Data Analysis of Blur Trading War: Floor Price is 5% Lower than OpenSea, High Scoring Users Currently Estimated to Have Negative Returns

In mid-February, the NFT trading platform Blur conducted its first round of token airdrops, distributing 360 million tokens to over 120,000 addresses. Based on the price on the day of launch, 5,835 addresses received more than 10,000 tokens, worth approximately $6,500, and 23 addresses received 1 million tokens, worth about $650,000.

The second round of airdrops has now begun. Although the specific rules have yet to be announced, all bids and listings before April 1 will receive double points. Stimulated by the first round of the "Wealth Creation Myth," many people have started to focus on "brushing points," bringing new vitality to the NFT market, with trading volume continuously climbing.

How will Blur's continuous airdrop plan and its bidding and points mechanism affect the NFT market? This article will analyze the following questions in conjunction with recent NFT trading data:

1. From a macro perspective, did the Blur airdrop stimulate overall demand or squeeze the market share of other platforms?

2. From a micro trading perspective, bidding close to the Floor Price can earn higher points. Will this drive NFT prices downward? What are the differences in bidding depth among different projects?

3. How high-point users accumulate points through bidding and listing behavior: What projects are they mainly bidding on? What bidding strategies are they adopting? What are the current estimated earnings?

Data analysis shows:

1. Blur stimulated new trading demand. The average daily trading volume of 15 trading platforms increased by 229% in the past week, and the average daily number of trading addresses increased by 19%. Blur's daily trading volume increased by 467%, and the daily number of trading addresses increased by 46%.

2. In the recent market growth, Blur has squeezed out most other trading platforms, especially in terms of trading volume, while the impact on user scale has been relatively small. This also indicates that Blur's growth primarily attracts "high net worth" users.

3. The bidding depth of the top 10 projects is mainly concentrated around the Floor Price and in the range above the Floor Price by 1%, while the bidding depth of 6 popular projects is mainly concentrated in the range below the Floor Price by 5%.

4. The points system has played its expected role, bringing bids closer to the Floor Price. Statistics show that in the last 7 days, the top 100 projects by trading volume on Blur had an average highest bid deviating from the Floor Price by 0.72%. This ultimately led to downward pressure on the Floor Price.

5. The average Floor Price of the top 100 projects by trading volume on Blur is 4.97% lower than that on OpenSea, with an average trading volume 0.59% higher over 7 days. However, there is no pricing relationship at the cross-platform level, meaning that the higher trading volume on Blur is unrelated to the Floor Price, which is primarily influenced by the bidding-point mechanism.

6. For top projects, the Floor Price on Blur is all lower than OpenSea, especially for BAYC and Doodles, which are down 9.98% and 6.51% respectively. This also explains why the bidding depth for these two projects is concentrated within the range of 5% above the Floor Price.

7. There are 17 projects that have bids from 3 or more high-score users, among which PudgyPenguins, Moonbirds, CloneX, and BoredApeKennel Club received bids from 8 high-score users.

8. The total number of valid bids from 10 high-scoring users is approximately 62,700 times, with an average bid deviation from the Floor Price of -16.32% and an average bid execution rate of 92.87%. Their bidding model can be roughly divided into three categories.

9. The total value of the 10 high-scoring users' currently held NFTs, estimated at the Floor Price, is lower than the cost, meaning they are currently all in a state of estimated loss. The average estimated loss is 90 ETH, approximately $144,900.

10. Obtaining high points requires a significant capital investment. Under the encouragement of the points rules, the floor price on the Blur market is under downward pressure, which means that users participating in bidding need to continuously manage their cost-estimated value gap dynamically. The management standard for this gap should be based on expectations of airdrop value.