According to a 2024 crypto industry report, while there are 220 million monthly active addresses, the actual number of monthly active users is estimated to be between 30 and 60 million. This suggests significant potential in converting passive holders into active participants.
As part of our analysis, we examined the current state of the crypto ecosystem. With the industry maturing and more applications being launched, a key question emerged: how many people are genuinely using cryptocurrencies? This is a challenging question because the most visible metric—active addresses—can be easily manipulated. Below, we share insights and methodologies used to estimate real user numbers.
In traditional software, the concept of a "user" is well-defined. Metrics like daily active users (DAU) and monthly active users (MAU) are standard. However, in crypto, user identity is pseudonymous. A single person can create and control multiple addresses—often referred to as a Sybil attack—for various legitimate reasons, including privacy and security. This makes it difficult to determine how many addresses one individual might be using.
Until recently, high transaction fees on popular blockchains naturally limited the creation of multiple addresses. But with scalability improvements through Layer 2 rollups and high-throughput Layer 1 networks, transaction costs have dropped significantly, approaching zero. While creating multiple identities in traditional internet applications (like email) is also low-cost, crypto has unique incentives for such behavior.
Crypto has a history of rewarding early users with tokens. New protocols often distribute tokens through airdrops—rewarding addresses based on historical on-chain activity. Some individuals attempt to manipulate this system by creating multiple identities and conducting transactions, a strategy known as "airdrop farming."
Given these factors, it's clear that the 220 million monthly active addresses recorded in September 2024 do not represent 220 million individual users. (Note: addresses active on multiple EVM chains are counted only once in this total.) So, how many active users are there? 10 million? 50 million? 100 million? Here’s how we approached this question.
Methodology 1: Filtering Active Addresses
One method involves filtering out addresses likely controlled by bots or part of Sybil attacks. Through on-chain analysis and forensics, several techniques can be applied:
- Exclude addresses funded by distribution contracts—these contracts are designed solely to receive and automatically distribute funds to multiple addresses. While some false positives may occur, this pattern suggests interconnected addresses.
- Filter addresses with near-zero balances at the start and end of a specific period. For example, addresses with near-zero balances on September 1 and September 30, 2024, may indicate temporary usage. Real users often retain some balance for future transactions.
- Analyze transaction frequency distribution—addresses with only one or two transactions in a period are low-quality users or potentially bots. This method works best with long-term data aggregation.
- Exclude addresses with unusually high transaction volumes in a short time. Humans have limits on how many transactions they can handle, while bots can operate at high frequencies.
- Include addresses linked to identity protocols that require setup costs, such as ENS names, Farcaster IDs, or other social identity links. These are more likely to be real users.
These patterns are not exhaustive, and we welcome improvements on these approaches.
Methodology 2: Inferring from Wallet Users
Another way to estimate monthly active users is by examining off-chain data sources, with wallet users being the most obvious starting point.
In February 2024, the popular crypto wallet MetaMask reported 30 million monthly active users, defining them as users who loaded the MetaMask extension or opened the mobile app at least once in any 30-day period.
To estimate how many of these users conducted transactions, we referred to a 2019 MetaMask report indicating that approximately 30% of active users confirmed an on-chain transaction on a given day. Applying this ratio to monthly active users suggests around 9 million users monthly conduct transactions via MetaMask.
Next, we estimated MetaMask's market share among all blockchain wallets. While exact figures are not publicly available, reasonable assumptions can be made based on mobile wallet data from analytics firms like Sensor Tower. By extrapolating MetaMask's share, we can infer the total number of crypto users from the 9 million figure.
This estimate can be further refined with proprietary data from other wallets and infrastructure providers, cross-validated with the above derived data.
Additional Considerations
Some individuals use multiple addresses and wallets for transactions. While this doesn’t inflate user numbers as drastically as bots or Sybil attacks (since one person can only reasonably manage a limited number of wallets), further deduplication may be necessary based on reasonable assumptions.
Conversely, one address might be associated with multiple real users, such as exchange omnibus accounts. With the rise of account abstraction protocols and smart contract wallets, the situation becomes even more complex. These factors were not included in our analysis.
Final Estimate: 30–60 Million Real Monthly Active Users
Based on multiple methods, we estimate that there are currently between 30 million and 60 million real monthly active crypto users. This range is broad but represents the best estimate with available data.
Notably, this represents only 14% to 27% of the 220 million monthly active addresses measured in September 2024. It also accounts for just 5% to 10% of the 617 million global crypto holders reported by Crypto.com in June. (Global crypto holders own cryptocurrency but may not conduct on-chain transactions.) This gap highlights a significant opportunity to convert passive holders into active users. As infrastructure improvements enable new and engaging applications, dormant crypto holders may become active on-chain participants.
👉 Explore advanced on-chain analysis methods
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Sybil attack in crypto?
A Sybil attack involves one user creating multiple fake identities to manipulate a system. In crypto, this often means controlling many addresses to influence airdrops or governance votes, undermining network integrity.
How do identity protocols help identify real users?
Protocols like ENS (Ethereum Name Service) require users to spend time or resources to set up a readable name (e.g., john.eth). This cost discourages bots and signals genuine user activity, making such addresses more trustworthy in analysis.
Why are transaction fees relevant to user estimation?
High fees discourage users from creating many addresses, as each transaction costs money. With lower fees on scalable networks, address creation becomes cheaper, leading to more potential manipulation—making real user estimation harder.
What is the difference between crypto holders and active users?
Crypto holders own digital assets but may not transact on-chain regularly. Active users frequently engage with dApps, execute transactions, or interact with smart contracts, contributing to network activity.
How can blockchain projects reduce bot activity?
Projects can implement identity verification, proof-of-humanity checks, or sybil-resistance mechanisms. requiring meaningful interaction or staking can also deter bots while rewarding genuine users.
Why is estimating real users important for the crypto industry?
Accurate user metrics help investors, developers, and analysts gauge ecosystem health, adoption rates, and project sustainability. Overestimating users can lead to misplaced investments or misguided strategies.