stats dont also account for spammers
EG
i send out
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
then next block
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
then next block
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
then next block
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
the stats show that in 40 minutes 8btc has moved. but in reality i still have and always had just 2btc so reality is only 2btc ever moved
take some exchanges that like to refresh their cold store. they start with say 60,000btc and end up with the same 60,000btc but they pushed the 60k coins through 10 layers of spam transactions (600k volume)
which statistically would be $3bill volume. but actually only 60k moved to a new final cold store that day($300k)
But isn't it the way banks also measure the transaction volume. When we say volume, it considers the exactly same thing that you mentioned, while the final settlement amount is different! I do understand, a certain percentage of the entire volume may be inflated, but the volume calculation method is correct and it is the practice followed by the industry as well!
Exactly, I for instance have 3 accounts at one Bank and I transfer money between the accounts. Let's say my salary gets deposited into my transmission account and I opened one account for expenses and one for savings, then I shift a percentage of that money to these accounts, then the Bank still count that money as transaction volume.
So the argument is flawed, if you cannot count the actual transactions between different entities. So you have to look at the total volume and compare the total volume to other payment options.