STEEM User Behavior Analysis Report — March Edition 2025

kafio (71) in hive-185836 • 7 days ago (edited)

✨ Executive Summary

This report presents a detailed analysis of STEEM user behavior for March 2025, focusing on how users manage their funds between Power Up 🔒 and Withdrawal activities 💸.
The analysis covers all users — a total of 1,931,854 accounts — across the platform.

🔍 Key Highlights

🟢 0.2% of accounts are active (have made transactions)
⚡ 0.6% of transaction volume is Power Up
💰 99.4% of transaction volume is Withdrawal

📌 Detailed Findings

👥 User Activity Overview

Out of all 1,931,854 analyzed accounts:

✅ Active Accounts: 3,541 (0.2%)
🚫 Inactive Accounts: 1,928,313 (99.8%)

💹 Transaction Volumes

The analysis reveals the following transaction patterns:

🔒 Total Power Up Volume: 1,538,349.3 STEEM (0.6%)
💸 Total Withdrawal Volume: 276,227,572.3 STEEM (99.4%)
🔄 Total Transaction Volume: 277,765,921.6 STEEM
📉 Net Flow: -274,689,223.1 STEEM (Net Withdrawal)

🧑‍💻 User Behavior Profiles

Users fall into various behavior profiles based on their Power Up vs Withdrawal patterns:

💸 Mostly Withdrawal (<25%): 2,391 users (67.5%)
🔒 100% Power Up: 831 users (23.5%)
⚖️ Balanced Power Up (50-74%): 176 users (5.0%)
🔐 Strong Power Up (75-99%): 95 users (2.7%)
🌓 Light Power Up (25-49%): 48 users (1.4%)

📊 Power Up Behavior Distribution

When analyzing how much activity is devoted to Power Up:

🚫 No Power Up (0%): 2,224 users (62.8%)
🔒 100% Power Up: 842 users (23.8%)
⚖️ Balanced Power Up (50-74%): 176 users (5.0%)
🪙 Minimal Power Up (1-24%): 167 users (4.7%)
🔐 Strong Power Up (75-99%): 84 users (2.4%)
🌓 Light Power Up (25-49%): 48 users (1.4%)

🔄 Net Flow Patterns

Analyzing net trends between Power Up and Withdrawal:

➕ Positive Net Flow (More Power Up): 1,089 users (30.8%)
➖ Zero Net Flow (Balanced): 13 users (0.4%)
➖ Negative Net Flow (More Withdrawal): 2,439 users (68.9%)

💡 Key Insights

📉 A majority of users show negative net flow, reinforcing the withdrawal-heavy behavior

✅ Recommendations

To enhance STEEM platform growth and user engagement:

🎯 Staking Incentives: Promote Power Up with benefits and visible success stories
🔍 User Retention: Investigate high withdrawal patterns and mitigate concerns
🌱 Community Building: Celebrate and share stories of successful Power Up users

📂 Analysis Scripts: The full source code used for this analysis is publicly available on GitHub.
🔗 View the scripts on GitHub

hive-185836 steemhuboff steemhub-stats tunisia dev

7 days ago by kafio (71)

$3.75

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

weisser-rabe (77) · 7 days ago

Hello! Some expected insights, but also some surprising ones: these many, many withdrawing users - do they really have a rewards volume that can account for 99.4% of all total rewards? It's hard for me to imagine, when I look at the superior stake of the sc accounts and the corresponding rewards that are not withdrawn... Completely in line with my assumptions the number of active accounts vs. total accounts. I wouldn't have been astonished if there were even fewer (this is probably because I associate activity with blog posts and comments and not with transactions...).

As for your recommendations: Yes - rewarding power ups would be great. Incentivising is always a good idea. But please...! Not more stories about power ups! No more adulation. That makes Steem more and more boring (as a blogging platform) and the last active users will also leave...

$5.87

7 votes

[-]

steemchiller (74) · 7 days ago

do they really have a rewards volume that can account for 99.4% of all total rewards?

No. The total vesting fund increased over the last few months. 276M STEEM withdrawn in one month? No way. There is something wrong with these stats...

$1.22

9 votes

[-]

moecki (72) · 6 days ago

Das ist definitiv falsch. Also die Daten sind wahrscheinlich richtig abgerufen, aber bei der Interpretation gibt's es schon mal Zweifel.
Ich habe sein Script heute nur überflogen. Dabei ist mir schon aufgefallen, dass er alle Transfers berücksichtigt hat. Also inklusive Börsentransfers. Und das geht schon mal in die hohen Summen und sagt nichts aus über Useraktivitäten.

$6.52

10 votes

[-]

kafio (71) · 6 days ago

You're absolutely right—I should clarify. By "withdrawal," I meant any outflow of STEEM from an account, not just transfers to exchange platforms.

Initially, I was tracking transfers to exchanges like Poloniex and Binance (bdhivesteem). However, during the analysis, I realized that focusing only on transfers to exchanges could lead to misleading statistics. For instance, a user might first transfer STEEM to another personal account before ultimately withdrawing it. That would still qualify as a withdrawal, just with an extra step involved.

I also realized early on that it’s not logical to directly compare withdrawals and power-ups. A more meaningful comparison is between STEEM earnings and power-ups, which provides better insight into user behavior and engagement. The analysis took considerable time—as I reviewed 1,931,854 accounts—so I decided to share my findings to gather feedback.

I truly appreciate your input! Please let me know if anything I said is inaccurate.

Also, regarding the report I shared at a friend's request—do you think I should delete it?

cc: @steemchiller

$0.83

2 votes

[-]

steemchiller (74) · 6 days ago

There are many automated/reoccurring internal transfers done by different services and exchanges. You will need to overthink the current logic completely in my opinion. Couldn't you just do a diff from month to month? Store balances etc. for each account once every month and then compare to last month's data?

$0.57

6 votes

[-]

kafio (71) · 6 days ago

Yes, I can compare user balances month to month, but that alone doesn't provide an accurate picture. The problem is that I can’t always tell whether a user is powering up or cashing out just by looking at their balance. For example, someone might earn 500 STEEM and withdraw it, yet their balance could stay the same. This makes it hard to understand what’s really going on.

In my mind, the better approach is to track how much each user earns, which club they belong to (e.g., club5050, club75), and how much they power up or power down. I've noticed that some tutorials calculate club eligibility incorrectly. They only consider transfers and power-ups but ignore power-downs, which gives inaccurate results.

For instance, a user could power up 100 STEEM, power down 100 STEEM, and also transfer 100 STEEM. Some club5050 tools might still mark them as eligible, but that's misleading if the power-down isn't counted.

My plan is to store this data monthly, possibly on a server, and compare it over time. I’ll first share the results publicly here. By focusing on actual earnings, power-ups, and power-downs, this method should provide a more accurate and transparent view of user activity and club qualification

CC: @moecki

$0.07

1 vote

[-]

moecki (72) · 6 days ago

You should definitely clarify in the post what data you checked. You didn't compare withdrawals but transfers with power ups. As Steemchiller already wrote, there are so many transfers that are not withdrawals (for example from binance-hot2 to ...).

I would perhaps compare power ups with power downs (fill_vesting_withdraw).

$0.32

3 votes

[-]

kafio (71) · 6 days ago

Yes, my bad. I’ll update the post.
I’ll also compare power-ups and power-downs along with the earnings for each month.

$0.06

1 vote

[-]

moecki (72) · 5 days ago

Yes, because rewards payout in SP are power ups too.

$0.00

[-]

steemcurator04 (55) · 4 days ago

$0.00

[-]

janasilver (67) · 5 days ago

Apropos hohe Summen - warum spielst Du nie beim Lottojackpot mit. Heute noch bis 20:30 MESZ...

$0.06

1 vote

[-]

moecki (72) · 5 days ago

Du weißt doch, ich bin kein Freund vom Glücksspiel :-)

$0.08

2 votes

[-]

janasilver (67) · 5 days ago

Ich bin aber überzeugt, dass Deine Teilnahme die Pechsträne beenden könnte...😉

$0.08

1 vote

[-]

ecosynthesizer (-20) · 5 days ago

Hi, @moecki,

Thank you for your contribution. Your post has been manually curated.

^{- Delegate to @ecosynthesizer and vote @symbionts as a witness to support us.}
^{- Explore Steem using our Steem Blockchain Explorer}
^{- Easily create accounts on Steem using JoinSteem}

$0.03

1 vote

[-]

janasilver (67) · 5 days ago

Lotto wartet auf Dich. Mit ein wenig Glück machst Du uns 11.4 Millionen Euro ärmer...🤩

Damit kannste Steemit aufkaufen...😉

$1.09

2 votes

[-]

steemchiller (74) · 5 days ago

Damit kannste Steemit aufkaufen...

Das letzte Angebot von ... wurde ja abgelehnt, aber vielleicht klappt's ja beim nächsten Mal...

$0.14

5 votes

[-]

janasilver (67) · 5 days ago

Die Glückszahlen lieferten heute die Nummernschilder...🤫

$0.00

[-]

ecosynthesizer (-20) · 5 days ago

Hi, @weisser-rabe,

Thank you for your contribution. Your post has been manually curated.

^{- Delegate to @ecosynthesizer and vote @symbionts as a witness to support us.}
^{- Explore Steem using our Steem Blockchain Explorer}
^{- Easily create accounts on Steem using JoinSteem}

$0.03

1 vote

[-]

kafio (71) · 6 days ago

The 99.4% represents a percentage of the sum of transferred STEEM and power-ups, not the total rewards.

$0.00

[-]

adeljose (82) · 7 days ago

Greetings, friend @kafio.

Important information. I wonder if, by chance, in that analysis of existing user accounts, you generated a list of names and creation dates? This is necessary to understand the impact of farming accounts on this result. I think we need to return to the culture of 50-50 power-ups and withdrawals.

$0.09

1 vote

[-]

kafio (71) · 7 days ago

That analysis took me a long time. I will go back to the logs to see exactly how much time it took. I analyzed all accounts on Steem and all transactions for this account during the month of March

$0.00

[-]

adeljose (82) · 7 days ago

Unfortunately, there have been abusive users who create accounts in bulk to grow Steem from junk content, perhaps they are easy to detect with some basic data.