As Solana data becoming easily available on @Dune, it is time to showcase trades and traders patterns on Jupiter, DFlow, Titan and what insights we can extract from it by comparing with EVM DEX Aggregator volume. 1. Breakdown of Volume by Trader Activity on Solana On @JupiterExchange, over 80% of trading volume is generated by addresses with 1,000+ transactions, although these wallets represent <10% of all users. This suggests heavy activity from bots or market makers. For @dflow, roughly 80% of volume comes from users with <10 transactions, a profile opposite to Jupiter. High-activity addresses exist, but many appear to be for arbitrage or rebalancing. On @Titan_Exchange, most volume is concentrated among wallets with 10–99 transactions. Top traders include some highly active addresses, but these could be human or semi-automated. Comparison with EVM Aggregators On EVM, activity distribution is much more balanced across user segments. Cowswap stands out with fewer transactions per user, but overall the activity profile is highly similar across competitors, and actually resembles Titan’s profile on Solana far more than Jupiter's.

How to interpret it? Jupiter shows signs of heavy market-making/bot usage. Top addresses exceed 20,000 transactions over 30 days which can't be related to human activity. DFlow’s volume is dominated by low-activity traders (<10 tx), high-tx addresses also appear mostly tied to operational or arbitrage bots. Titan has a distinct trader mix with substantial activity from mid-active to very active wallets. When benchmarked against EVM aggregators, Titan (and DFlow after the top 20 traders) exhibit behavior closer to EVM norms than Jupiter does. Here is the top traders activity on EVM aggregators for comparison:

2. Breakdown of Volume by Trade Size On DFlow, Volume is driven primarily by $10K–$100K trades, while it is concentrated in the $1K–$10K category on Titan. On Jupiter, it shows a more balanced distribution between medium- and large-size trades. Now, let's draw the comparison with EVM aggregators: a. EVM aggregators have very similar trade-size distributions, with two exceptions: @0xProject leans toward smaller trades while @CoWSwap leans heavily toward very large trades. b. Across EVM, large trades dominate (60–85% of volume), which starkly contrasts with Solana, where they account for <10%.

3. Breakdown of Volume by Destination Token Solana, Jupiter, and DFlow exhibit very similar token popularity patterns: Stables, SOL, and closely related assets account for the majority of volume and memecoins represent only a small fraction of trading activity. By looking at the evolution of the trend in the past few months, memecoin trading share on Solana has halved in the past 18 months, falling from ~30% to <15% of total volume. It tells a lot about the Solana DEX activity maturing as the ratio of memecoin volume is trending to <5/10% which are the level we observe on EVM chains.