This report examines the Grizzly GHNY launch - specifically, the Liquidity Generation Event (LGE). Some of the questions we hoped to answer with this analysis were:
Most of these data come straight from the Binance Smart Chain (BSC)
blockchain; we queried an RPC directly using
web3.py and a
custom framework. All relevant contracts were listed on the Grizzly
documentation. We scraped the BSC blockchain between July 31 and August
15 for all transactions either to or from the addresses listed in the
Grizzly docs, which yielded about 110k transactions. We then decoded the
tx inputs to determine which methods were being invoked. We identified
LGE participants as those addresses that invoked buy() on the LGE
contract. We then scraped the blockchain a second time to find all
transactions submitted by LGE participants, which yielded an additional
391k transactions. Finally, we queried the WBNB, BUSD, and GHNY ERC-20
contracts to obtain balances for all LGE participant addresses.
7113 unique addresses participated in the LGE. 79,320.76 BNB was raised by the LGE. 4885 LGE participants invested more than 1 BNB. 1277 LGE participants invested more than 10 BNB. 121 LGE participants invested more than 100 BNB. 3 LGE participants invested more than 1000 BNB. The Gini coefficient for the LGE wealth distribution was 0.7934364. Gini ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values represent greater income inequality.
For our purposes, a “wallet” is the aggregated balanceOf() results for a given address from a set of well-known ERC-20 contracts. We reconstructed wallets for LGE participants that consisted of GHNY, WBNB, BUSD, and BNB.
We examined LGE Participant “wallet” BNB balances. As BNB is the gas token for BSC, this provides some indication of the present-day viability of the addresses involved in the LGE. As the scale is logarithmic, we see some addresses currently hold over 100 BNB - but most have balances close to 1 BNB. Most of the wallets that participated in the LGE had small BNB balances.
We examined the amount of GHNY still held by LGE participants on October 16 - that is, many months after the LGE concluded. This provides some indication of how strongly participants held.
We examined the number of transactions submitted by LGE participant addresses. The results suggest that the bulk of addresses had several-hundred transactions associated with them. It’s not likely these addresses were created specifically for the LGE; addresses matching that profile have submitted very few transactions. Relatively few addresses had submitted over 1,000 transactions. No LGE address exceeded 10k transactions, suggesting no obvious bots participated in the LGE.