Based on the valuation of the existing NFT trading platform, see the value of the Blur airdrop

Original title: " How much is the Blur airdrop worth? NFT Exchange Valuation Analysis "

Original author: CJ_Blockchain

TL;DR

Opensea , Blur, X2Y2, and Looksrare accounted for 36.77%, 28.05%, 24.35%, and 7.42% respectively

However, after excluding Wash Trading, the real The share is about 59.1%, 19.5%, 13.2% and 2.9%

Among the trading platforms that have listed coins, X2Y2 is undervalued and Looks is overvalued

p>

Blur's FDV valuation range is about: 382 million - 458 million US dollars

Preface

Blur will launch the platform token on February 14th, when Your boxes and Points on Blur will be converted to Token . Since Blur has not given detailed Tokenomics, it is not clear Token What utilities are there.

Therefore, this article mainly evaluates Blur from the perspective of comparable company valuation.

At the same time, since Blur’s comparable companies (X2Y2, Looksrare) including Blur itself are suspected of trading mining (Wash Trading), this article will discuss Its transaction volume is processed to a certain extent to restore the real data as much as possible.

1. Industry competition

The current competition in the NFT trading platform industry is fierce. With the rapid development of the NFT market, more and more trading platforms and platforms have begun to set foot in the field of NFT transactions, resulting in increasingly fierce competition in the industry.

Competitors include various types of NFT trading platforms, such as large centralized trading platforms, decentralized trading platforms, and trading platforms that focus on certain types of NFT wait. In order to attract users and maintain a competitive advantage, many NFT trading platforms have begun to provide more trading pairs, lower transaction fees, higher security, etc.

The competition of NFT trading platforms on different chains is different. This article mainly focuses on the valuation of Blur, so here we mainly discuss the industry competition.

The current mainstream trading platforms on the Ethereum chain include Opensea, Blur, X2Y2, and Looksrare. According to NFTscan data, their market shares accounted for 36.77%, 28.05%, 24.35%, and 7.42% in the most recent month.

As mentioned earlier, Blur, X2Y2, and Looksrare are all suspected of transaction mining (Wash Trading). X2Y2, Looksrare swiping volume can get the platform Token , Blur swipes can get airdrops. Due to the different trading volume logic of each platform, the following two methods are used to process the trading volume data.

(1) Real trading volume of X2Y2 and Looksrare< /h4>

For these two trading platforms, we all know that trading NFT needs to pay royalties and platform transaction fees. For example, when Meebits has not yet set royalties, the players on X2Y2 mainly trade Meebits with left and right hands to carry out transaction mining. Therefore, for royalty-free NFT, the transaction from address A to address B, and then from address B to address A is defined as transaction mining. After excluding brush transactions in this way, the real transaction data of X2Y2 and Looksrare are as follows:

The average daily transaction volume of X2Y2 and Looksrare in the last month was 3.6M and 0.75M respectively, and the 30-day average price of ETH was 1,546. From this, it can be concluded that the real transaction volume data of X2Y2 and Looksare in the latest month are 69,857ETH and 14,553ETH.

(2) Blur real trading volume

Although Blur is no longer simply measuring airdrop rewards from the transaction volume in the Airdrop 3 stage, there are still a lot of transactions on Blur, including but not limited to projects Fang Fang owns the transaction amount (because the cost is only Gas), the Rug project increases the transaction volume to attract users to BID to cheat money, pure transaction amount to increase the three-stage rewards, etc.

Because Blur does not charge mandatory royalties and platform transaction fees. Therefore, it cannot be restored by X2Y2 and Looksrare. Here we analyze from another angle, the accuracy may be reduced, but it can also provide a reference.

The above are the approximate From the data comparison of the transaction volume data within one month, it is not difficult to find that the gas consumption of Opensea is 3.92 times that of Blur, the number of transactions is 5.43 times that of Blur, but the transaction volume is only 1.31 times that of Blur. From this exaggerated data comparison, it is not difficult to find that even after entering the Airdrop 3 stage, there are still a lot of swiping data on the Blur platform.

Of course, because many blue chips cannot collect royalties on Blur, traders tend to trade blue chips on Blur, which may cause Blur's customer unit price to be higher than Opensea, but it is also Not so big a gap.

So when restoring real data, we assume that Opensea's gas consumption per unit and transaction amount per transaction are the average level of the industry. And because many blue-chip NFTs with high unit prices do not charge royalties on Blur, Blur's unit price will be higher than Opensea. Here, I subjectively estimate that Blur's unit price level is about 1.5 times that of Opensea

< br>

On Opensea, Gas per ETH can support a transaction volume of 48.3ETH, and the unit price of each transaction is 0.177ETH

From this, the weighted average transaction volume of Blur is about 98,600ETH ((76,410.6+55,059)0.51.5)

(3) Real market share

At this point, we can initially estimate the real market share of each NFT market market share. According to the above calculations, the real transaction volume data of Opensea, Blur, X2Y2, and Looksrare in the latest month are 299,224 ETH, 98,600 ETH, 69,857 ETH, and 14,553 ETH respectively. Its market share accounts for 59.1%, 19.5%, 13.2% and 2.9% respectively.

This data is a bit surprising, Blur's real transaction volume data performance is not as good as some statistical websites. I think there are two main factors: On the one hand, my calculation does not strictly eliminate suspicious brushing transactions based on on-chain interactions, and the equivalent calculation based on Opensea data may be inaccurate. On the other hand, due to Opensea's exclusive agreement in the past month, a large number of Blur's transactions have been completed through Seaport, resulting in a decline in Blur's transaction data.

Second, NFT trading platform valuation analysis

The current trading platforms that already have a certain market valuation are Opensea, X2Y2, and Looksrare. Among them, Opensea is the private placement round, and X2Y2 and Lookrare are the token valuations. Due to the lack of a lot of data, we need to make certain assumptions for valuation. The main assumptions of the valuation are as follows:

Opensea will be completed in January 2022 At that time, the average weekly trading volume of the NFT market was about 5 times that of the current one, and Opensea was in an absolute monopoly position in the industry at that time. If Opensea issues coins now, considering the valuation of the C round and the current industry situation, I think it is fair to give a valuation of 3 billion US dollars.

It can be seen from the chart , the trading volume of the NFT market in the first half of 2022 is significantly greater than that in the second half of the year. In consideration of the current market environment, we assume that the total trading volume of each NFT trading platform this year is obtained by annualizing the trading volume of the most recent month.

Based on the above assumptions, we can get the following valuation data:

Based on the price data on February 6, 2023, we got the P/S values of Opensea, X2Y2, and Looksrare respectively 0.51, 0.05, 0.25. The mean value was 0.27; PE were 20.25, 19.04, 16.88, respectively. The average is 15.39.

Through the above numerical calculations, if the factor of inflated transaction volume such as transaction mining is not considered, it is not difficult to see that the valuation of Opensea is the highest, and the valuation of X2Y2 is the highest. lowest value. When we take transaction mining into account, we can find that the real PE of Opensea is 20, the real PE of X2Y2 is 25.65, and the real PE of Looksrare is as high as 70.

Since the transaction data is divided into two types: excluding transaction mining and non-excluding transaction mining, the following valuation of Blur will also be divided into two dimensions , and considering that Blur currently does not charge transaction fees, we assume that Blur is Token After issuance, the transaction fee will be increased to 0.5%.

Transaction mining not excluded:< /b>

From the perspective of P/S:

Blur's estimated The values are benchmarked against X2Y2, Looksrare, and Opensea respectively, and their valuations can be divided into 204 million US dollars, 1.144 billion US dollars, and 2.289 billion US dollars.

From the perspective of P/E:

Blur’s valuation is compared to X2Y2, Looksrare and Opensea can be divided into 204 million U.S. dollars, 382 million U.S. dollars, and 458 million U.S. dollars.

< /p>

Exclude transaction mining:

From the perspective of P/S :

Comparing Blur’s valuation to X2Y2, Looksrare, and Opensea, we can get its valuations of USD 88 million, USD 494 million, and USD 989 million dollars.

From the perspective of P/E:

Blur’s valuation is compared to X2Y2, Looksrare and Opensea can be divided into 88 million US dollars, 164 million US dollars, and 197 million US dollars respectively.

Because the total sample is only three trading platforms, and the places where tokens are traded are also different. For example, the valuation of Opensea is based on its private equity valuation, X2Y2 It has not been on a major trading platform yet, but Looksrare is on OKX. There is a big difference in their valuation data. If you cover up the names, you won’t even feel that they are competing in the same industry when you look at the data. Therefore, the valuation results we get have a large range and almost no reference, so we need to do some narrowing down. things.

The first step, do we need to use the method of excluding transaction mining data for valuation?

First of all, we must be clear that we are in a market with very asymmetric information, and the market efficiency is very poor, that is to say, in the market A large number of traders don't even realize that the data they see on data sites includes a lot of wash trading. That is to say, the market price is formed based on data that does not exclude mining transactions. Therefore, when confirming the final valuation range of Blur, in the short term, I prefer to use the transaction volume without excluding transaction mining for valuation.

But this does not mean that our previous practice of excluding mining transactions (Wash Trading) is meaningless, real transaction data determines its long-term value , after the disappearance of the mining reward mechanism for future transactions, it will allow you to know what to expect.

In the second step, which is the better valuation parameter, PS or PE?

The transaction volume of the NFT trading platform and the final fee income are actually not completely positive linear relationship. Fee income can be disassembled into transaction volume * fee ratio. Opensea, Looksrare, X2Y2, Blur are 2.5%, 1.5% (Looksrare will lower the handling fee ratio in October 2022), 0.5% and 0% respectively. Leaving Opensea aside, the rankings of the remaining three trading platforms in terms of commission ratios are exactly the opposite of their trading volume rankings. The market is actually very sensitive to handling fees. If the proportion of handling fees is increased, it will easily lead to a decline in trading volume. Therefore, the trading volume of the trading platform, that is, the fluctuation of S in our value is very large. Compared with transaction volume, the indicator of service fee income is more stable and can better reflect the direct income of currency holders. Therefore, I think PE is a better valuation parameter

In summary, considering Blur's market popularity, business data performance, and many trading platforms have announced Blur will be launched and other factors. I think Blur's valuation should be higher than Looksrare but lower than Opensea.

Blur's valuation should be between $382 million and $458 million.

3. Risk Analysis

(1) Blur Token Model risk

Since Blur has not published its Token model, we cannot determine its Token Whether it can capture handling fees like Looks and X2Y2, it is impossible to determine the proportion of its first round, that is, the relationship between its MC and FDV is uncertain. Unable to determine what was in circulation at the time of first issue Token Whether it is mainly composed of airdrops.

The above-mentioned uncertain factors are important parameters affecting its valuation, so the final calculation results may be different from the actual ones

(2) Blur Competition Risk

< /p>

Because of Opensea's exclusive agreement, Blur's transaction volume has been greatly affected in the past period of time. Although Blur recently circumvented Opensea's restrictions by using the Seaport contract, The contract is developed by Seapot instead of Blur, then Blur Token Even if the handling fee can be captured, it will not be possible, and the use of the Seaport contract Blur will not be able to receive the handling fee (this may need to be confirmed by contract experts, at least what I have seen from the chain transactions so far)