Web3 Competitive Intelligence vs Web3 Blockchain Intelligence vs Web3 On-Chain User Intelligence

A concise, practical field guide for decision‑makers: how to distinguish these three intelligence disciplines, what tech and data you actually need in 2026, and how to operationalize them with current, real-world signals from L2s, intents, MEV, and account abstraction.

Description: Learn the differences between Web3 competitive intelligence, blockchain intelligence, and on-chain user intelligence, with precise 2025–2026 data points, emerging practices, and actionable playbooks for startups and enterprises.

Why this matters now

Ethereum’s rollups became the default execution layer: by mid‑2025, 85%+ of Ethereum ecosystem transactions were on L2s, with Base leading L2 fee share after Dencun/EIP‑4844 slashed data availability costs and pushed L2 margins toward 98%. (dune.com)
User experience primitives changed: ERC‑4337 smart accounts crossed 100M+ UserOperations in 2024 with paymasters sponsoring ~87% of fees—fundamentally altering onboarding, retention, and how you measure on‑chain cohorts. (community.dune.com)
Intel use cases expanded and diverged: compliance teams track cross‑chain laundering that has topped $21.8B, while growth teams now segment “gasless” smart‑account users across rollups and intents routers (UniswapX, CoW) rather than just L1 txs. (elliptic.co)
MEV is reshaping data quality and execution: Flashbots highlighted that spammy MEV flows can consume most incremental throughput on OP‑Stack L2s like Base—so “active addresses” and “tx counts” must be de‑biased before you bet product or GTM plans on them. (theblock.co)

Definitions that prevent expensive confusion

Web3 competitive intelligence (CI): external market sensing to out‑learn rivals—watch grants, emissions, roadmaps, governance, liquidity, partnerships, dev velocity, and growth loops across chains.
Web3 blockchain intelligence (BI): risk, forensics, and compliance—entity attribution, sanctions exposure, cross‑chain tracing, mixer/bridge heuristics, and investigative workflows.
Web3 on‑chain user intelligence (OUI): growth and product analytics from wallet behaviors—cohorts, activation/retention, L2 migration, intents flows, smart‑account UX, paymaster economics, and CLV/LTV models.

Each discipline uses different data, skills, and success metrics. Below, we detail stacks, metrics, and playbooks with current signals and examples.

The signal landscape you must ingest in 2026

Rollup economics and share: Base’s outsized share of L2 fee revenue and post‑Dencun margins changed where end‑users transact and how apps monetize. Your dashboards must treat Base, OP Mainnet, Arbitrum, zk rollups, and app‑chains as first‑class sources—not “other networks.” (dune.com)
Intents rails: UniswapX and ERC‑7683-style cross‑chain intents move order flow off the public mempool and into solver auctions—altering how you attribute traffic, protect users from MEV, and compute “best execution.” (blog.uniswap.org)
MEV structure: Spam and private order flow bias naive metrics. Use “effective gas throughput” and private routing share in your KPIs; consider TEE builders like Unichain’s Rollup‑Boost for fair ordering. (theblock.co)
Smart accounts (ERC‑4337): Track UserOps, bundler market share, paymaster subsidies, and factory provenance across chains—these now determine onboarding cost and stickiness more than “wallet installs.” (community.dune.com)

1) Web3 Competitive Intelligence (CI)

CI answers: “Where is the market moving, who’s winning, and what should we build or ship next?”

What to monitor weekly:

Ecosystem grants/incentives
- Arbitrum’s DRIP program (80M ARB budget over four seasons) prioritizes leveraged looping on yield assets; expect protocol behavior and TVL to follow incentives. (coindesk.com)
- Track Arbitrum’s current programs (Audit Program $10M ARB; ArbiFuel gas sponsorship through Jan 31, 2026) to see where new apps will concentrate. (arbitrum.foundation)
- Optimism Retro Funding (RetroPGF) rounds remain a meaningful signal for OSS and infra momentum; use recipient lists as “hiring” and “integration” leads. (gov.optimism.io)
Emissions and unlocks
- TokenUnlocks/Tokenomist added “claimed post‑unlock” charts; don’t just calendar the TGE—watch actual beneficiary claims to gauge real sell pressure. (insights.unlocks.app)
Product and protocol roadmaps
- Uniswap v4 hooks and “UNIfication” fee proposals change DEX unit economics—your AMM/aggregator assumptions must reflect new CCA auctions and intent execution. (blog.uniswap.org)
MEV and order‑flow control
- If Unichain’s TEE builder and revert protection become standard, LP strategies and RFQ/solver markets will rebalance—CI should treat “fair ordering” support as a competitive feature. (blog.uniswap.org)

CI metrics that actually move strategy:

Incentive-adjusted TVL and volume: attribute TVL/volume spikes to funded seasons (e.g., DRIP) vs organic usage.
Effective user cost vs UX: did EIP‑4844 plus paymasters make your competitor’s onboarding < $0.10? Benchmark “first successful action” CAC on Base/OP. (dune.com)
Developer velocity and composability: watch Uniswap v4 hook modules, ERC‑7683 integrations, and intent routers your competitor supports. (blog.uniswap.org)

A concrete CI workflow for your ops channel

Grants watchlist: subscribe to Arbitrum Foundation programs and DAO forums; track proposal IDs, start/end, eligible categories, and token distributions. (arbitrum.foundation)
Emissions radar: create a weekly “1‑month forward unlocks >1% of circ supply” digest plus “post‑unlock claimed” outcomes; flag customer tokens that face headwinds. (insights.unlocks.app)
Intents adoption: list exchanges/aggregators supporting UniswapX or ERC‑7683; pressure‑test your routing and MEV‑protection positioning. (blog.uniswap.org)

2) Web3 Blockchain Intelligence (BI)

BI answers: “Can we move assets, serve users, and partner safely—across sanctions, scams, cross‑chain laundering, and regulatory expectations?”

What the latest data says:

Chainalysis estimates 2024 illicit flows at ~$40.9B known today (likely revised toward ~$51B), only ~0.14% of all on‑chain volume; stablecoins account for ~63% of illicit volume as usage shifts from BTC. This reframes risk as “stablecoin + cross‑chain” rather than “crypto = crime.” (chainalysis.com)
TRM Labs’ 2025 reporting shows TRON carried 58% of illicit volume in 2024, with sanctions‑linked flows dominating; joint T3 Financial Crime Unit froze $130M+ in USDT on TRON within months. (trmlabs.com)
Elliptic finds cross‑chain laundering has exceeded $21.8B; chain‑hopping across DEXes/bridges/no‑KYC swap services is now mainstream laundering typology. (elliptic.co)
FATF warns most jurisdictions are still not largely compliant with virtual asset standards as of April 2025, raising cross‑border exposure for enterprises. (reuters.com)

BI stack essentials:

Attribution and screening: Chainalysis, TRM Labs, Elliptic for entity clustering and sanctions/illicit exposure; prioritize cross‑chain analytics, stablecoin heuristics, and sanctioned‑entity proximity. (chainalysis.com)
Case management and trace: ensure tracing across rollups, bridges, and mixers; adopt chain‑hopping path reconstruction and “exit liquidity” heuristics (CEX, RWA off‑ramps).
Policy telemetry: monitor sanctioned stablecoin usage spikes (e.g., rouble‑backed A7A5) to update geofence and counterparties. (reuters.com)

BI operating procedures that hold up in audits:

Source‑of‑funds on L2/L3: when user funds originate on Base/OP, run cross‑domain screening (L2 address ↔ L1 settlement proofs) and bridge path analysis; document refund/freeze policies for sponsored gas and paymaster flows. (dune.com)
Cross‑chain typologies library: maintain internal playbooks for TRON USDT scams, bridge peel chains, “partial cash‑out via P2P merchant” patterns, and DEX→CEX→RWA off‑ramps.
Real‑time sanctions deltas: subscribe to vendor feeds for sanctioned exchanges and mixer clones; update RPC blocklists and UI hints within hours.

3) Web3 On‑Chain User Intelligence (OUI)

OUI answers: “Who are our users on‑chain, how do they convert, and what keeps them around?”

Reality in 2025–2026:

Smart accounts changed funnel math. In 2024 alone, the ecosystem executed 100M+ UserOps; paymasters sponsored ~87% of UserOps, making “gasless first action” the default in many apps. You must segment by EOAs vs smart accounts, paymaster vs self‑paid, bundler/provider, and chain. (community.dune.com)
Wallet labeling is mature enough for segmentation at scale: Nansen reported labeling 250M+ addresses across 10+ chains—use labels for “source of user,” “smart money adjacency,” and “CEX‑to‑L2 bridge” analyses without doxxing. (coindesk.com)
Intents routes obscure raw tx traces; you need solver logs and order‑flow metadata from UniswapX/routers to attribute conversions accurately. (blog.uniswap.org)

OUI data model (what to store)

Identity backbone: hashed wallet address, EOA vs 4337 smart account, chain, factory contract, first‑seen timestamp, referrer (bridge, router, CEX deposit label).
Session economics: paymaster used (Y/N), UserOps per session, failure codes, gas subsidy amount, net cost/user action.
Order‑flow channel: direct AMM vs intents (UniswapX/CoW), solver/filler ID if available, private routing indicator.
Cohort tags: “first funded on L2,” “CEX‑onramp to Base,” “sponsored onboarding,” “bridge‑and‑do hook.”

KPIs that beat vanity metrics

Time‑to‑first‑action (TTFA) and subsidy‑to‑activation ratio for smart accounts.
Retained UserOps per user at D7/D30, split by paymaster presence.
Intents attribution share vs direct swaps; MEV‑safe fill rate and price improvement over public mempool baseline. (blog.uniswap.org)

Recommended tools

Labeling and audiences: Nansen for entities, “smart money” segments, and alerts. (coindesk.com)
Query/BI: Dune (dashboards for L2 adoption, 4337 UserOps), Flipside, custom warehouses fed by node providers.
4337 telemetry: Dune Wallet Report v2 for factory/bundler/paymaster trends across chains. (community.dune.com)

Privacy and compliance guardrails

Aggregate cohorts; never attempt to deanonymize retail users.
Avoid mixing PII with wallet addresses; if necessary, keep mapping in a segregated vault with strict access controls.
Respect vendor terms around label usage; log consent for any user‑provided off‑chain IDs.

Practical, chain‑specific examples

You’re launching a consumer app on Base

Why Base: L2 fee share and near‑zero settlement costs post‑Dencun support subsidized onboarding; Base has outsized revenue share among L2s. Design for gasless first action and batch operations. (dune.com)
What to measure: TTFA with and without paymaster, UserOps/session, and abandonment on public vs private routing.
What to build: fall‑back routing via UniswapX intents to reduce MEV exposure and failed swaps; report on price improvement vs public mempool paths. (blog.uniswap.org)
CI angle: monitor Arbitrum DRIP seasons and Uniswap v4 hook launches that could poach liquidity; adjust LP incentives and marketing around those windows. (coindesk.com)

You’re a U.S. fintech adding USDC payouts across rollups

BI first: implement vendor screening for sanctions exposure and chain‑hopping risk; weight TRON/USDT inbound risk patterns even if you disburse on Base/OP. (trmlabs.com)
OUI: separate EOA vs smart‑account payout cohorts; track paymaster‑covered disbursements and user reactivation rates.
CI: watch ERC‑7683 adoption to consolidate cross‑chain UX under one intents standard, reducing your integration surface area. (blog.uniswap.org)

You operate a DeFi protocol facing MEV complaints

Execution: offer private routing and integrate solver‑based intents to reduce sandwich risk; publish MEV‑safe fill metrics. (blog.uniswap.org)
CI: evaluate Unichain’s TEE ordering for listings if your users demand fair ordering guarantees; communicate this in your roadmap. (blog.uniswap.org)
BI: log and share aggregate user‑refund data if you support MEV‑revenue redistribution through protocols like MEV‑Share. (github.com)

Emerging best practices we’re deploying with clients

Treat L2s as primary: track “effective costs” and “user‑visible latencies” post‑4844, not just gas/tx averages. Annotate Dune charts with incentive windows so you don’t misread inorganic spikes. (dune.com)
Make intents observable: design attribution that captures solver/filler, post‑trade surplus, and private relay usage; expose “MEV‑safe execution” in product copy with real metrics. (blog.uniswap.org)
Operationalize 4337 economics: maintain a paymaster budget tied to activation lift; monitor factory provenance and bundler concentration to avoid infra single‑points‑of‑failure. Use Dune’s Wallet Report v2 trends to rebalance vendors quarterly. (community.dune.com)
Harden BI beyond L1 BTC flows: your risk is stablecoin‑centric and cross‑chain; deploy rules for TRON bridges, chain‑hops, and sanctioned exchange adjacency. (trmlabs.com)
Debias “activity” metrics: if Flashbots shows bots absorbing Base capacity, prefer “effective user throughput,” “unique funded wallets,” and “retained UserOps” over gross tx counts. (theblock.co)
Use label‑driven cohorts, not identity: Nansen’s labeled segments enable persona analysis without PII; combine with your event schema to compute LTV by wallet archetype (e.g., “first‑time CEX bridge to Base”). (coindesk.com)

Build-your-stack: quick buyer’s guide

For CI
- Grants/incentives: Arbitrum Foundation programs; Optimism Retro Funding forum threads. (arbitrum.foundation)
- Emissions/unlocks: TokenUnlocks/Tokenomist “post‑unlock claimed” and “1‑year emission” views. (insights.unlocks.app)
- Strategy signals: Uniswap Labs blog for v4 hooks, UNIfication, CCA auctions. (blog.uniswap.org)
For BI
- Chainalysis, TRM Labs, Elliptic for screening and investigations; ensure cross‑chain/path reconstruction, sanctioned‑entity telemetry, and TRON/USDT heuristics. (chainalysis.com)
For OUI
- Dune for L2/4337/intents KPIs; Nansen for labeled cohorts and wallet segmentation. (community.dune.com)

What each discipline produces in practice

CI deliverables
- Weekly “market shifts” memo (grants, emissions, protocol changes), next‑best build/ship recommendations, and competitor playbooks tied to incentive windows.
BI deliverables
- Cross‑chain risk scorecards, sanctions adjacency reporting, SAR-ready case files, and partner exchange risk assessments.
OUI deliverables
- Activation dashboards (TTFA, subsidy‑to‑activation), retained UserOps cohorts, solver attribution and MEV‑safe execution KPI reports.

Where 7Block Labs fits

CI: we set up incentive/emissions radars and intents adoption trackers, then translate them into a roadmap and launch calendar your product/BD teams can act on.
BI: we integrate vendor screening, codify cross‑chain typologies, and automate investigations—so you can ship faster with fewer compliance surprises.
OUI: we instrument 4337 funnels, paymaster budgets, and intents attribution with warehouse‑ready schemas and Dune/Nansen‑backed views.

Want a “one‑click” baseline? We deploy a 30‑day starter pack: L2 + intents + 4337 telemetry, CI radar dashboards, and BI risk rules tuned to your flows, so you start making decisions from fresh, chain‑specific data instead of stale web reports.

TL;DR takeaways for 2026

Don’t conflate CI, BI, and OUI—treat them as distinct capabilities with different data sources and KPIs.
Anchor analytics on L2s, intents, and 4337, not L1‑only txs or “wallet installs.” (dune.com)
Assume stablecoin‑centric, cross‑chain risk and invest in laundering path analytics; sanctions exposure is the bulk of illicit volume. (trmlabs.com)
Debias metrics for MEV spam; measure execution quality with private routing and solver outcomes, not raw tx counts. (theblock.co)
Use labeled cohorts for growth, not identities—privacy‑preserving segmentation is a competitive advantage. (coindesk.com)

If you need help standing up these three intelligence pillars in parallel, 7Block Labs can have your dashboards, risk rules, and cohort analytics live in weeks—not quarters.