or interact with XRPL dApps.

Web Plugin Wallets

For those who prefer browser extensions, the choices are a little more mixed.

Metamask – The most widely used browser wallet. While not built for XRPL, it now supports the EVM sidechain. Just note that it doesn’t use the same secret phrase across chains.
Crossmark – A solid, straightforward plugin that gets the job done without adding fees.
Gemwallet – Once promising, but development appears to have slowed, and adoption lags behind others.

XPMarket Wallet Support Overview

XPMarket is one of the only platforms on XRPL that supports all major wallet types, including hardware, mobile, and browser-based options.

Currently supported wallets:

Wallets using WalletConnect
Xaman
Metamask
Ledger
Crossmark
Gem Wallet

Users can connect directly at 👉 xpmarket.com/wallet to interact with DEX, AMMs, NFTs, and other XRPL features.

Wrapping Up

At the end of the day, the “best” wallet depends on what you’re looking for.

Xaman is the trusted XRPL-native pick.
Ledger is unbeatable for long-term security.
Bifrost delivers multichain flexibility with AMM support.
Metamask connects you to the EVM sidechain.

The important part is that XRPL users now have real choice, and as the ecosystem grows, those choices keep getting better.

“Our goal is to make the XRPL ecosystem more accessible by supporting every major wallet type,” says Dr. Artur Kirjakulov, CEO of XPMarket. “Whether users prefer the security of Ledger, the flexibility of Bifrost, or the familiarity of Metamask, XPMarket ensures they can interact seamlessly with DEX, AMMs, and NFTs on the XRPL.”

A Call to Action for the XRPL Community: Why We Must Veto Amendments

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Fri, 09 May 2025 11:00:17 +0000

A Call to Action for the XRPL Community: Why We Must Veto Credentials and Permissioned Domains

If you are an XRP holder, XRPL developer, or XRPL ecosystem participant – stop and read this. You do have powers to influence the future. For everyone and especially yourself. And to do so, we will start by placing a veto on two amendments.

The Current Situation

Right now, there are two amendments up for vote by UNL validators: Credentials and Permissioned Domains. These proposals are apparently focused on "institutions" for "institutional DeFi" – at least that is what's being publicly stated by the amendment initiators and their affiliates. They are a logical continuation of the DID (Decentralised Identifier) amendment, which is currently used just a couple of times per month – effectively not used at all.

Despite what you may have been told, there are virtually no institutions actively using XRPL. At XPMarket, we've been analysing and publishing data for more than three years, and there is zero indication of even a single large institution being active on the ledger for the purpose of DeFi, RWA, or other form of tokenisation. If you prefer not to rely solely on our expertise, you could consult more Ripple-biased tools such as RWA.xyz or Messari, but the truth remains: there is virtually no Institutional DeFi/RWA/tokenisation on the ledger, despite XRPL being absolutely perfect for this use case.

We had hoped $RLUSD would improve matters, and we adopted it as a payments standard – the first on the ledger, by the way! But the reality is that RLUSD is an ERC20 (Ethereum native) token with no direct way of off-ramp straight from XRPL. Looking at the top AMM Pools, they're dominated by altcoins and memes, not "institutional" assets. RLUSD barely made the cut, and if it weren't for XRPL developers and their apps, there wouldn't even be an easy way to provide liquidity for it.

The Real Problem

XRPL is gradually transforming into a degen-style gambling ledger where only meme coins and games of chance generate profit. Not quite an institutional image, isn't it? This trend is leading to an overall decline in the quality and public image of the ledger. Why is this happening? Because developers have an incredibly limited set of tools to generate revenue.

After nearly four years of observation, we've seen both established and new developers abandon the ledger – not because their products were poor, but because XRPL was never designed to facilitate revenue generation. Currently, based on our estimates, only four dApps on XRPL generate enough income to sustain development and serve their users. This is an utterly unacceptable figure. And, obviously, not everyone can generate revenue by simply selling the native ledger's asset from the pre-mine.

To monetise services, developers are forced to rely on centralised or semi-centralised tools. This approach is far from ideal, as it is more vulnerable in safety and less transparent. In more than a decade, no proper revenue-generating tools have been implemented into the ledger itself. As a result, new developers are reluctant to choose XRPL as their preferred blockchain platform.

What We Really Need

What we genuinely need are developer-focused tools. Here's how this would benefit everyone:

With proper tools, developers could build dApps focused on actual utility (including for institutions).
The community would use these tools, generating cash flow.
Developers would earn money through transaction fees and other forms of payment.
Ecosystem participants would have tools to leverage their capital in DeFi and other applications. Hence generating even more cashflow.
This virtuous cycle would compound into much higher XRP demand (creating buy pressure for XRP and more demand for quality dApps) as the ecosystem grows.

This sounds as an incredibly logical thing. But it is still not fully possible. The XRP Ledger is lagging behind competitor ecosystems where such problems do not exist. We urgently need features such as:

Batch transactions to enable monetisation
Advanced trading tools (did you know "stop loss" is technically impossible to implement in a decentralised way on XRPL?)
Lending markets
Futures
Escrow for all tokens
Subscription capabilities
Foundation that takes the side of ecosystem participants

These features have been consistently mentioned by developers but perpetually disregarded as low priority. Moreover, voicing the problems is often simply dangerous and backfires to those who raised these concerns.

The Neglected Evidence

The current prioritisation of Credentials and Permissioned Domains ignores several crucial factors:

Lack of Demonstrated Demand: There are no compelling use cases or implementation plans from projects building on XRPL that indicate a practical need for these features.
Existing Similar Features Unused: Even closely related infrastructure like Decentralised Identifiers (DIDs) has seen negligible usage – only three transactions last month – despite being live. This minimal engagement reflects a lack of real-world traction.
Misaligned Priorities: Features such as batching, token escrow, advanced DEX orders, or lending would offer clear, measurable improvements for developers building on XRPL today – needs repeatedly echoed by the developer community.
Ripple-Driven vs Community-Driven Development: These proposals appear to be Ripple-led in both vision and execution. While Ripple's contributions to XRPL are significant, core amendments should primarily reflect developer and builder needs.

Our Position as Validators

We, as validators, have an obligation not just to run the infrastructure but to shape the future of the ledger. This includes reviewing amendments, voting in a timely manner, expressing our concerns, withholding votes when necessary, and amplifying the community's voice. Consider validators as members of parliament who should represent the people who elected them.

This is exactly what we at XPMarket intend to do. We have been on this network since 2021, building an ecosystem that has served hundreds of thousands of XRPL wallets since then. It is time we take a stance. We came here to work on FinTech side of the things, not AdTech.

It is our position that Credentials and Permissioned Domains are the lowest priority items on ecosystem's list. We will not vote for these amendments until priorities are realigned toward the community. While it's commendable to allocate 25 million USD to education, what about dedicating resources to the chain that literally has to generate these profits later?

If you care about the future of XRPL, we urge you to make your voice heard. Reach out to your trusted validators to vote against these and subsequent amendments until developer-focused features take precedence. Together, we can steer XRPL toward becoming a viable, profitable ecosystem for all participants – not just a theoretical playground for institutional features no one is using.

It's time to course-correct.
It's time to prioritise those who are building, not those who aren't even here.
It's time to make XRPL a ledger that works for its community again.

The Embarrassing State of XRPL Wallet Infrastructure: A Wake-Up Call

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:03:51 +0000

Introduction

For the past month I get bombarded with the same question from our users: "What other wallets can we use?" It's a simple question that should have multiple good answers. But when I actually sat down to consider which wallets I could honestly recommend, the realisation was disturbing.

Let me be clear: XRPL has a wallet problem. Not a minor inconvenience - a fundamental, ecosystem-threatening problem. When more than 85% of all dApp activity depends on a single wallet provider, we're not talking about market leadership; we're talking about dangerous centralisation. And the alternatives? Let's just say they're not exactly rushing to fill the gap.

Why We Even Need Wallets in the First Place

XRPL isn't just for sending XRP back and forth. It's a Layer 1 blockchain designed for applications, smart functionality, and ecosystem growth. Sure, developers can use command lines, but it's 2025 — normal humans need intuitive interfaces.

A proper wallet should be:

Your secure gateway to the blockchain
Your portal to dApps like XPMarket
Your tool for managing tokens, NFTs, and AMM participation

Without competitive wallet options, XRPL's promise as a versatile blockchain remains shamefully unfulfilled.

What a Decent Wallet Should Actually Provide

Let's establish some bare minimum standards (according to myself) that apparently are too high for most XRPL wallet providers:

1. Basic Trustworthiness Signals

Active social presence (Is it really so hard to tweet more than once a month?)
Regular updates (Not just when forced to fix critical bugs)
Visible leadership (Someone willing to stand behind their product)
Responsive support (Users shouldn't feel abandoned)

2. Full Ecosystem Functionality

Complete token support (Not just XRP while ignoring everything else)
Actual working NFT features (Display, transfer, management)
AMM and liquidity pool integration
Comprehensive dApp connections
Support for all current XRPL features (Not just cherry-picking the easy ones)

3. Multichain Support

Integration with major blockchains
Consistent experience across networks
Interoperability features

This isn't a wish list. These are baseline features that dozens of wallets on other chains manage to provide. Yet on XRPL, it's apparently an impossible dream.

The Current XRPL Wallet Landscape

Xaman Wallet: Absolute Domination

Think about it. If all alternative wallets disappear – there will be no impact on XRPL Ecosystem. If Xaman disappeared tomorrow, XRPL's entire dApp ecosystem would collapse. That's not an exaggeration — it's simple maths. On xpmarket more than 85% of users rely on Xaman. For other dApps this number can be between 95-100%. And I would argue this is the only wallet on XRPL that actually has skin in the game.

Why Xaman dominates:

They actually bother to engage with users (shocking concept for some)
They release updates that add value (another revolutionary idea)
Their team (especially Wietse) maintains public visibility
They provide documentation users can actually follow

Despite recently introducing fees and some annoying UX choices (that 15-second Tangem activation is a special kind of torture) I honestly cannot think of a better and more reliable alternative on XRPL right now. If there is a bug - it is fixed instantly. If there is a new feature - it is implemented. No wonder why Xaman maintains the number 1 position. Because the competition is asleep on every single level you can list.

When Xaman announced fees, it was a golden opportunity for competitors to swoop in. Did any of them capitalise on this moment? Of course not. Most did not even lift a finger. And because of that I believe they deserve to remain irrelevant. You know what is the funniest part? There is even a tool developed ages ago by Wietse that converts Xaman's secret numbers into a secret key string, making it easier to migrate. Now keep this irony in mind when you read further.

The "Alternatives": A Study in Missed Opportunities

Ledger

Strengths: Good hardware security, works across chains

Weaknesses: Treats XRPL as an afterthought, no NFT support, no AMM integration

Ledger clearly sees XRPL as a box to tick, not a priority. They could have had a larger share with minimal effort but apparently can't be bothered. But, to be fare, even XRPL support was developed not by them. Oh, and guess who actually leads the new Ledger's XRP app update? Correct, XRPL Labs (Xaman team).

GemWallet

Strengths: Was early to market (that's literally it)

Weaknesses: Zombie-level social presence (last tweeted in 2024), zero commitment to development, zero commitment to promotion

GemWallet was actually the first alternative wallet we integrated with XPMarket, and I've never regretted it more. Their lack of effort is almost impressive. If you cannot be bothered to commit to the wallet's development full time, then don't expect community to the same.

CrossMark

Strengths: Solid tech foundation, reputable founder

Weaknesses: Invisible marketing, browser-only wallet

I've met CrossMark's founder personally — great guy who made the whole wallet on his own, from the back-end to front-end. And that deserves a huge credit. I also used it as my main desktop wallet for a long time and had really really high expectations. But when Xaman handed the perfect market entry opportunity, their response was a whisper when it needed to be a shout. Users needed clear migration instructions and compelling reasons to switch.

Bifrost

Strengths: Available on mobile, supports multiple chains

Weaknesses: Handicapped XRPL support, nightmare for token tracking

Using Bifrost for XRPL feels like driving Ferrari in Zimbabwe's —technically possible but clearly not what it was designed for. Every now and then users are frustrated because certain features do not work. Who do they blame for that? Correct, xpmarket…

Metamask (Snaps)

Strengths: Integration with crypto's most-used wallet

Weaknesses: No mobile support

I currently use Metamask with Ledger for all chains, including XRPL. But if I wasn't actively looking for it, I'd never know it supported XRPL. Their silence about this feature borders on suspicious.

Girin Wallet

Strengths: Clean, functional interface

Weaknesses: Verdict still out

We're currently integrating Girin with XPMarket. It works, it's simple, but I'm reserving judgment until I see how they handle promotion and user acquisition. My expectations are low given the track record of others, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised for once.

Trust Wallet

Strengths: The most popular mobile wallet with a huge user base

Weaknesses: Only basic tokens support, no dApp connectivity

We did get some support from Trust Wallet, but it's the bare minimum — just enough to claim they "support XRPL" on their and Ripple's marketing materials. You can hold XRP, but good luck trying to do anything meaningful with it. And with no plans for deeper integration, it's yet another checkbox solution. I am honestly extremely disappointed here. Trust Wallet could have been a huge victory for XRPL Ecosystem.

The Integration Dilemma

Here's what happens from our side at XPMarket:

Wallet providers ask for integration
We spend resources building free integrations
The wallet does zero promotion of their new capability
No users migrate because they don't know it's an option
The integration becomes a wasted investment
We become increasingly reluctant to support new wallets
The cycle of mediocrity continues

It's maddening. We want to offer our users alternatives. We're doing our part. But wallet providers seem to think their job ends when the integration is complete, when that's precisely when their real work should begin. Do the god damn marketing. The time for touching grass is over. Tell users how you are better and what you offer. It is your job to this, not mine, and I will not do it for you.

The Path Forward: Fix This Mess

The XRPL Ecosystem cannot grow at the rate we'd like if there is no abundance of wallets who will fruitfully compete with each other in order to provide the best experience. To fix this:

Wallet providers: Stop pretending minimal effort deserves market share. If you can't be bothered to tweet more than once a month, you shouldn't be surprised when no one uses your product.
Users: Make noise. Demand better. When Phantom or other major wallets ask what chains they should support next, flood them with XRPL requests. Your voice matters. (P.S. this is now the most upvoted request, kudos to those who initiated the movement.)
Developers: We need to collectively raise our standards. At XPMarket, we're implementing stricter requirements for future wallet integrations, including commitment to marketing and user education. The time is literally money, and we value our time.
XRPL Foundation: Prioritise wallet diversity. The current situation is a systemic risk to the entire ecosystem.

Conclusion: A Challenge to the Ecosystem

As CEO of XPMarket, I see firsthand how wallet limitations constrain our users and the broader ecosystem. The problem isn't technical — it's motivational. Most wallet providers simply aren't putting in the work required to build competitive products. But honestly, cannot even blame them, as they encounter systematic XRPL issues linked to monetisation strategies. But don't blame me when I start delisting dead and useless wallets.

This isn't just a rant; it's a wake-up call. XRPL deserves better than a wallet ecosystem dominated by a single player (even a great one) surrounded by half-hearted alternatives. Users deserve choice. dApps deserve reliable partners. And wallet providers who can't rise to the challenge deserve to fade into irrelevance.

The next time you see someone asking for wallet recommendations on XRPL, remember this: we created this problem through complacency, and only deliberate action will solve it. The ball is in your court, wallet providers. Either step up or step aside.

Don't wait for someone else to fix this problem. Whether you're a user, developer, or wallet provider, you have a role to play in creating the diverse wallet ecosystem XRPL needs.

Decoding XRP Ledger: How Protocol Requirements Shape the Network

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:53:48 +0000

Key Highlights

Inactive Wallet Discovery: ~32% of all 6.2 million XRP wallets contain balances that precisely match historical reserve requirements, suggesting they are likely dormant accounts (85-90% confidence)
Protocol DNA: Reserve requirements from as far back as 2012 continue to shape the network's value distribution, creating distinct "value fossils"
Round Number Dominance: 89% of values are either powers of 10 (55%) or simple multiples of 10 (34%), reflecting human preference even in technical contexts
Digital Archaeology: The persistence of wallet balances from different eras reveals the network's growth history, similar to tree rings or archaeological strata
User Behavior Pattern: Evidence strongly suggests users rarely delete their wallets, instead abandoning them with exactly the minimum reserve amount

The DNA of a Blockchain Network

Imagine taking a snapshot of all the balances in your bank's systems. You'd likely see a random distribution of values—savings accounts with odd amounts like $2,847.53, checking accounts with $143.28, and so forth. But what if 32% of all accounts had exactly the same three amounts: $10, $20, or $1?

This is exactly what we found when analyzing the XRP Ledger ecosystem, which currently contains 6,204,893 accounts. By examining the 250 most common value patterns across all wallets, we discovered something remarkable: rather than a random distribution, the data reveals clear patterns that tell a fascinating story about how protocol rules fundamentally shape blockchain networks.

The Reserve Requirement Effect

The XRP Ledger requires users to maintain a minimum reserve in each wallet to prevent spam and network abuse. This reserve has changed over time:

Time Period	Wallet Reserve	Cluster Total	% of Total Wallets
2012 (Launch)	1000 XRP	3,748 occurrences	0.06%
Early 2013	200 XRP	2,930 occurrences	0.05%
Dec 2013	20 XRP	748,140 occurrences	12.06%
Sept 2021	10 XRP	894,220 occurrences	14.41%
Dec 2024	1 XRP	348,832 occurrences	5.62%

Value Clusters Reveal Dormant Wallets

When we group variations of the same base values, the pattern becomes even clearer—and reveals something surprising about wallet activity:

~20 XRP Cluster (2013 Reserve)

Exact 20.0 XRP: 551,495 wallets
Variants around 20: 196,645 wallets
Total cluster: 748,140 wallets (12.06% of all accounts)

~10 XRP Cluster (2021 Reserve)

Exact 10.0 XRP: 656,007 wallets
Slightly above (10.000001-10.01): 88,097 wallets
Slightly below (9.99-9.99999): 106,569 wallets
Total cluster: 894,220 wallets (14.41% of all accounts)

~1 XRP Cluster (2024 Reserve)

Exact 1.0 XRP: 215,771 wallets
Variants around 1: 133,061 wallets
Total cluster: 348,832 wallets (5.62% of all accounts)

Together, these three clusters account for approximately 1,991,192 wallets (32.09% of all XRP Ledger accounts). With 85-90% confidence, we can infer that wallets containing exactly the reserve amount are likely dormant. Active users would typically maintain higher balances for transactions rather than keeping their accounts at the bare minimum threshold.

This data effectively reveals a significant "dormancy rate" within the network, where roughly a third of all accounts show strong indicators of inactivity. Each reserve level represents a wave of adoption followed by subsequent abandonment, creating distinct layers in the network's history.

Why These Variations Exist: User Behavior Patterns

The slight variations from exact reserve values (like 9.99999 instead of 10) reveal fascinating behavior patterns:

Transaction Cost Effects: When users withdraw funds, they often leave tiny amounts of "dust" behind, typically equivalent to the transaction cost. This creates values slightly below round numbers and indicates at least some historical transaction activity.
Minimal Deposits: Some users deposit the bare minimum plus a small buffer (like 10.000001 XRP) to activate accounts, creating values slightly above reserve requirements.
Reserve Persistence: Most importantly, we found strong evidence that users typically don't delete their wallets at all. Once a wallet is created with a specific reserve amount, it tends to keep that amount indefinitely, creating "value fossils" that persist for years.
Technical Implementation: Some variations stem from different wallet software implementations and how they handle precision.

These patterns suggest that when users stop using an XRP wallet, they typically abandon it with exactly the reserve amount rather than completely closing it. This behavior has created millions of dormant accounts that maintain the network's minimum requirements but show little or no ongoing activity.

The Power of Round Numbers

The data shows we humans love round numbers, even in cutting-edge blockchain networks:

55% of values are powers of 10 (1, 10, 100, 1000)
34% are simple multiples of 10 (20, 30, 50, etc.)
Only 11% are "irregular" values

This strong preference for round, memorable numbers persists across the entire dataset and tells us something fundamental about human psychology, even in technical settings.

Growth Story: From 1000 to 1 XRP

The frequency of values paints a picture of network growth and adoption waves:

The original 2012 reserve (1000 XRP) appears in only 3,748 wallets (0.06% of the network)
The 2013 reserve (20 XRP) cluster contains 748,140 wallets (12.06% of the network)
The 2021 reserve (10 XRP) cluster contains 894,220 wallets (14.41% of the network)

Interestingly, despite the December 2024 reduction to 1 XRP, that cluster appears in only 348,832 wallets (5.62% of accounts), suggesting most of the current 6.2 million accounts were created during earlier reserve requirement periods.

The small number of wallets still at 1000 XRP and 200 XRP levels (from 2012-2013) almost certainly represent very early adopters who have completely forgotten about these wallets or lost access. These are essentially digital time capsules, preserved at their original values despite multiple opportunities to reduce their reserves.

The Persistence of Wallets: Digital Archaeology

One of our most striking findings is that users rarely delete or fully empty their wallets. Wallet balances created during the 2012 launch era (1000 XRP reserve) are still present nearly unchanged 13 years later, serving as "digital artifacts" that reveal the network's history.

This persistence creates a kind of blockchain archaeology, where we can trace the network's evolution through layers of wallet values, similar to archaeological strata or tree rings.

This has significant implications for the XRP Ledger's future growth. With 6.2 million accounts and strong evidence that users rarely delete wallets, the ecosystem must manage this ever-growing state, much of which represents inactive accounts.

Network Utilization and Activity Insights

The concentration of balances at exact reserve requirements provides additional insights about network activity:

Adoption Waves: The large clusters at specific reserve values (10 XRP, 20 XRP) represent waves of user sign-ups during promotional periods or bull markets, many of whom subsequently became inactive.
Transaction Indicators: Wallets with values slightly below round numbers (9.99999 XRP instead of 10 XRP) show evidence of at least some historical transaction activity, as transaction fees would have reduced the balance from the exact reserve.
Network Utilization Ratio: With approximately 32% of wallets having balances that closely match reserve requirements, a significant portion of the 6.2 million accounts aren't actively contributing to network utility beyond maintaining the ledger state.
Reactivation Resistance: The persistence of older reserve values suggests users rarely reactivate dormant wallets, even when economic incentives exist to do so.

Why Do These Patterns Matter?

These patterns aren't merely statistical curiosities. They reveal:

Protocol DNA: Technical decisions fundamentally shape how users interact with networks
Lasting Impact: Reserve requirements create "value fossils" that persist for years
Adoption Patterns: The network growth rate can be traced through these value distributions
User Behavior: Even in technical contexts, human preference for round numbers dominates
Activity Metrics: The distribution provides a passive measure of wallet activity levels
Technical Evolution: Small variations tell us about how the network implementation has evolved

What This Means for the Future

As blockchain networks evolve, these findings suggest several key insights:

Persistent Patterns: Protocol-level changes create lasting patterns in network usage
Migration Challenges: Many users never update from original configurations
Dormancy Management: Networks must plan for significant portions of their state to represent inactive accounts
Technical Evolution: Small variations tell us about how the network implementation has evolved
Future Design: New reserve requirements will likely create new dominant value clusters
Account Lifecycle: Most accounts remain in the ledger indefinitely, creating long-term sustainability considerations

Beyond XRP: Universal Patterns?

Could these patterns appear in other blockchain networks? The evidence suggests these might be universal behaviors wherever protocol requirements set specific values or thresholds.

Looking across different networks with this lens might reveal similar "protocol DNA" shaping user behavior and network configuration in ways not previously understood. The dormancy patterns we've identified likely exist in other blockchain ecosystems but may be harder to detect without clear reserve requirements as reference points.

Methods Behind the Analysis

This analysis examined the 250 most frequent values across all 6,204,893 XRP Ledger wallets. Values were grouped by magnitude, exact match, and proximity to known reserve requirements. Pattern analysis identified distribution characteristics and correlation with historical protocol changes.

Without additional data like last transaction date, our assessment of account activity is based on balance patterns, but the strong correlation between reserve requirements and balances provides high confidence in these conclusions.

What patterns have you noticed in blockchain networks? Share your observations in the comments below!

Comprehensive Survey Analysis: Insights into the XRP, Ripple, and XRPL Community

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:40:23 +0000

Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of a comprehensive survey conducted among 502 active members of the XRP Ledger (XRPL) community. The survey aimed to capture the community's opinions and sentiments on various topics related to XRP, Ripple, and the XRPL ecosystem. The key highlights from the survey are:

Strong Awareness of Legal Developments: A significant majority (87.1%) are aware of the August 2024 ruling that XRP is generally not considered a security, indicating high engagement with legal matters affecting XRP.
Support for Ripple in Legal Challenges: A large portion of respondents (72.7%) believe Ripple should not pay the $125 million fine, demonstrating strong support for the company. Additionally, 79.5% view Ripple's decision to delay the fine and place the money in escrow as a smart move.
Desire for Increased Community Involvement: A majority (77%) express a desire for more community influence in XRPL development, reflecting a push towards decentralization and greater community engagement.
Moderate Trust in Ripple: The average trust rating for Ripple is 3.68 out of 5, suggesting that while there is general support, there is room for improved transparency and communication. Nearly a quarter (24.2%) have felt misled by Ripple's announcements.
Positive Perception of XPMarket: Users report high satisfaction with XPMarket's features (average rating of 4.12 out of 5) and largely perceive it as an impartial source of information (86.4% view it as very unbiased or mostly unbiased).
Investment Behaviours and Commitment: Over half of the respondents (52.8%) have more than 50% of their crypto portfolio in XRP, and 82% have invested in other XRPL tokens or projects, indicating strong commitment and diversification within the ecosystem.
Technological Aspirations: There is a strong desire for XRPL to integrate features common in other blockchains, such as smart contracts (31.2%) and staking (12.4%), highlighting areas for potential technological enhancement.
Optimism for XRP's Future: A significant portion of the community is optimistic about XRP's price appreciation, with nearly half expecting the price to exceed $13 within a year. Many are also excited about increased adoption, utility, and technological advancements.
Concerns Over Regulatory Challenges: Regulatory issues remain the top concern for 28.6% of respondents, emphasizing the importance of legal clarity for XRP's future. Worries about lack of adoption and price stagnation also feature prominently.
Influence of External Factors: A majority (59.0%) believe the next U.S. presidential election will significantly impact the crypto market, with 71.4% perceiving Donald Trump as the candidate more favourable to crypto interests.

Abstract

This study presents an analysis of a survey conducted among 502 participants, representing the first known large-scale survey of the XRP Ledger (XRPL) community. The purpose of the survey was to understand the opinions and sentiments of the community on various topics related to XRP, Ripple, and the XRPL ecosystem. The survey covers awareness of legal developments, trust in Ripple, investment behaviours, technological preferences, and future expectations. Statistical calculations confirm that the sample size is sufficient to generalise the findings to the estimated population of active XRPL community members with an acceptable margin of error. The results reveal that the community is optimistic about XRP's future, values transparency, and desires increased community involvement in the ecosystem's development.

Introduction

The XRP Ledger (XRPL) and its native cryptocurrency, XRP, have become significant topics within the cryptocurrency community due to ongoing legal challenges, technological advancements, and market dynamics. Understanding the sentiments and opinions of the XRPL community is crucial for developers, investors, and policymakers. This study aims to provide comprehensive insights into the community's perspectives by analysing the results of a large-scale survey conducted via XPMarket's webpage.

This survey represents the first known effort to capture the opinions and sentiments of the XRPL community at such a significant scale. By engaging users who have connected their XRPL wallets to XPMarket, the survey targets active participants within the ecosystem. The expected outcomes include a better understanding of community awareness regarding legal developments, trust in Ripple, investment behaviours, technological preferences, and expectations for the future.

The insights gained from this survey are intended to inform stakeholders about the community's views, identify areas of consensus and concern, and contribute to the ongoing dialogue about the development and direction of the XRPL ecosystem.

Results

Awareness and Opinions on Legal Developments

Awareness of August 2024 SEC XRP Ruling:
- Yes: 87.1%
- No: 12.9%

A high level of awareness indicates strong community engagement with legal matters affecting XRP.

Opinions on Ripple's $125 Million Fine:
- Ripple shouldn't pay anything: 72.7%
- It's fair: 14.9%
- Not sure: 9.6%
- Ripple should pay more: 2.8%

A significant majority believe Ripple should not be fined, showing strong support for the company.

Views on Ripple's Decision to Delay the Fine:
- Smart move: 79.5%
- Worried about finances: 8.7%
- Doesn't change opinion: 7.5%
- Not sure: 4.3%

Most respondents view the decision as strategic, suggesting confidence in Ripple's legal strategy.

Potential Impact of SEC's Possible Appeal:
- No, not much: 36.0%
- Yes, a lot: 25.2%
- A little: 24.5%
- Not sure: 14.3%

Opinions are mixed, but a plurality believes the appeal won't significantly impact U.S. crypto regulations.

Perspectives on the XRP Security Debate:
- It's not a security: 68.9%
- Don't know enough: 12.4%
- Might be a security: 9.9%
- Is a security: 8.7%

A strong consensus exists that XRP should not be classified as a security.

Trust and Community Sentiments

Trust in Ripple to Act in the Best Interest of the Community:
- Average rating: 3.68 out of 5

The community moderately trusts Ripple, indicating room for increased transparency.

Feelings About Ripple Holding a Large Chunk of XRP Tokens:
- Average rating: 3.39 out of 5

Neutral sentiment suggests neither strong approval nor disapproval.

Desire for More Community Influence in XRPL Development:
- Yes, a lot more: 47.2%
- A little more: 29.8%
- It's fine as it is: 16.8%
- Less input: 3.1%
- Not sure: 3.1%

A majority desire greater community involvement in development processes.

Perception of Community's Reception to Different Opinions:
- Somewhat discourages: 47.2%
- Yes, a lot: 19.9%
- Not really: 24.8%
- Not at all: 8.1%

There is concern that differing opinions may be discouraged within the community.

Hesitancy to Share True Opinions About XRP or Ripple:
- Never hesitant: 50.9%
- Sometimes: 29.8%
- Often: 12.4%
- Doesn't apply: 6.8%

While half feel free to express their views, a significant number sometimes feel hesitant.

Experience of Feeling Misled by Ripple's Announcements:
- No: 52.2%
- Yes: 24.2%
- Not sure: 23.6%

Nearly a quarter have felt misled by Ripple, highlighting the need for clear communication.

Impact of Conflicts Within the Community on Progress:
- Yes, hurts progress: 37.3%
- Debates are good: 29.2%
- A little: 24.8%
- Unaware of conflicts: 8.7%

Community conflicts are seen as detrimental by many respondents.

Investment Behaviours and Project Involvement

Allocation of Crypto Investments in XRP:
- Over 50%: 52.8%
- About 25%: 19.3%
- 100% in XRP: 9.9%
- Less than 25%: 9.3%
- Prefer not to say: 8.7%

The majority have a substantial portion of their crypto portfolio in XRP.

Investment in Other XRPL Tokens or Projects:
- Yes, several: 52.2%
- A few: 29.8%
- Only XRP: 11.2%
- Planning to: 6.8%

There's significant diversification within the XRPL ecosystem.

Encountering Sketchy XRPL Projects:
- Yes: 46.0%
- No: 42.9%
- Prefer not to say: 11.2%

Nearly half have encountered dubious projects, indicating a need for caution.

Perception of XPMarket

Satisfaction with XPMarket's Features:
- Average rating: 4.12 out of 5

Users are generally satisfied with XPMarket's offerings.

Perception of Bias in XPMarket's Information:
- Mostly unbiased: 43.5%
- Very unbiased: 42.9%
- Some bias: 7.5%
- Not sure: 5.0%
- Clearly biased: 1.2%

XPMarket is largely perceived as an impartial information source.

Desired Improvements or Additions to XPMarket (open-ended question):
- Improved analytics and charts: 12.4%
- Portfolio tracking and management: 9.3%
- Enhanced NFT functionality: 7.5%
- Staking or farming options: 6.8%
- Improved user interface/experience: 5.6%

Users desire advanced features to enhance usability and investment tracking. Other frequent suggestions included: Adding more tokens/coins, implementing a mobile app, providing educational resources, offering margin trading.

Technological Features and Comparisons

XRPL Compared to Other Blockchains:
- Better in tech and potential: 59.6%
- Good but can improve: 28.6%
- Behind in important areas: 6.2%
- Only know XRPL: 5.6%

The majority view XRPL favourably compared to other blockchains.

Desired Features from Other Blockchains on XRPL (open-ended question):
- Smart contracts: 31.2%
- Staking: 12.4%
- DeFi capabilities: 9.3%
- Cross-chain interoperability: 7.5%
- NFT improvements: 5.6%

Integration of smart contracts and staking are highly desired. Other mentioned features included: improved scalability, Layer 2 solutions, privacy features, governance mechanisms.

Perception of XRPL's Decentralisation:
- Average rating: 3.48 out of 5

Neutral sentiment indicates room for enhancing decentralisation.

Impact of Competition Among XRPL Projects:
- Helping innovation: 67.7%
- Both innovation and problems: 16.8%
- Not sure: 10.6%
- Causing problems: 5.0%

Competition is largely seen as beneficial for innovation.

Personal Impact and Future Expectations

Has XRP Changed Your Life in a Big Way? (open-ended question)
- No significant change yet: 43.5%
- Yes, positively: 28.6%
- Increased knowledge in crypto: 18.6%
- Negative impact: 3.7%

Many haven't experienced significant changes yet, but a notable portion reports positive impacts. Negative responses mostly cited financial losses or stress from price volatility.

Excitement for XRP or XRPL in the Next Year (open-ended question):
- Price increase/bull run: 31.2%
- Increased adoption/utility: 24.8%
- Regulatory clarity: 18.6%
- Technological advancements: 15.5%
- Ripple's potential IPO: 5.6%

Optimism is high for market performance and technological progress. Other mentioned points of excitement included: RLUSD stablecoin launch, expansion of the XRPL ecosystem, potential partnerships with major financial institutions.

Worries About the Future of XRP or XRPL (open-ended question):
- Regulatory concerns/SEC actions: 28.6%
- Lack of adoption: 18.6%
- Price stagnation or decrease: 15.5%
- Competition from other cryptocurrencies: 9.3%
- Centralization concerns: 7.5%

Regulatory issues are the top concern among respondents. Other worries mentioned included: potential technical limitations, market manipulation, community conflicts. Notably, about 12% of respondents stated they had no significant worries about XRP or XRPL's future.

Price Expectations for XRP in One Year:
- Over $30: 24.8%
- Between $13 and $30: 24.8%
- Between $9 and $13: 16.1%
- Between $1 and $3.84: 16.8%
- Around its all-time high: 8.7%
- Less than $1: 3.1%
- Not sure: 5.6%

There is considerable optimism about significant price appreciation, which is significantly higher than $0.55 at the time of the survey.

Influence of External Factors

Impact of Next U.S. Presidential Election on Crypto Market:
- A lot: 59.0%
- Some: 24.2%
- A little: 9.3%
- Not at all: 3.7%
- Not sure: 3.7%

The majority believe the election will significantly impact the crypto market.

Preferred Candidate for Crypto Interests:
- Donald Trump: 71.4%
- Neither: 9.9%
- Kamala Harris: 9.3%
- Not sure: 9.3%

A substantial majority perceive Donald Trump as more favourable to crypto interests.

Environmental and Social Considerations

Environmental Impact Concerns:
- No, XRP is eco-friendly: 55.3%
- A little concerned: 19.9%
- Unaware of impact: 13.0%
- Yes, I worry: 11.8%

Most are not worried about XRP's environmental impact.

Should Ripple Focus More on Social and Environmental Issues:
- Maybe, if it fits goals: 42.9%
- Yes, they should lead: 24.8%
- No, focus on tech: 24.2%
- Don't care: 8.1%

Opinions are divided on Ripple's role in social and environmental issues.

Underrated XRPL Projects

Most Frequently Mentioned Projects (open-ended question):
- XPMarket/XPM: 8.7%
- Reaper Financial/RPR: 5.6%
- Sologenic/SOLO: 4.3%
- Casino Coin/CSC: 3.7%

These projects are perceived as undervalued and deserving of more attention. Other projects mentioned multiple times included: XRPH (XRP Healthcare), Coreum, Evernode, Zerpmon, XSpectar, and Magnetic.

Discussion

The survey findings provide valuable insights into the sentiments and opinions of the XRPL community, revealing complex dynamics that have significant implications for Ripple, XPMarket, and the broader ecosystem.

One of the key observations is the community's strong support for Ripple in its legal challenges, coupled with moderate trust in the company's actions. While a majority believe that Ripple should not pay the $125 million fine and view the company's legal strategies favourably, the moderate trust rating indicates that there are underlying concerns that need to be addressed. The fact that nearly a quarter of respondents have felt misled by Ripple's announcements suggests a gap between the company's communication strategies and the community's expectations.

This gap may be contributing to the desire for increased community influence in XRPL development. The significant percentage of participants who want more say in the development process indicates a push towards more decentralisation and greater transparency. Ripple could leverage this sentiment by fostering more open dialogues with the community, involving them in decision-making processes, and providing clearer, more consistent communications.

Another area of concern highlighted by the survey is the perception of the XRP community's receptiveness to differing opinions. Many respondents feel that the community discourages alternative viewpoints, which could slow down innovation and hinder healthy debate. Looking deeper into the cause, some participants expressed fear of receiving backlash from XRPL ecosystem leaders and influencers when raising concerns. The general culture, especially on social media platforms, tends to amplify positive messages while ignoring or actively silencing discussions about problems. Encouraging a more inclusive environment where diverse opinions are welcomed may lead to more robust discussions and drive progress within the ecosystem.

Investment behaviours highlight the community's strong commitment to XRP, with many holding significant portions of their portfolios in the cryptocurrency. The diversification into other XRPL projects indicates confidence in the ecosystem's potential. However, the high incidence of encountering sketchy projects points to the need for better project vetting and perhaps the establishment of standards or guidelines to protect investors. This can be seen as a strong area for collaboration between XPMarket and other third parties, such as Ripple and developer community.

XPMarket emerges as a trusted platform within the community, with high satisfaction ratings and perceptions of impartiality. The expressed desire for enhanced features suggests opportunities for XPMarket to strengthen its position by aligning its development roadmap with user needs. By incorporating improved analytics, portfolio tracking, and NFT functionalities, XPMarket can further solidify its role as a central hub for XRPL investors.

The technological aspirations of the community are clear, with a strong desire for features like smart contracts and staking. Integrating these functionalities could enhance XRPL's competitiveness and attract a broader user base. The neutral perception of XRPL's decentralization suggests that efforts to further decentralize the network could positively impact community sentiment and trust.

The optimism for XRP's future is tempered by concerns over regulatory challenges. The anticipation of significant price appreciation reflects confidence in the asset's potential, but the worries about regulatory actions underscore the importance of achieving legal clarity. Ripple's ongoing legal battles and their outcomes will likely have a profound impact on community sentiment and XRP's market performance.

Political developments, particularly the U.S. presidential election, are viewed as influential factors for the crypto market. The community's preference for a candidate perceived as pro-crypto indicates that external socio-political factors are closely monitored and considered in investment decisions.

Environmental considerations, while not the primary concern for most respondents, still represent an area where Ripple could potentially enhance its corporate responsibility efforts. Balancing technological focus with social and environmental initiatives could improve public perception and align with the values of a segment of the community.

The identification of underrated XRPL projects suggests that there is innovation within the ecosystem that may not be receiving adequate attention. Highlighting and supporting these projects could foster a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem, offering users more opportunities and encouraging further investment.

In conclusion, the survey results highlight a community that is deeply invested in the success of XRP and the XRPL ecosystem but holds nuanced views on various aspects. The interplay between trust, desire for decentralization, technological aspirations, and external factors creates a complex landscape that stakeholders must navigate thoughtfully. By addressing concerns related to transparency, communication, and feature development, Ripple and other key players can strengthen community trust and engagement, driving the ecosystem toward a more robust and successful future.

Conclusion

This survey provides comprehensive insights into the sentiments of the XRPL community, revealing both optimism and areas for improvement. The findings indicate strong support for Ripple in its legal challenges but also highlight the need for increased transparency and community involvement. The positive perception of XPMarket presents opportunities for the platform to enhance its services in line with user demands.

Addressing the community's desire for technological enhancements, such as smart contracts and staking, could significantly improve XRPL's competitiveness. Furthermore, fostering an inclusive environment that encourages diverse opinions may lead to greater innovation and cohesion within the community.

Regulatory concerns remain a significant worry for respondents, emphasising the importance of legal clarity for the future success of XRP and the XRPL ecosystem. Stakeholders should consider these insights to inform strategies that align with the community's expectations and contribute to the sustainable growth of the ecosystem.

Methodology

Survey Design and Distribution

The survey was designed to cover a wide range of topics relevant to the XRPL community, including legal developments, trust in Ripple, investment behaviours, technological preferences, and future expectations. It consisted of multiple-choice and open-ended questions to capture both quantitative and qualitative data.

The survey was distributed via XPMarket's webpage, targeting users who had connected their XRPL wallets. A 50 XPM token reward was offered upon completion. This approach ensured that participants were active members of the XRPL community and familiar with the ecosystem.

Sample Size and Population Estimation

Sample Size: 502 respondents.
Population Size: Estimated to be less than 13,000 active monthly users in the XRPL community, determined by Source Tag interaction as of August 2024.
An active wallet is the one which performed at least one outgoing transaction within the specified observation perdiod.

The sample represents approximately 3.86% of the total estimated population. Given the size of the sample relative to the population, the findings are considered statistically significant and representative of the broader community.

Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed to interpret the survey results. The margin of error was calculated to assess the reliability of the findings. With a confidence level of 95% and using standard formulas for survey sampling, the margin of error was determined to be approximately ±4.29%. This indicates that the survey results can be generalised to the entire XRPL community with a high degree of confidence.

XRPL Activity Report - September 2024

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:47:57 +0000

Abstract

This report examines the XRP Ledger (XRPL) ecosystem's evolution from August to September 2024. Transaction volumes, user engagement, and decentralized application (dApp) interactions were analysed. The findings demonstrate a shift towards automated trading and specialised dApp usage, alongside significant changes in NFT and AMM sectors. Transformation in user behaviour, with a trend towards a smaller but more engaged user base was observed. This research provides insights into the challenges and opportunities facing the ecosystem, particularly in balancing technological efficiency with genuine user adoption and engagement. The analysis contributes to the broader understanding of how XRPL evolves and adapts to changing market conditions and user needs.

Highlights

Protocol revenue: ~$77,000 in September
Total transactions: +6.0%, but active wallets -2.2%
Total XRP(L) users: 115,487 (-2.2%)
dApp users: 10,082 (-13.6%)
DApp transaction share: 0.75%
XRP in AMM pools: 12.3M XRP (-2.0%)
AMM volume: -47.6% ($5.4M to $2.8M)
Users with 11-50 monthly transactions: 22.2% (+3.9%)
Single-transaction users: 24.2% (-4.0%)
XRPL Marketcap: <100M USD

1. Basic XRPL Metrics

1.1. General Statistics

Metric	August 2024	September 2024	Delta %
Total Transactions	47,723,074	50,626,881	+6.0%
Unique Active Wallets	118,089	115,487	-2.2%
Users with dApps Interaction	11,668	10,082	-13.6%
dApp Associated Transactions	393,333	383,980	-2.4%
dApp Transactions Share	0.82%	0.75%	-8%

Bot-Dominated Growth:
The 6.0% increase in total transactions coupled with a 2.2% decrease in Unique Active Wallets suggests that the growth is driven by increased bot activity rather than new user adoption or increased human user engagement.
dApp Engagement Decline:
The significant drop in users interacting with dApps (-11.6%) is concerning, as it indicates a reduced engagement with the ecosystem's applications.
Efficiency of Remaining dApp Users:
While the number of dApp users decreased by 11.6%, their associated transactions only dropped by 2.4%. This suggests that the remaining dApp users are more active, potentially indicating a presence of engaged power users.
Marginal Role of dApps:
dApp transactions account for less than 1% of total network activity (0.8% in September), highlighting the dominant role of bot-driven transactions. The further decrease in dApp transaction share (-8%) emphasises the growing gap between bot and human activity.
Transaction Density:
While the mean number of transactions per Unique Active Wallet increased, the median tells a different story. The median number of transactions for all users remains at 2, while for dApp users it's 4. This stark contrast between mean and median highlights the extreme skew in transaction distribution because of arbitrage, front running, and other bots. The higher median for dApp users (4 vs 2) indicates that dApp interactions do drive more activity among human users.

1.2 High-Volume Transactions

Transaction Type	August 2024	September 2024	Delta %
OfferCreate	44,786,665	53,822,567	+20.2%
Payment	36,924,563	33,625,208	-8.9%
OfferCancel	5,649,960	3,923,195	-30.6%

Bot-Driven Market Activity:
The significant increase in OfferCreate transactions (+20.2%) coupled with a decrease in OfferCancel transactions (-30.6%) suggests intensified arbitrage bot activity. This pattern indicates bots are creating more offers and letting fewer expire.
Market Efficiency:
The ratio of OfferCreate to OfferCancel transactions increased from approximately 7.93:1 in August to 13.72:1 in September. This could indicate higher market efficiency, with bots finding more profitable trades and cancelling fewer orders.
Ecosystem Impact:
While bot activity can provide liquidity, the dominance of bots raises questions about the ecosystem's health, diversity, and security for human users (as bots tend to extract value from human users in most cases).

1.3 AMM-Related Transactions

Transaction Type	August 2024	September 2024	Delta %
AMMDeposit	35,020	36,524	+4.3%
AMMWithdraw	9,111	8,759	-3.9%
AMMCreate	200	148	-26.0%
AMMVote	380	206	-45.8%
AMMBid	20	37	+85.0%

Liquidity Growth:
The increase in AMMDeposit transactions (+4.3%) coupled with a decrease in AMMWithdraw (-3.9%) shows a net inflow of liquidity into AMM pools. A reversal in general market sentiment combined with attractive yield opportunities can be one of the growth drivers.
Deposit-to-Withdraw Ratio:
The ratio of deposits to withdrawals increased from 3.84:1 in August to 4.17:1 in September, further emphasising the trend of liquidity accumulation in existing AMM pools. However, this metric does not take into account the $USD or $XRP values of such transactions and should be cross-referenced for a better result.
Slowing Expansion:
The significant decrease in AMMCreate transactions (-26.0%) points to a slowdown in the establishment of new AMM pools. The ecosystem is likely saturated with existing pools. It can be observed, based on other metrics, that new projects do not actively launch on XRPL, hence there is a shortage of new tokens and hence nothing new to create more AMM pools.
Reduced Governance Activity:
The sharp decline in AMMVote transactions (-45.8%) indicates a substantial decrease in governance participation. Secondary metrics indicate that this feature is not well known for wider audience and lags in adoption.
Average AMM pool fee:
The average AMM pool fee remains extremely high at 0.68%. This is at least double the fees seen on other protocols, which raises concerns. The design of the AMM on XRPL makes it unlikely that this will change. With no competitive element in place, there is little incentive to lower the fee. In fact, liquidity providers are encouraged to keep the fees elevated, as users have no way to bypass them.
Current State of AMM Ecosystem:
The overall trends suggest increased engagement with established pools but decreased expansion and governance activity. Users appear to be favouring existing, proven AMMs over creating or simply governing new ones.

1.4 NFT-Related Transactions

Transaction Type	August 2024	September 2024	Delta %
NFTokenCreateOffer	97,755	123,406	+26.2%
NFTokenAcceptOffer	68,750	66,426	-3.4%
NFTokenCancelOffer	21,797	28,779	+32.0%
NFTokenMint	51,190	117,765	+130.0%
NFTokenBurn	14,718	43,303	+194.2%

NFT Market Expansion:
The significant increase in NFTokenMint transactions (+130.1%) indicates a surge in new NFT creation. Such spikes are expected when new NFT projects are launching or existing projects expanding their offerings.
Increased Market Activity:
The rise in NFTokenCreateOffer (+26.2%) and NFTokenCancelOffer (+32.03%) suggests more active trading and price discovery in the NFT market. Users are creating more sale offers but also cancelling new and old offers at a higher rate. It can be speculated that the more cancelations there are, the less liquid market is. This is partially supported by the fact that average price of 38 XRP/NFT in August decreased to 25 XRP/NFT in September.
Minting-to-Sales Ratio:
In August, the ratio of NFTokenMint to NFTokenAcceptOffer was about 0.74:1. In September, this ratio increased to 1.77:1. This indicates that new NFT creation is outpacing sales, potentially leading to oversupply or the launch of new collections that haven't yet found buyers. However, this is very crude metric and should be taken with caution.
Market Saturation Signs:
Despite the increase in minting and offer creation, there's a slight decrease in NFTokenAcceptOffer transactions (-3.4%). This might suggest that while there's growing interest in creating and listing NFTs, buyer demand isn't keeping pace.
Potential Bot Activity:
The sharp increases across most transaction types, particularly in minting and burning, could partially be attributed to automated processes or bots involved in NFT creation, listing, and management. However, no research was performed to investigate the matter.

2. dApp Interactions

2.1. Unique Active Users per dApp

dApp Name	August 2024 UAW	September 2024 UAW	% Delta
XPMarket	2,121	1,870	-11.8%
Magnetic	3,985	2,904	-27.1%
Sologenic	2,941	2,668	-9.2%
XRP Cafe	3,160	1,941	-38.5%
Bidds	755	1,646	+118.0%
DexFi*	745*	1,134*	+52.2%*
Orchestra	271	189	-30.2%

* On-chain data showed that DexFi has substantial activity related to volume and user inflation, so their numbers have to be evaluated with care.

Established Platforms:
Well-known dApps like XPMarket (-11.8%), Magnetic (-27.1%), Sologenic (-9.2%), and XRP Cafe (-38.5%) all experienced a decreases in Unique Active Wallets (UAW), with some losing up to a third compared to the last month. This consistent decline across established platforms suggests a broader trend affecting the whole ecosystem, rather than underperformance of a single platform.
Emerging Platform Growth:
Bidds displayed growth with a 118.0% increase in UAW. Recently Bidds rebranded from onXRP, hence this could be associated with a successful marketing, new features, and/or newer offerings on the platform.
DexFi Anomaly:
While DexFi shows significant growth (+52.2%), the asterisk and note about potential inflation in their numbers suggest caution in interpreting this data. This highlights the importance of verifying on-chain data and the potential for manipulated metrics in the ecosystem. Reference: https://x.com/Kirjakulov/status/1838242785394069866
Niche Platform Challenges:
Orchestra, a smaller platform, experienced a sharp decline in Unique Active Wallets (UAW), dropping by 30.2%. This has placed it far behind in the competitive landscape. The gap between Orchestra's UAW (189) and its closest competitor, DexFi (1,134 UAW), highlights the significant disparity between market leaders and smaller projects within the XRPL Ecosystem.
Overall Ecosystem Health:
The total Unique Active Wallets (UAW) across all listed dApps dropped from 11,668 in August to 10,082 in September. While this decrease is not entirely unexpected, it remains concerning. The small number of users interacting with the ecosystem poses a significant challenge for monetisation, creating an entry barrier for many developers. This, in turn, slows down the overall growth and expansion of the ecosystem.

2.2. Power Users in Numbers

User Type	August 2024	September 2024	% Delta
1x dApp	9,766	8,351	-14.5%
2x dApps	1,562	1,337	-14.4%
3x dApps	280	277	-1.1%
3+ dApps	60	117	+95.0%

The number of casual users (those who interact with only 1 or 2 dApps per month) decreased significantly in September, both showing a decline of about 14%.
Users with 3 dApp interactions remained relatively stable with only a slight decrease of 1.07%.
"Ultra Users", those who use more than 3 dApps, despite being the smallest group, showed remarkable growth with a 95% increase from August to September.
The total number of engaged users (sum of all categories) decreased from 11,668 in August to 10,082 in September, a 13.6% overall decline.
Despite the overall decrease, the growth in Ultra Users suggests a trend towards a more dedicated and active core user base.

2.3. Cross-Platform Comparisons

Transaction Type	XPMarket	Magnetic	Sologenic	XRP Cafe	DexFi	Bidds
Payment	48,342	46,944	2,876	1,656	28,171	7
OfferCreate	9,947	9,628	18,607	-	3,154	244
OfferCancel	1,289	4,801	4,196	-	166	26
NFTokenCreateOffer	8,975	634	583	38,244	562	25,929
NFTokenAcceptOffer	5,313	264	139	12,021	53	9,008
NFTokenCancelOffer	1,173	274	165	10,360	136	3,630
NFTokenMint	-	-	325	8,158	3,474	12,819
NFTokenBurn	-	-	37	7,270	-	9,669
AMMDeposit	5,678	15,261	-	-	4,111	-
AMMWithdraw	1,386	2,725	-	-	3,578	-
AMMCreate	11	35	-	-	9	-
AMMVote	32	67	-	-	43	-
TrustSet	2,404	3,609	1,859	-	1,532	6
AccountSet	-	-	175	-	1	3
AMMBid	12	13	-	-	5	-

Platform Specialisation:
- XPMarket and Magnetic show balanced activity across payment, DEX, NFT, and AMM operations.
- Sologenic is heavily used on DEX trading with high OfferCreate and OfferCancel counts.
- XRP Cafe and Bidds dominate in NFT transactions, with minimal activity in other areas.
NFT Market Dynamics:
- XRP Cafe leads in NFTokenCreateOffer (38,244), followed by Bidds (25,929).
- XPMarket shows the highest NFT offer acceptance rate (59.2% of created offers).
- Bidds has the highest NFTokenMint (12,819) and NFTokenBurn (9,669) counts, suggesting active NFT lifecycle management.
DEX Trading Efficiency:
- OfferCancel to OfferCreate ratios: XPMarket (12.9%), Magnetic (49.87%), Sologenic (22.6%).
- XPMarket's low cancellation rate might indicate are more decisive user behaviours across the markets.
- Magnetic's high rate suggests frequent order adjustments.
AMM Activity:
- Magnetic leads in AMMDeposit transactions (15,261), indicating strong liquidity provision.
- XPMarket and Magnetic demonstrate more AMM governance participation (AMMVote and AMMCreate).
- Orchestra is unable to catch up with other DeFi platforms since the launch of AMM, despite having a rather good start.
Payment Transactions:
- XPMarket and Magnetic process the most payment-based transactions, suggesting utility-focused user bases and high engagement and loyalty with the platforms.
- Sologenic, XRP Cafe, and Bidds show limited payment activity, aligning with their niches.
Transaction Volume Distribution:
- XPMarket and Magnetic have the highest total transaction counts, indicating diverse and active user bases, as well as overall high dApp activity and market involvement.
- Despite specialisation, XRP Cafe and Bidds also show high transaction volumes, driven by NFT activity.
Cross-Platform Comparisons:
- XPMarket shows the most balanced activity across transaction types, suggesting a versatile platform.
- Magnetic leads in AMM operations while maintaining strong DEX and payment activities.
- Sologenic dominates in DEX transactions but has limited engagement in other areas.
- XRP Cafe and Bidds lead the NFT space.
Ecosystem Health:
- The diversity of platform within the XRPL ecosystem is broad enough to cover all basic needs that are technically supported by the XRPL as L1 blockchain and even beyond that.
- High transaction volumes across multiple platforms indicate a competitive environment. However, the list of top players remains unchanged, without any new platform observed.
- The emergence of AMM activities alongside traditional DEX operations points to evolving DeFi capabilities within the XRPL ecosystem.

2.4. Activity Patterns

Transactions	August 2024	September 2024	% Delta
1	28.2% (3,294)	24.2% (2,444)	-4.0%
2-5	32.1% (3,743)	32.2% (3,248)	+0.1%
6-10	12.2% (1,430)	12.3% (1,236)	+0.1%
11-50	18.3% (2,137)	22.2% (2,235)	+3.9%
51-100	4.7% (553)	5.2% (526)	+0.5%
101+	4.4% (515)	3.9% (397)	-0.5%
Total	11,672	10,082	-13.6%

Transaction Frequency Distribution Shift:
- Single-transaction accounts decreased significantly (-4.0%), indicating a potential consolidation of the user base.
- Moderate-to-high activity accounts (11-50 transactions) increased substantially (+3.9%).
- Marginal increases in 2-5 and 6-10 transaction ranges (+0.1% each) imply stability in low-to-moderate activity sectors.
User Base Composition Analysis:
- September data shows 68.7% of accounts engaged in 2-50 transactions, up from 62.6% in August.
- The ecosystem is experiencing a "centralisation of activity" where engaged users are becoming more active while less engaged users are either increasing activity or departing.
XRP Ledger Ecosystem Implications:
- The decrease in single-transaction accounts may indicate reduced speculative behaviour or decreased new user onboarding rate.
- Increase in 11-50 transaction accounts suggests growing adoption of DeFi activities.
- Stability in 2-5 and 6-10 transaction ranges implies a consistent base of occasional users, who are potentially observing and exploring the ecosystem, but are still hesitant to engage with it pro-actively.

3. XRPL Ecosystem Economics Analysis

Metric	August	September	% Delta
NFT Volume (USD)	607,002.42	537,778.35	-11.4%
NFT Issuer Fees (XRP)	82,664.85	68,538.67	-17.1%
NFT Broker Fees (XRP)	14,214.87	11,749.77	-17.3%
AMM Volume (USD)	5,417,091.95	2,837,838.66	-47.6%
AMM Fees (USD)	57,405.76	32,930.11	-42.6%
XRP Pooled in AMM	12,533,971.22	12,285,188.05	-2.0%

Overall Market Activity:
- NFT Volume (USD) decreased by 11.4%
- AMM Volume (USD) decreased significantly by 47.6% (this excludes volume that goes through the orderbook DEX)
Fees Generated:
- NFT Issuer Fees (XRP) decreased by 17.1%, hitting 68,538.67 XRP (about 37.5k USD).
- NFT Broker Fees (XRP) decreased by 17.3% hitting 11,749.77 XRP (about 6.5k USD).
- AMM Fees (USD) decreased by 42.6% hitting 32,930.11 USD.
- Total protocol generated fees: around 77k USD (excluding gas fees, only AMM + NFTs related).

4. Methods

4.1. Data Collection

Transaction data was collected directly from the XRPL using API endpoints, as well as https://xpmarket.com/.
dApp interaction data was gathered through analysis of on-chain transactions associated with known DApp Source Tags.

4.2. Analysis

Transaction numbers were aggregated and compared month-over-month.
User activity was categorised based on transaction frequency.
DApp engagement was measured by tracking interactions with known dApp Source Tags.
AMM volumes were calculated by summing the value of all trades routed through the AMM only.
Fee generation was counted by summing all fees paid by users associated with AMM and NFTs (there are no other possible protocol fees).
Bot activity was identified through the analysis of transaction patterns.

4.3. Limitations

The study assumes that wallet addresses represent unique users, which may not always be the case.
dApp identification relies on known addresses and may not capture all dpp activity on the network, but their impact is estimated to be less than 5%.
Transactions count analysis does not differentiate failed transactions, as those are still recorded and stored on the chain, hence considered as legitimate activity.

Supplementary Material: Transaction Type Counts

Transaction Type	August 2024	September 2024	Delta %
OfferCreate	44,786,665	53,822,567	+20.1%
Payment	36,924,563	33,625,208	-8.9%
OfferCancel	5,649,960	3,923,195	-30.5%
TicketCreate	399,523	643,239	+61.0%
TrustSet	2,394,540	1,770,545	-26.0%
NFTokenCreateOffer	97,755	123,406	+26.2%
NFTokenCancelOffer	21,797	28,779	+32.0%
AMMWithdraw	9,111	8,759	-3.8%
AccountSet	3,724	2,975	-20.1%
AMMCreate	200	148	-26.0%
AMMDeposit	35,020	36,524	+4.2%
NFTokenMint	51,190	117,765	+130.0%
AccountDelete	11,386	12,463	+9.4%
NFTokenAcceptOffer	68,750	66,426	-3.3%
NFTokenBurn	14,718	43,303	+194.2%
SignerListSet	888	779	-12.2%
EscrowFinish	314	435	+38.5%
EscrowCreate	613	386	-37.0%
PaymentChannelFund	644	405	-37.1%
AMMVote	380	206	-45.7%
EscrowCancel	36	61	+69.4%
SetRegularKey	379	626	+65.1%
AMMBid	20	37	+85.0%
CheckCreate	4	6	+50.0%
Clawback	36	48	+33.3%
PaymentChannelClaim	24	33	+37.5%
DepositPreauth	98	36	-63.2%
PaymentChannelCreate	10	7	-30.0%
EnableAmendment	0	20	N/A
CheckCash	0	4	N/A

XRPL Transaction Type Glossary

OfferCreate: Create an offer to exchange assets (fungible tokens)
Payment: Send currency from one account to another, token mint, and AMM transactions
OfferCancel: Cancel an existing exchange offer
TicketCreate: Create a ticket for future use in transactions
TrustSet: Add or modify a trust line between accounts
NFTokenCreateOffer: Create an offer to buy or sell an NFT
NFTokenCancelOffer: Cancel an existing NFT offer
AMMWithdraw: Withdraw liquidity from an Automated Market Maker pool
AccountSet: Modify account properties or settings
AMMCreate: Create a new Automated Market Maker pool
AMMDeposit: Add liquidity to an Automated Market Maker pool
NFTokenMint: Create a new Non-Fungible Token
AccountDelete: Delete an account from the ledger
NFTokenAcceptOffer: Accept an offer to buy or sell an NFT
NFTokenBurn: Destroy a Non-Fungible Token
SignerListSet: Modify the list of signers for an account
EscrowFinish: Complete an existing escrow
EscrowCreate: Create a new escrow
PaymentChannelFund: Add funds to a payment channel
AMMVote: Vote on Automated Market Maker parameters
EscrowCancel: Cancel an existing escrow
SetRegularKey: Assign a regular key pair to an account
AMMBid: Place a bid in an Automated Market Maker auction
CheckCreate: Create a check for future redemption
Clawback: Reclaim issued currency from an account
PaymentChannelClaim: Claim funds from a payment channel
DepositPreauth: Preauthorise an account to send payments
PaymentChannelCreate: Create a new payment channel
EnableAmendment: Enable a new feature on the network
CheckCash: Cash a check created by another account

Investigating Source Tag Usage and Transparency in the XRPL Ecosystem: A Case Study on Dexfi

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:20:22 +0000

Transparency and integrity are fundamental values of every blockchain ecosystem, and the XRP Ledger is no exception. One such mechanism is the use of Source Tags, widely used to help track user activity within the dApps on XRPL. However, recent observations suggest that Source Tags may be susceptible to misuse, potentially leading to distorted metrics and undermining trust within the ecosystem. This article examines the usage of Source Tags, explores concerns around potential metric inflation, and uses Dexfi, a dApp and XRPL Grant recipient, as a focal point for this investigation.

Understanding Source Tags and Their Current Purpose

Source Tags on the XRPL serve as unique identifiers for transactions originating from specific dApps. They enable both users and developers to track how applications are being utilized, providing insights into user activity, trading volumes, and overall engagement. This information is crucial for developers aiming to improve their applications and for stakeholders evaluating the success and potential of different projects.

Here is an example how XPMarket uses Source Tag to aggregate the data on the activity of XRPL dApps. https://xpmarket.com/dapps/top

Potential Misuse of Source Tags: Manipulating Perceptions

While Source Tags have a valuable purpose, there is a possibility for misuse. Without stringent controls on their usage, there is a risk that metrics such as user numbers and transaction volumes could be artificially inflated. This could inadvertently mislead users and stakeholders about the popularity and activity levels of a dApp, potentially affecting decision-making and trust within the ecosystem.

Case Study: Dexfi and the Token Nex Anomaly

During routine data analytics on the XRPL, we observed unusual activity associated with Dexfi. Our key observations are as follows:

Token Nex's Limited Holders: We identified a token called Nex, which has approximately 50 holders. View Token Nex Details
Concentrated AMM Pool Activity: The Nex/XRP AMM pool has only one liquidity provider. A group of wallets associated with Dexfi’s Source Tag engage with this pool, collectively generating between $40,000 and $50,000 in daily trading volume. View AMM Pool Details
High Transaction Volumes Among Linked Wallets: In August, 47 of these wallets made between 600 and 632 payment transactions related to AMM trading, and one wallet made 2,284 AMM deposit/withdraw transactions. These wallets appear to be linked to a common origin.
Click here to view the full list of wallets and transaction counts.
Impact on Dexfi's Overall Activity Metrics: In August, Dexfi saw a total of 523 unique wallets interacting with the platform. The wallets in question represent almost 10% of the total user activity. The median Dexfi user makes about 3 transactions per month. The average (mean) number of transactions per user is 28 per month when including all wallets. However, if we exclude the wallets in question, the average drops to 16 transactions per month.

Let's analyze statistics from DappRadar, an unbiased third-party data aggregator. From the chart, we can see that Dexfi consistently retains trading volume close to $100,000 per day. We can also observe spikes in both user activity and trading volume, which do not correlate with one another.

This data aligns with what we observe in the AMM pool on XPMarket. Note that the liquidity in the pool is about $15,000, while the trading volume that goes through it exceeds $40,000. This is an unprecedented pool performance that is rarely observed in other cases. Also, notice how, with such significant volume, the price of the token stays within a narrow range of 5 XRP.

This indicates that the wallets in question are engaging in significantly higher transaction volumes compared to typical Dexfi users. Their activity notably skews the average transaction volume, suggesting that their behavior is not representative of standard user activity on the platform.

Dexfi’s Explanation and Ongoing Concerns

We reached out to Dexfi for clarification on this activity. Dexfi responded that the transactions were part of testing and preparation for a new feature, involving approximately 24 beta testers. They emphasized that using Dexfi's Source Tag was important for their testing purposes and that the wallets involved are real users.

While we acknowledge Dexfi's explanation, we believe further clarification is needed to fully address the concerns:

Testing Practices: The transaction volumes observed are significantly higher than typical user activity. It would be helpful for Dexfi to provide more detailed information on their testing protocols and why such high volumes are necessary.
Impact on Public Metrics: Since these activities contribute to publicly reported metrics, there's a risk of misinterpretation by users and stakeholders. There was no clear explanation provided on the reasons why the main project's Source Tag is required for tests.

Implications for the XRPL Ecosystem

The potential for Source Tag misuse raises important considerations:

Accuracy of Performance Metrics: Artificially inflated metrics could mislead users and stakeholders about a dApp's performance, potentially influencing investment decisions and resource allocation.
Trust in Due Diligence Processes: If grant recipients can unintentionally inflate their reported metrics, it may impact the perceived effectiveness of due diligence processes within programs like XRPL Grants.

Enhancing Transparency and Security

To address these challenges, several steps could be considered:

Review of Source Tag Controls: Exploring ways to enhance the control and verification of Source Tag usage could help ensure metrics accurately reflect genuine user activity.
- Is there potential to implement verification mechanisms, utilize Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs), or develop a new alternative mechanism?
Separation of Testing and Production Metrics: Implementing practices where testing activities are conducted in a manner that does not impact public metrics could prevent confusion.
- Could Dexfi and other developers use test networks or flag test transactions to differentiate them from regular user activity?
Community Engagement and Monitoring: Encouraging open communication between dApp developers, users, and the broader community can foster a collaborative approach to maintaining transparency.
Revisiting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): Revisiting the KPIs associated with XRPL Grants to include qualitative metrics alongside quantitative ones may reduce the incentive for metric manipulation. This could involve:
- Emphasizing user engagement quality by focusing on metrics that reflect user satisfaction and meaningful interactions rather than just transaction volumes.
- Implementing regular audits and reporting to ensure alignment with grant objectives.

Conclusion

The observations around Dexfi's activity highlight the importance of transparency and accurate reporting within the XRPL ecosystem. While testing and development are essential for innovation, ensuring that such activities do not inadvertently affect public perceptions is crucial. By working together to enhance controls and communication, stakeholders can uphold the integrity and trust that are foundational to the XRPL's success.

Invitation for Further Discussion

We encourage Dexfi and other stakeholders to engage in open discussions on how to address these concerns collaboratively. Sharing best practices and developing guidelines for testing and metric reporting can benefit the entire XRPL community.

Note: This article aims to promote transparency and constructive dialogue within the XRPL ecosystem. The observations are intended to encourage collaborative efforts to enhance the integrity and trust that are vital for the community's success.

XRPL Weekly Traction Report (2024/Sep/09-15)

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:03:03 +0000

Abstract

This report analyses on-chain XRPL activity from September 9-15, 2024, focusing on user engagement, transaction volume, and dApp interactions. With over 12.5 million transactions processed and 39,340 unique active wallets, the data reveals a mix of growing engagement in dApps and reduced overall wallet activity. This discrepancy is discussed, alongside notable performance in key dApps. The report provides valuable insights into the health of the XRPL ecosystem, emphasising evolving user trends and transaction patterns across different platforms.

This week's highlights

XRPL Marketcap recovered to $97 million, compared to $85 million a week before.
dApp engagement rose to 11.36% of UAWs interacting with dApps (up from 9.29%).
OfferCreate makes 52% of total transactions.
Only 9,905 (0.15%) OfferCreate transactions are made via dApps, indicating the dominance of trading/arbitrage bots.
Unique Active Wallets decreased by 15.87% (39,340 wallets)

1. Introduction

Understanding XRPL ecosystem's health and dynamics is crucial for developers, users, and researchers in the blockchain space. This weekly report aims to provide a detailed analysis of the ledger's on-chain activity for the week of September 9-15, 2024, offering insights into user behaviour, dApp performance, and overall network trends.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Overall Network Activity

Metric	Count	% Change vs Previous Week
Unique Active Wallets	39,340	-15.87%
Total Transactions	12,523,616	+9.01%
Users with dApps Interaction	4,469	+2.90%

Key Observations

Significant decrease in Unique Active Wallets: Down 15.87% from 46,762 to 39,340
Increase in Total Transactions: Up 9.01% from 11,488,543 to 12,523,616
Slight increase in Users with dApps Interaction: Up 2.90% from 4,343 to 4,469
Proportion of active wallets interacting with dApps increased from 9.29% to 11.36%

There's an intriguing observation in this week's data: whilst the total number of Unique Active Wallets (UAWs) decreased significantly by 15.87%, the number of Users with dApps Interaction actually increased by 2.90%. Typically, one would expect these two metrics to have a positive correlation, but that's not the case here.

This discrepancy might be explained by a cooldown in interest for XRP speculation and transfers to or from centralised exchanges, where trading activity and transfers typically peak. The overall number of users likely settled following the market stabilisation after 6th September, which saw a significant wave of liquidations driven by heightened volatility.

XRPL ecosystem users, who are more engaged with on-chain activities, seem to be less affected by such market events. This could explain the more consistent dApp interaction figures.

Despite the overall decrease in active wallets, dApp engagement went up proportionally. In this week, 11.36% of active wallets (4,469 out of 39,340) interacted with dApps, up from 9.29% in the previous week.

2.2. dApp Usage Patterns

dApps Used per User	UAW	% Change vs Previous Week
1 dApp	3,971	+5.67%
2 dApps	423	-11.13%
3 dApps	62	-30.34%
>3 dApps	13	-35.00%

Key Observations

Increase in single dApp users: Up 5.67% to 3,971 UAW
Decline in multi-dApp engagement: Users of 2 or more dApps decreased across all categories
Sharp decrease in power users: Those using 3 or more dApps declined by over 30%
Growing single dApp loyalty: 88.86% of users stick to one dApp, up from 86.53% last week

This week's data reveals a continuing trend towards user loyalty to a single specific platform rather than ecosystem-wide engagement. The proportion of users sticking to one dApp has increased from 86.53% to 88.86%, indicating a growing concentration of user activity.

Simultaneously, a sharp decline in multi-dApp engagement was observed. The number of users interacting with two dApps decreased by 11.13%, while the decline was even more prominent for those using three dApps (-30.34%) or more than three dApps (-35.00%). This significant drop in the number of 'power users' - those who engage with multiple dApps - is particularly noteworthy.

The concentration of users on single dApps suggests that many might not be aware of other tools and projects within the ecosystem. Also, it is likely that these users are simply not interested in other dApps once they found their go-to service. However, low numbers for multi-dApp users might raise concerns about the overall health and diversity of the ecosystem. A thriving blockchain environment typically benefits from users engaging with a variety of applications.

2.3. Individual dApp Performance

dApp Name	UAW	% Change vs Previous Week
XPMarket	849	+8.71%
Magnetic	1,734	+19.50%
Sologenic	932	+4.25%
XRP Cafe	841	-5.29%
DexFi	326	-46.56%
Bidds	292	-17.05%
Other	392	-15.15%

Key Observations

Growth Leaders: XPMarket and Magnetic showed significant growth in Unique Active Wallets (UAW).
Sharp Decline: DexFi experienced a substantial drop in UAW (-46.56%) after rapid growth the previous week.
Continued Decline: XRP Cafe saw an outflow of UAWs for the second consecutive week.
Market Dynamics: The overall dynamics suggest healthy competition among XRPL dApps.
Low Utilisation: dApp usage remains relatively low, both as a percentage of total UAW and in absolute values.

Transaction Type	XPMarket	Magnetic	Sologenic	XRP Cafe	DexFi	Bidds	Other
Payment	12,201	10,400	615	216	6,810	0	966,191
OfferCreate	2,231	2,253	4,333	-	758	61	269
OfferCancel	338	1,205	1,057	-	29	4	56
NFTokenCreateOffer	2,365	114	57	9,096	112	2,529	1,911
NFTokenAcceptOffer	1,312	66	15	2,670	7	499	1,279
NFTokenCancelOffer	396	66	21	2,290	14	526	293
NFTokenMint	-	-	36	1,649	436	46	2,629
NFTokenBurn	-	-	28	1,976	-	2	37
AMMDeposit	1,220	3,589	-	-	1,005	-	38
AMMWithdraw	290	669	-	-	912	-	9
AMMCreate	2	6	-	-	3	-	-
AMMVote	6	14	-	-	8	-	2
TrustSet	515	1,257	375	-	262	1	86
AccountSet	-	-	33	-	-	-	15
AMMBid	1	-	-	-	3	-	-

An examination of transaction patterns across various dApps within the XRPL ecosystem reveals a diverse and evolving landscape. Each platform appears to be establishing its own niche whilst contributing to the overall vitality of the network.

Payment transactions constitute the fundamental activity on the XRPL, with XPMarket, Magnetic, and DexFi demonstrating notable volume. XPMarket's 12,201 payment transactions, followed closely by Magnetic's 10,400 and DexFi's 6,810, indicate substantial user engagement on these platforms.

The Decentralised Exchange (DEX) functionality, represented by OfferCreate and OfferCancel transactions, provides insight into trading behaviour across different platforms. Sologenic maintains its predominance in this category for the second consecutive week, with 4,333 OfferCreate and 1,057 OfferCancel transactions. However, it is noteworthy that these figures have decreased compared to the previous week, potentially indicating a shift in user trading strategies or overall market sentiment.

A particularly salient metric is the ratio of OfferCreate to OfferCancel transactions, which offers insights into user trading behaviour and platform dynamics. Magnetic exhibits an atypically low ratio of 1.87:1, signifying that for every two offers created, one is cancelled. XPMarket and Sologenic show relatively similar and natural ratios of 6.6:1 and 4.1:1 respectively. These variations may be indicative of differences in user base composition, trading strategies, or platform-specific features that influence order placement and cancellation behaviours.

XRP Cafe led in all NFT transaction types. However, the platform's efficiency in converting offers to sales appears to lag behind that of XPMarket. While XRP Cafe recorded 9,096 sell offers created with only 2,670 accepted (a 29% success rate), XPMarket demonstrated a substantially higher conversion rate of 55% (1,312 acceptances out of 2,365 offers).

3. All Types of Activity: A Comprehensive View of the XRPL Ecosystem

While previous sections focused on specific metrics and dApp activities, it is crucial to examine the overall network activity. This baseline view provides insights into the general health and trends of the XRPL ecosystem.

Transaction Type	Sept 2-8, 2024	Sept 9-15, 2024	% Change
OfferCreate	6,439,240	6,511,848	+1.13%
Payment	4,202,854	5,239,706	+24.67%
OfferCancel	433,125	405,451	-6.39%
TrustSet	225,227	199,617	-11.37%
TicketCreate	130,369	85,104	-34.72%
NFTokenCreateOffer	20,407	21,953	+7.58%
NFTokenMint	10,282	19,858	+93.14%
NFTokenBurn	2,594	12,608	+386.05%
NFTokenAcceptOffer	8,690	11,292	+29.94%
AMMDeposit	6,753	7,476	+10.71%
NFTokenCancelOffer	5,591	5,042	-9.82%
AMMWithdraw	1,572	1,974	+25.57%
AccountDelete	934	884	-5.35%
AccountSet	362	308	-14.92%
PaymentChannelFund	34	158	+364.71%
SignerListSet	106	92	-13.21%
AMMCreate	19	64	+236.84%
AMMVote	37	33	-10.81%
SetRegularKey	103	31	-69.90%
EscrowCreate	78	28	-64.10%
UNLModify	30	25	-16.67%
EscrowFinish	131	24	-81.68%
Clawback	2	9	+350.00%
EscrowCancel	1	9	+800.00%
AMMBid	1	8	+700.00%
PaymentChannelClaim	9	7	-22.22%
EnableAmendment	0	7	N/A
CheckCreate	1	0	-100.00%

Key Observations

Overall Transaction Volume: The total number of transactions across all types increased from 11,488,514 to 12,533,585, representing an 9.10% growth.
Dominant Transaction Types: OfferCreate and Payment transactions continue to dominate, collectively accounting for 93.77% of all transactions in the most recent week.
NFT-related transactions showed remarkable growth, particularly NFTokenBurn (+386.05%) and NFTokenMint (+93.14%).
Payment transactions increased by 24.67%.
AMM-related activities also saw substantial growth, with AMMCreate increasing by 236.84%.

Additional information can be found on https://xpmarket.com/
Previous week report here https://dev.to/enchstyle/xrpl-traction-update-2024sep02-08-4bod/

XRPL Weekly Traction Report (2024/Sep/02-08)

Dr. Artur Kirjakulov — Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:31:50 +0000

XRPL Weekly Traction Report: An In-depth Analysis of On-Chain Activity

This report marks the inaugural instalment in a series of weekly updates analysing the XRP Ledger's (XRPL) traction based on detailed on-chain activity. As this series progresses, feedback from readers regarding data collection and analysis for future iterations is welcomed. The focus remains on straightforward metrics that facilitate easy comparison and interpretation, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.

1. Unique Users: The Core Indicator of Network Health

Before examining the data, it is essential to establish key concepts and methodologies:

Unique Active Wallets (UAW): A critical metric for assessing blockchain traction, representing the number of wallets initiating at least one outgoing transaction during the observed period, including XRP transfers and token-related activities.
Total Transactions: This figure encompasses all transaction types on the network, without adjustments for automated activities or other factors.
Users with dApps Interaction: This metric indicates the number of wallets engaging with decentralised applications (dApps) on XRPL, identified by transactions with a Source Tag.

The data presents as follows:

Metric	Count	% Change vs Previous Week
Unique Active Wallets	46,762	+4.43%
Total Transactions	11,488,552	-10.38%
Users with dApps Interaction	4,343	-6.16%

Analysis:

Wallet Activity: The 4.43% increase in Unique Active Wallets suggests growing interest in the XRPL ecosystem, potentially attributable to new users joining the network or increased activity among existing users.
Transaction Volume: Despite the increase in active wallets, a 10.38% decrease in total transactions is observed. This divergence could indicate:
- A shift towards holding rather than trading
- A decrease in automated trading activity
- Changes in dApp usage patterns
dApp Engagement: Only 9.29% of active wallets (4,343 out of 46,762) interacted with dApps. This relatively low percentage suggests significant potential for growth in dApp adoption within the XRPL ecosystem.
Ecosystem Growth Challenges: The decrease in dApp interactions (-6.16%) despite the increase in active wallets indicates that new or reactivated wallets are not necessarily engaging with the broader XRPL ecosystem. This highlights potential challenges in onboarding or user education.

A deeper examination of dApp usage patterns reveals:

dApps Used per User	UAW	% Change vs Previous Week
1 dApp	3,758	-7.51%
2 dApps	476	-6.30%
3 dApps	89	+78.00%
3+ dApps	20	+185.71%

Interpretation:

Single dApp Dominance: 86.53% of dApp users interact with only one application. This high concentration suggests:
- Users may find a single dApp that meets their needs and adhere to it
- There could be a lack of interoperability or awareness about other dApps
- The learning curve for using multiple dApps might be steep for some users
Multi-dApp Usage Growth: While the numbers are small, the significant growth in users interacting with 3 or more dApps (+78.00% and +185.71%) is noteworthy. This could indicate:
- A small but growing segment of advanced users exploring the full potential of the XRPL ecosystem
- Increased interoperability or cross-promotion between dApps
- The emergence of more diverse and complementary dApp offerings
Ecosystem Maturity: The decline in single and dual dApp usage coupled with the growth in multi-dApp usage might suggest a maturing ecosystem where users are becoming more sophisticated and exploratory in their interactions.
Opportunity for Growth: The low overall numbers of multi-dApp users represent a significant opportunity for ecosystem expansion. Strategies to capitalise on this could include:
- Improved user education about the diverse dApp offerings
- Enhanced interoperability between dApps to create a more seamless user experience
- Incentive programmes to encourage users to explore multiple dApps

2. dApp Overview: Key Components of the XRPL Ecosystem

This section examines the performance of individual dApps within the XRPL ecosystem. Key points to note:

dApp Definition: In the context of XRPL, a dApp (decentralised application) refers to any application built specifically to interact with the blockchain ecosystem. While true decentralised apps cannot be created on XRPL due to the lack of smart contracts, the term has become interchangeable in this context.
Identification: XRPL dApps are identified by a unique Source Tag present in every transaction generated by the corresponding service.
Inclusion Criteria: This analysis focuses on dApps with more than 100 weekly Unique Active Wallets (UAW). Those with fewer users or unidentified Source Tags are grouped under "Other".

The performance of key dApps in the XRPL ecosystem is as follows:

dApp Name	UAW	% Change vs Previous Week
XPMarket	781	-0.51%
Magnetic	1,451	-6.93%
Sologenic	894	-8.21%
XRP Cafe	888	-27.57%
DexFi	610	+121.82%
Bidds	352	-0.56%
Other	462	+8.38%

Analysis:

Stability Leaders: XPMarket and Bidds demonstrate remarkable stability with minimal fluctuations in their user base (-0.51% and -0.56% respectively). This consistency suggests:
- A loyal and satisfied user base
- Reliable and consistently valuable services
- Effective user retention strategies
Growth Leader: DexFi stands out with an impressive 121.82% growth in UAW. This substantial increase could be attributed to:
- Launch of new features or services
- Successful user acquisition campaigns
- Positive word-of-mouth in the XRPL community
Challenges: XRP Cafe experienced a significant drop in UAW (-27.57%). This decline might be due to:
- Conclusion of a specific promotion or event
- Industry's general lack of interest in NFT segment
Ecosystem Dynamics: The varied performance across dApps highlights the dynamic nature of the XRPL ecosystem. Users seem quick to explore new offerings (as seen with DexFi) while also showing loyalty to established platforms (like XPMarket).
Market Share: Despite having the most stable user base, XPMarket is not the leader in terms of total UAW. This suggests that while XPMarket has found a loyal niche, there is potential for growth by attracting users from other platforms or bringing new users into the XRPL ecosystem.

A deeper examination of the types of transactions each dApp facilitates reveals:

Transaction Type	XPMarket	XRP Cafe	Magnetic	Sologenic	Bidds	DexFi	Other Tags
Payment	11,426	303	10,008	544	4	6,336	677,593
OfferCreate	1,878	-	2,349	5,145	68	727	354
OfferCancel	291	-	1,090	1,116	5	69	31
NFTokenCreateOffer	671	10,126	96	166	2,731	190	1,521
NFTokenAcceptOffer	34	3,034	19	58	729	25	737
NFTokenCancelOffer	186	2,930	42	47	741	26	89
NFTokenMint	-	2,222	-	66	141	2,766	3,734
NFTokenBurn	-	575	-	6	79	-	14
AMMDeposit	875	-	3,701	-	-	686	187
AMMWithdraw	296	-	604	-	-	578	49
AMMCreate	1	-	7	-	-	-	11
AMMVote	4	-	7	-	-	9	5
TrustSet	526	-	837	327	4	385	16
AccountSet	-	-	-	27	-	1	6
AMMBid	-	-	-	-	-	1	-

Interpretation:

XPMarket: Demonstrates a well-rounded ecosystem with high activity across various transaction types. It leads in Payment transactions (11,426) among tracked dApps, suggesting its strength in facilitating transfers. XPMarket also shows significant activity in OfferCreate, AMMDeposit, and NFT-related transactions, indicating a diverse platform catering to various user needs.
XRP Cafe: Heavily focused on NFT transactions, particularly NFTokenCreateOffer (10,126). This indicates Cafe's sharp focus on NFTs market only.
Magnetic: Shows strong activity in Payments (10,008) and AMM-related transactions, particularly AMMDeposit (3,701). This indicates a focus on decentralised exchange functionality.
Sologenic: Leads in OfferCreate transactions (5,145), suggesting a focus on trading activities. It also has a balanced mix of other transaction types, indicating a diverse platform.
Bidds: Primarily focused on NFT transactions, with high numbers in NFTokenCreateOffer (2,731) and NFTokenAcceptOffer (729). This suggests a specialisation in NFT marketplace functionality.
DexFi: Shows a mix of activities with notable numbers in Payments (6,336), NFTokenMint (2,766), and AMM-related transactions. This diverse activity profile aligns with its significant growth in UAW.
Other Tags: The high number of transactions, especially in Payments (677,593). It is hard to identify the actual source or purpose of those transactions, as it was not possible to identify the entity responsible for the most of Payments.

Conclusion:

The XRPL ecosystem demonstrates a healthy diversity of dApps catering to various needs, but lacks in the variety of services offered. XPMarket stands out with its well-rounded activity profile and stability in user base, suggesting a mature and reliable platform. The growth of platforms like DexFi and the specialisation of others like XRP Cafe in NFTs indicate a dynamic and evolving ecosystem.

The data suggests opportunities for cross-pollination between dApps. For instance, XPMarket's users might benefit from deeper NFT integration, given the high activity in this area on platforms like XRP Cafe and Bidds. Similarly, other platforms might look to emulate XPMarket's success in facilitating payments and diverse transaction types.

The XRPL ecosystem appears to be in a phase of specialisation and growth, with different platforms carving out niches while also expanding their offerings. This diversity bodes well for the long-term health and adoption of the XRPL, providing users with a wide array of services and use cases.

One of the worrying facts is that there are only 6 dApps who regularly have more than 100 UAW. While there are 18 identified dApps on XRPL, none of those managed to hit >100 threshold, leaving a significant gap between Bidds with 352 users followed by Orchestra Finance with only 87 weekly UAW. It indicates that there are 6 leaders shaping the consumer-focused ecosystem on the ledger (excluding infrastructure providers, like wallets).

3. All Types of Activity: A Comprehensive View of the XRPL Ecosystem

Transaction Type	Week 1	Week 2	% Change
OfferCreate	6,393,818	6,439,240	+0.71%
Payment	5,434,977	4,202,854	-22.67%
OfferCancel	566,092	433,125	-23.49%
TrustSet	290,914	225,227	-22.58%
TicketCreate	62,690	130,369	+107.96%
NFTokenCreateOffer	25,013	20,407	-18.41%
NFTokenMint	15,442	10,282	-33.42%
NFTokenAcceptOffer	13,500	8,690	-35.63%
AMMDeposit	7,124	6,753	-5.21%
NFTokenCancelOffer	4,880	5,591	+14.57%
AMMWithdraw	1,637	1,572	-3.97%
AccountDelete	1,046	934	-10.71%
NFTokenBurn	759	2,594	+241.77%
AccountSet	425	362	-14.82%
PaymentChannelFund	111	34	-69.37%
SignerListSet	96	106	+10.42%
EscrowCreate	90	78	-13.33%
EscrowFinish	85	131	+54.12%
SetRegularKey	67	103	+53.73%
UNLModify	52	30	-42.31%
AMMVote	31	37	+19.35%
AMMCreate	25	19	-24.00%
DepositPreauth	23	0	-100.00%
Clawback	4	2	-50.00%
EscrowCancel	2	1	-50.00%
PaymentChannelClaim	2	9	+350.00%
AMMBid	1	1	0.00%
CheckCreate	1	1	0.00%

Comprehensive Analysis:

Dominant Transaction Types:
- OfferCreate and Payment transactions continue to dominate the XRPL ecosystem, accounting for the vast majority of all transactions. Keep in mind, that Payment transactions also correspond to trades via AMM, not just a transfer of XRP/tokens.
- OfferCreate saw a slight increase (+0.71%), indicating sustained trading activity and liquidity provision on the decentralised exchange.
- The significant decrease in Payment transactions (-22.67%) is noteworthy and warrants further investigation. It could be due to:
  - A shift in user behaviour towards holding rather than transferring XRP
  - Decreased speculative activity
  - Macro-economic factors influencing the broader crypto market
Market Dynamics:
- The decrease in OfferCancel transactions (-23.49%) coupled with the increase in OfferCreate suggests a more stable and confident market. Traders seem more likely to let their offers stand rather than cancelling them, possibly indicating less price volatility or more strategic trading behaviour.
- The decrease in TrustSet transactions (-22.58%) could indicate a slowdown in new token issuances or user adoption of new tokens on the XRPL. This is also supported by a decreased in the number of dApp users, as this is the major category of users responsible for token interactions.
NFT Ecosystem:
- NFT-related transactions show mixed trends:
  - Decreases in NFTokenCreateOffer (-18.41%), NFTokenMint (-33.42%), and NFTokenAcceptOffer (-35.63%) suggest a cooling off in the NFT market.
  - However, the dramatic increase in NFTokenBurn (+241.77%) is intriguing. This could indicate:
  - A cleanup of unwanted or low-value NFTs
  - The conclusion of temporary NFT campaigns or events
  - A shift in NFT strategies, potentially towards higher-quality, lower-quantity models
- The increase in NFTokenCancelOffer (+14.57%) amidst decreases in other NFT activities might suggest sellers adjusting their pricing strategies in a changing market.
- Overall, these trends point to a maturing NFT ecosystem on XRPL, moving past initial enthusiasm and towards more sustainable models.
Automated Market Maker (AMM) Activity:
- AMM-related transactions (AMMDeposit, AMMWithdraw, AMMVote, AMMCreate, AMMBid) show relatively small changes, indicating stable usage of these features.
- The slight decrease in AMMDeposit (-5.21%) and AMMWithdraw (-3.97%) suggests consistent liquidity in AMM pools.
- The increase in AMMVote (+19.35%) indicates growing engagement in AMM governance, possibly reflecting users' increased interest in shaping the protocols they use.
- The decrease in AMMCreate (-24.00%) might suggest that the market has reached a temporary plateau for new AMM pools. This is coupled with a cool down in TrustSet, indicating there are not enough new tokens issued.
Account Management and Security:
- The increase in SetRegularKey (+53.73%) and SignerListSet (+10.42%) transactions suggests growing attention to account security and management.
- This could be a response to increased awareness about cryptocurrency security best practices or possibly reactions to security incidents in the broader crypto ecosystem. However, this are rather niche features not widely used by XRPL community and likely used by advanced users or developers.
- The decrease in AccountDelete (-10.71%) might indicate a trend towards longer-term holding and engagement with the XRPL.
Minor but Notable Changes:
- The decrease in Clawback transactions (-50.00%) could indicate less need for transaction reversals, potentially suggesting more accurate or careful transaction practices.
- The stability in AMMBid transactions, while low in volume, indicates consistent niche usage of these features. However, given the number of pools on XRPL, it is an interesting observation that this feature is significantly underused based on the amount of attention was placed on it.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

The XRPL ecosystem demonstrates a complex and evolving landscape of user behaviours and feature adoption. Key takeaways include:

Market Maturation: The decrease in payment and NFT minting activities, coupled with increases in more advanced features like ticket creation and escrow finalisation, suggests a maturing ecosystem. Users appear to be moving beyond basic transactions to more sophisticated interactions with the XRPL.
Shifting NFT Landscape: The NFT sector on XRPL seems to be undergoing a significant transformation, with a move away from high-volume minting and trading towards more selective creation and curation, as evidenced by the spike in NFT burning.
DeFi Engagement: Stable AMM activity and increased governance participation (through AMMVote) indicate a consistent and engaged DeFi user base on XRPL.

Looking ahead, one might expect:

Further refinement of the NFT ecosystem
Increased adoption of advanced XRPL features as users become more sophisticated
Potential growth in DeFi applications, building on the stable AMM usage

These trends should be monitored over a longer period to distinguish between short-term fluctuations and long-term shifts in the XRPL ecosystem. Feedback from readers on which aspects of this analysis they find most valuable and what additional metrics they'd like to see in future reports would be beneficial for ongoing refinement of these weekly updates.

The next update will continue to track these trends and uncover new insights into the dynamic world of XRPL.