Stamps is a blockchain protocol created by MikeInSpace that enables storing images on-chain on Bitcoin transaction outputs. It utilizes the Counterparty platform, a long-standing Bitcoin meta layer, to broadcast Stamping transactions to the Bitcoin Network. The protocol enables the creation of Bitcoin NFTs, especially low-resolution pixel art.
In our initial research paper, we dived into the details of the Stamps Protocol, accessible via this link. We cordially recommend studying the comprehensive report.
Our monthly update reviews important milestones and developments in December 2023. If you missed our last reports, please visit this link to catch up.
The data for Stamps Protocol in December revealed a significant increase in minting activity, making it the largest month since its launch in March 2023. This surge in activity was primarily driven by the active participation of SRC-20 enthusiasts. The monthly total number of mints reached a remarkable 113,562, surpassing the previous record of 38,042 by almost three times. Interestingly, this monthly total even exceeded the cumulative total up to November. The protocol had only achieved the milestone of 80,000 cumulative stamps by November.
As of January 3, 2024, there were a total of 204,097 stamps.
Continuing a similar pattern to November 2023, the figures for December 2023 also showed that minting activity was mainly driven by SRC-20 assets, which accounted for approximately 99% of all mints in December. Notably, SRC-721 experienced the highest number of mints in a single month since its inception, with 955 mints. However, these figures were overshadowed by the large number of SRC-20s minted. For Classic Art stamps, the on-chain fees were exorbitantly high, resulting in a significant decrease in total mints in December, with only 97 mints recorded (the lowest for any month).
It is observed from the data analysis that the cost to mint a Classic Stamp was approximately $170 (including the dust), with a median cost of $71. Alongside the higher costs, the growing interest in SRC-20 fungible assets on various blockchains is believed to have contributed to the shift away from Classic Stamps. Additionally, there may have been technical reasons for the challenges in minting Classics, i.e., the Sigops limit. Unlike previous months, Classics had to compete with SRC-20s and other Bitcoin blockspace users to be included in a block. The December data shows that having more than 1 Classic Stamp in a block was challenging, except for a few exceptions.
Most mints were of the SVG type, in line with the dominance of SRC-20 assets.
As of December 03, 2024, there were 13,549 blocks that contained Stamps related data.
In December, Stamps were included in 4,116 Bitcoin blocks, accounting for 93% of the total blocks produced by the network. This month, the previous record for the highest number of Stamps in a block was surpassed with block number 820461, containing a total of 926 stamps.
Interestingly, the block with the highest payout in December paid miners a total of $35,807, while 31 blocks paid over $10,000 for the minting of Stamps. The highest number of Multi-sig outputs in a single block was 984.
Only 1 Stamp had dust assigned to spendable outputs in December, while all other stamps sent the multi-sig dust to the burn address. The total dust sent to the burn address during the month was BTC 1.371, equivalent to approximately $58,790.
Stamps contributed 44.61 MB of data to the Bitcoin blockchain in December, compared to 2.78 MB in November. The total network data increased to 7.78 GB, resulting in a full network size of 538.09 GB. Therefore, Stamps accounted for approximately 0.57% of the total data contribution to the network for the month. Since launching the Stamps protocol, it has added approximately 102.0237 MB of data, representing a 0.02% contribution to the overall network size.
In December, the average Sats per Byte paid by Stampers increased by 59% compared to the previous month, reaching 211.83 Sats per Byte.
Reflecting the rising fees on-chain, the average cost of minting a Stamp in December increased to $37.28, compared to $25 in the previous month. The median cost of minting a Stamp also rose 26% to $24.38. Meanwhile, the average cost per Stamp for multi-sig transactions continued to decrease, reaching $0.52 from $0.61. The median value for this metric also dropped to $0.36 from $0.59. The decrease in multi-sig cost is attributed to the growing popularity of SRC-20 assets, which generally require fewer multi-sig outputs than other types of Stamps.
The Stamp with ID 191693, which has a supply of 500, stood out in December as well as in the history of the Stamps protocol. This Stamp used the highest number of multi-sig outputs, consumed the most bytes to mint, and had the highest payout. It is also noteworthy that it is the highest-paying Stamp in the entire protocol history.
In December, minting Stamps resulted in a total of 99.08 BTC (~$4.23 million) in miner fees. This brings the overall fees paid to miners by minters to 136.46 BTC (~$5.3 million).
During the month, Stamps minters added 171,310 multi-sig outputs, a significant increase compared to the previous month's count of 11,848. Notably, 1.37 BTC was locked away in unspendable multi-sig outputs. As of the end of December, the cumulative number of multi-sig outputs contributed by the protocol reached 535,651. Additionally, since the protocol's inception, the total amount of dust sent to multi-sigs now stands at 14.4425 BTC, with 2.9032 BTC specifically sent to the burn address.
Most multi-sig outputs, accounting for 68% of the total, are directed to burn addresses. However, the majority of the BTC dust is found in spendable outputs. The combined dust value in both spendable and burn addresses amounts to $425,990.
This month, the Stamps Development Fund received $7,440 in contributions. In the month, the Fund also distributed $1,000.
Just as the month ended and we stepped into the new year, OpenStamp made an announcement. They have decided to donate $10,000 to the Dev Fund. On January 4th, $15,806 worth of BTC was transferred to developer Kevin for his work on the Open Indexer Development. Kevin has been responsible for managing these funds, and any future donations related to the Open Indexer Development should be sent to his address.
The current balances of the Stamps Development Fund and the Open Indexer Development Fund (which is under the responsibility of Developer Kevin) are approximately BTC 0.18500443 ($8,172.57) and BTC 0.177788 ($7,853.81), respectively. (It should be noted that prior to the transfer of the Stamps Development Fund's assets, Kevin's above-mentioned address held a balance of 0.09224925 BTC).
The significant increase in Stamps protocol activity has raised awareness of the maximum Sigops rule, a key technical concept related to the consensus rule for validating a Bitcoin block. Recently, this constraint has become apparent as some blocks containing multiple Stamps have nearly reached the limit of 80k Sigops allowed.
In our previous Stamps Protocol Report, we briefly discussed Sigops, which you can read about here.
Many are questioning the real-life use of the experimental specification SRC-20, which was initially heavily hyped. Interestingly, a new community project is underway to create a collaborative Pixel Art project backed by the SRC-20 specification. We are interested in seeing if the SRC-20 specification can become sustainable through community-driven use cases.
Please be advised that the information provided above should not be construed as an endorsement of the project mentioned. It is purely intended to present factual knowledge for the readers' information.
As stated in our previous Monthly Update, we have attempted to update the Stamps Protocol Ecosystem this month. It is important to mention that numerous projects have participated in the Stamps Ecosystem, and many of them have enhanced their offerings over time. These improvements include new features, enhancements to user experience, and introducing innovative Stamp types, among others. We also anticipate several new ecosystem partners joining in the coming months. However, we have also observed that some projects have entirely or partially halted their operations. However, it is important to acknowledge that the ecosystem is still a work in progress, with much more to be accomplished continuously. As an evolving ecosystem, it is expected to undergo continuous development and improvement.
In December, the Stamps Protocol experienced significant growth and activity, which helped increase awareness about the protocol. As we move into January, the new year promises to be eventful, and we are curious to see how the protocol will navigate through it.
Moreover, it is important to recognize that the Sigops constraint introduces an additional element to the value proposition of Stamps, extending beyond the Unprunability feature. While Unprunability is undoubtedly a significant selling point, the implicit impact of the Sigops limitation cannot be overlooked. By placing a cap on the number of Sigops allowed in a block, there is a clear upper limit on the quantity of Stamps that can be included within that block. This technical challenge in creating Stamps contributes to their potential rarity and exclusivity. In essence, the Sigops constraint prevents the unrestricted creation of Stamps according to personal preferences, establishing a controlled and measured approach. We invite you to consider the validity and significance of this point in shaping the Stamps ecosystem.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that there are ongoing developments on the Counterparty side, specifically related to its code. It is premature to offer detailed commentary at this time. We will monitor these developments and reserve any discussions on this topic for a future Update Report.
We value your feedback and strive to enhance our content and offerings based on your suggestions. Let us know what you enjoyed about this report and if there is anything we may have overlooked. We're eager to receive feedback and encourage you to share your thoughts with us at research@sqrr.xyz.
The document generated by SQRR is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or legal advice, or an offer or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities or other assets. Users of this document should always do their independent research before making any decisions. Furthermore, SQRR is not responsible for any errors or omissions, nor for any loss or damage of any kind, including without limitation any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage, arising out of or in connection with the use of this document. Any decisions based on information contained in this document are the sole responsibility of the reader.
No guarantee is made for the accuracy or completeness of any information provided in the document. Any opinions, estimates, or recommendations expressed herein are subject to change without notice and constitute judgment as of the date of publication.
In this report, any mention of a particular project, commercial product, process, brand, or service, or the use of any trade, firm, or corporation name is solely for the purpose of providing information and convenience to the readers. It should not be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation, or preference by SQRR.