Swarms (SWM) Token Analysis: Decoding the Market Dynamics of AI Agents

Recently, a new batch of MEME tokens have emerged in the on-chain trading field, quickly becoming a hot topic. In just a month, new subdivisions have appeared in the AI Agent field, from ai16z to Virtual and then to Swarms. As various AI Agent tokens continue to emerge, which ones will break through the competition, and which are just fleeting concepts? There may be multiple angles to consider, but the flow of funds on-chain and changes in major players may still be the most important indicators.

PANews takes the recently popular Swarms token as the main object of analysis, comparing it with six high-market-cap AI Agent tokens' major addresses, attempting to "carve a boat to seek a sword" once again, to glimpse some secrets. The data range for this analysis includes: the initial purchase and sale conditions of the top 1000 holding addresses of Swarms tokens (data time cut off at January 6, 2025, 24:00), and the address overlap situation of six AI-related tokens with a market cap exceeding 100 million USD, including Fartcoin, GRIFFAIN, ZEREBRO, ai16z, arc, and Swarms (data time cut off at January 7, 2025, 14:00), as well as analysis of internal trading records.

Some quietly lay the groundwork at low prices, while others follow the trend to enter

First, looking at the timeline of when major players entered the market, most of them started entering after January 2, which was 12 days after the token was created. From a timing perspective, many major players in Swarms began buying only after the Swarms ecosystem started to heat up, failing to complete early positioning.

However, from the price curve of Swarms, if purchased before December 27, the price could basically be maintained below 0.02 USD, with nearly a 30-fold increase from the current highest price of 0.6 USD. Analyzing the initial purchase prices of these addresses, 202 addresses bought in the price range of 0.01 to 0.05 USD, while the highest number of addresses bought in the range of 0.3 to 0.4 USD.

The distribution of these two data points means that early investors in Swarms bought in batches at low prices during the period of price collapse, and this buying was relatively dispersed, not concentrated in a single time period. The benefit of this is that they could acquire chips at a lower price. Another group of major players began to enter significantly after the discussion around Swarms heated up, but their holding prices do not have much competitive advantage.

This distribution of chips may explain why the Swarms market appears to have significant short-term fluctuations. If early ambushers sell at high points, new major players have higher costs, and once a large sell-off occurs, it is easier to trigger sensitive nerves on both sides, leading to a sharp drop.

However, looking at the chip distribution, the main chips of Swarms are relatively dispersed. In the analysis of the top 1000 holding addresses, there are not many tokens sourced from the same address, and most addresses' initial token sources are mainly from on-chain exchanges. Therefore, there is little evidence of early major players acquiring large amounts of chips and then dispersing them to multiple addresses.

Additionally, by comparing internal trading addresses, it was found that addresses that purchased on the internal market did not appear among the current top 1000 holding addresses. Therefore, the early chips of this token have basically completed their rotation.

From the overall data, the average initial purchase price of Swarms tokens is 0.17 USD, and the average initial selling price is 0.23 USD, with the average initial purchase amount per address reaching 37,600 USD and the average initial selling amount about 28,200 USD. Comparing the buying and selling situation of individual addresses, the average initial selling price of these addresses is about 2.43 times the buying price.

The highest major holder has made 25 million USD profit without selling

Compared to other MEME tokens, the average initial purchase amount mentioned above is significantly higher, mainly due to the influence of some major addresses. The address with the highest initial transfer amount is Dsjzh2oj3HxyPefjQr5qqvbR5NrMnvBgptGLSQ3t8T5i, which transferred about 4.13 million USD from another address on December 31, followed by several transfers totaling about 500,000 USD, with the current holding value at 27.33 million USD.

The address it transferred from, 5HfrnyodRraAw63aRVPueD5Er4D