How Is “Active User Count” Measured Consistently across Different Blockchain Networks?

Measuring active user count consistently is challenging because a single user can control multiple wallet addresses, making a simple count of unique addresses (wallets) an unreliable proxy. Analysts attempt to track user activity by monitoring metrics like the number of unique addresses interacting with smart contracts, or by using clustering algorithms to link related addresses to a single entity.

Consistency across networks is difficult due to varying definitions of "activity" and different data structures, requiring analysts to rely on protocol-specific reporting and external data providers.

Can a Surveillance System Detect Front-Running If the Perpetrator Uses Multiple Accounts?
How Do “Sybil Attacks” Pose a Risk to the Integrity of Active User Count Metrics?
What Is the Main Drawback of Using a Simple Spot Price for a Price Feed?
How Does a Malicious Attacker Attempt to Steal Funds Using a Compromised Address?
How Does a Contract Manage Multiple Simultaneous External Calls?
How Can a Protocol’s Gas Fee Structure Influence the Reported Number of Active Users?
What Is the Role of a ‘Stealth Address’ in Conjunction with Ring Signatures?
What Are the Limitations of Using the Number of Unique Addresses as a Proxy for Network Adoption?