The 
In this study:
- I examine this recent power down through analysis of the related transfers, power ups, and delegations with the aim of illustrating where the money released has flowed to;
- I look further back into the use of funds from the
- I then draw interpretations from the longer time period to determine whether this recent power down is likely to be a positive or a negative event for the Steem blockchain.
0 Summary of Findings
I start by presenting a high level summary of findings, extracted from the full analysis, for readers who have limited available time. The full details of the analysis are included in the later sections of this article.
This first diagram charts the flow of money from the
- All amounts shown are in thousands of Steem (so 5871k is 5.87 million Steem).
- Internal transfers are yellow, power-ups green, delegations blue and transfers to exchanges purple.
The 
3.5m of the 5.5m was powered up into Steem Power for the 
1m of the 5.5m was passed to account 
0.5m of the 5.5m was powered up into Steem Power for the account 
The remaining 0.5m remains held as Liquid Steem in the holdings of the
(It should be noted that the above analysis only shows the direction and amounts of flows on money. Since the
This second diagram charts the flow of money over a longer period, since 1 November 2017, including the transactions for the power down illustrated above:
- All amounts shown are in thousands of Steem (so 11871k is 11.87 million Steem).
- Internal transfers are yellow, power-ups green, delegations blue and transfers to exchanges purple.
The overall pattern is not dissimilar.
The total delegations made since the start of November through 
There total amount powered up into Steem Power for the account
A total of 2.9m was passed to exchanges through the account
There was a huge transfer to the account 
There were other small transfers, for example 50k to Utopian to assist with on boarding of new accounts.
(Again, it cannot be concluded that the 50k passed to Utopian was powered up or transferred. This analysis simply shows the direction of the flows of money).
Conclusions
The delegations made to Utopian at the start of November and to DTube at the start of December have been useful in helping to promote these platforms, both of which are now becoming very significant assets for the steem blockchain. The recent delegations to dlive, dmania, and dsound should, in my view, be considered in the same light: as an excellent investment in the future of the blockchain. Using 64% of the released funds in this manner should have a positive impact in helping the steem blockchain become the centre of decentralised content production.
The use of 9% of the funds to support the
The transfer of 18% of first tranche of released funds in the direction of the exchanges does not feel like a positive event, but neither is it clearly negative since it is unclear to what purpose the funds will be put. There will be a need for advertising and external funds once the SMT package is delivered. Without greater knowledge of the use of these funds any conclusion drawn here is in the realm of speculation.
As a final conclusion it would be interesting to understand how the other eleven payments are to be used if the power down is to continue. The above approach does not scale, since there are currently not enough platforms to support with such large delegations, and flooding the exchanges with large amounts of Steem on a weekly basis is likely to depress the Steem price.
As a final point, if you’re reading 
Outline
- Summary of Findings and Conclusions (see above)
- Scope of Analysis
- Tools Used
- Examination of the recent power down of the
- Examination of money flows over a longer period
- Impact of recent delegations to Utopian and Dtube
- Scripts
1 Scope of Analysis
The analysis is based on the data for the
Data on transfers and power ups was taken from the TxTransfers table. Data on delegations was obtained from the TxDelegateVestingShares table.
The data has been separated from the overall Steem blockchain data by use of an iterative process through which each recipient of funds was added to a list of accounts to be queried. This process continued until the terminal point for each flow was reached.
The first part of the analysis includes data on transfers, power ups and delegations from 9 January onwards. The second part of the analysis uses data from 1 November onwards. The data has been filtered by date using the timestamps in the respective tables.
2 Tools Used
Valentina Studio, a free data management tool, was used to run the SQL queries. The raw data was then verified and analysed in the spreadsheet application of the LibreOffice office suite.
Graphs and charts were produced using Numbers, the Mac spreadsheet tool, or using RAWGraphs, an open source data visualisation framework.
SQL scripts are included at the end of this analysis.
3 Examination of the recent power down of the account
Section included in Summary of Findings:
This first diagram charts the flow of money from the
- All amounts shown are in thousands of Steem (so 5871k is 5.87 million Steem).
- Internal transfers are yellow, power-ups green, delegations blue and transfers to exchanges purple
The
3.5m of the 5.5m was powered up into Steem Power for the
1m of the 5.5m was passed to account
0.5m of the 5.5m was powered up into Steem Power for the account
The remaining 0.5m remains held as Liquid Steem in the holdings of the
(It should be noted that the above analysis only shows the direction and amounts of flows on money. Since the
Additional points of note:
One transfer of 600k Steem was made to
The
Examination of money flows over a longer period
Section included in Summary of Findings:
This second diagram charts the flow of money over a longer period, since 1 November 2017, including the transactions for the power down illustrated above:
- All amounts shown are in thousands of Steem (so 11871k is 11.87 million Steem).
- Internal transfers are yellow, power-ups green, delegations blue and transfers to exchanges purple.
The overall pattern is not dissimilar.
The total delegations made since the start of November through
There total amount powered up into Steem Power for the account
A total of 2.9m was passed to exchanges through the account
There was a huge transfer to the account
There were other small transfers, for example 50k to Utopian to assist with on boarding of new accounts.
(Again, it cannot be concluded that the 50k passed to Utopian was powered up or transferred. This analysis simply shows the direction of the flows of money).
Additional points of note:
Some of the transfers to the 
The total delegations made by
5 Impact of recent delegations to Utopian and Dtube
It is impossible to separate the impact of the 1m Steem Power delegations from
In particular it should be noted that Utopian has received many delegations, including those from 
All we can show is how both platforms have prospered after receiving the delegations, both at a faster pace than the overall Steem blockchain metrics.
For Dtube (seen above in the six month view) there was a clear and rapid rise in the number of videos, uploaders and payouts after the delegation was made.
As noted above it is difficult to separate the delegation element from the rising steem price or the significant improvements in the platform that were made around the same time. However the recent success of the platform is clear both in the chart above and from the trending page on steemit.
For Utopian (seen above in the three month view) the largest delegations, which totalled in excess of 3 million Steem Power, were all received around the end of October and the start of November. The above red line shows the date of that received from
Again it is difficult to separate the delegations element from all other variables, but the rapid rise of the platform is clear to see in the chart and also evident from any visit to steemit.
6 Scripts
This was the script used to extract the transfers and power ups for the first two parts of the analysis; the examination of the recent power down and the longer period of study.
The list of account names was determined by use of an iterative process through which each recipient of funds was added to a list of accounts to be queried. This process continued until the terminal point for each flow was reached.
Not all of the accounts appear in the final summary. Some of the transfers were small, while others passed through a short chain of accounts and were summarised together for clarity.
SELECT
TxTransfers.id,
TxTransfers.type,
TxTransfers.[FROM],
TxTransfers.[TO],
max(Convert(decimal(20,3), TxTransfers.amount)) as [Amount],
TxTransfers.amount_symbol,
TxTransfers.memo,
TxTransfers.timestamp,
max(COnvert(date, TxTransfers.timestamp)) as [Date],
max(COnvert(date, TxTransfers.timestamp)) as [Time]
FROM
TxTransfers (NOLOCK)
WHERE
TxTransfers.[FROM] IN
('steemit',
'steemit2',
'alpha',
'busy.pay',
'c75c39f25a90',
'c91c2dfbf2f5',
'fdcb934e6cce',
'misterdelegation',
'steem',
'tostitos',
'utopian-io',
'eeqj'
) AND
Convert(date, TxTransfers.timestamp) >= '2017-11-01'
GROUP BY
TxTransfers.id,
TxTransfers.type,
TxTransfers.[FROM],
TxTransfers.[TO],
TxTransfers.amount_symbol,
TxTransfers.memo,
TxTransfers.timestamp
ORDER BY
TxTransfers.timestamp
A similar but simpler simpler script was used to obtain the delegations. The query used the same WHERE clause as the query above and referenced the TxDelegateVestingShares table rather than the TxTransfers table. No grouping or ordering was necessary in this second query.
That's all for today. Thanks for reading!
Posted on Utopian.io - Rewarding Open Source Contributors