---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: "Third-party data providers claim to address fragmentation in protocol metrics by enabling cross-protocol comparison and historical tracking"
confidence: speculative
source: "Artemis Labs proposal to Drift DAO, 2024-07-01"
created: 2024-07-15
---

# Third-party verified protocol metrics claim to solve benchmarking and historical tracking gaps in crypto

Artemis Labs argues that the crypto space lacks a single trusted source for comprehensive protocol metrics, identifying three specific problems: no clear benchmarking of protocol health across competitors, no centralized location for all metrics enabling cross-protocol comparison, and no historical tracking of protocol changes over time.

The proposal claims that third-party verification provides neutral benchmarking, deeper metrics beyond high-level TVL and volume, and access to institutional investors and builders who require verified data. However, this represents a vendor's problem framing rather than independent validation of actual market gaps.

## Evidence

- Artemis identifies three specific gaps in Drift ecosystem: no benchmarking of Drift protocol health, no unified metrics location for perpetual protocols, no historical liquidity tracking (vendor-identified, not independently validated)
- Proposal promises to surface specific metrics: open interest, fees, revenue, average fees per trade, funding rates, unique traders, liquidity by market, deposit trends, lending rates
- Company commits to 4x daily refresh rate (every 6 hours) versus Drift's current 24-hour public S3 datalake refresh
- All dashboards and metrics will be open source and free for community use

## Challenges

This claim is based on a single vendor's proposal to a specific protocol. The identified gaps may be specific to Drift's ecosystem rather than generalizable across crypto. No independent validation that these gaps represent actual market demand versus vendor-created problem framing. The proposal failed (status: Failed, completed 2024-07-05), which may indicate either that the identified gaps were not compelling to the DAO or that other factors (governance friction, liquidity constraints) prevented approval. This should not be treated as evidence that the gaps are real or that third-party verification solves them.

---

Topics:
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
