Biatec Scan – Real-time DEX Explorer & Trade Analytics for Algorand

Governance Discussions xGov Proposals
1

Description

Biatec Algorand Scan and Biatec Testnet Scan is an open-source, real-time DEX explorer and analytics platform for the AVM ecosystem. It aggregates on-chain DEX activity across Algorand AMMs — including concentrated liquidity pools — and presents live, professional-grade market data to traders, projects, and developers.

What we built:

  • Real-time trade indexing backend (AVMTradeReporter) — a C#/.NET service built on our xGov-funded .NET Algorand SDK. It follows blocks live, decodes swaps and liquidity events across DEX protocols, aggregates pool state, and streams updates to clients over SignalR with an Elasticsearch-backed API.
  • DEX explorer frontend — a Vue 3 application with live trade feeds, asset and pool listings with 24h/7d metrics, aggregated cross-pool pricing, TVL and volume analytics, sparklines, and favorites.
  • Professional OHLC charting — TradingView-style candlestick charts with live streaming updates for any traded asset pair, including USD-referenced series.
  • Full block explorer views — blocks, transactions, transaction groups, addresses, applications, and assets, with search across all of them.
  • Multi-network support — deployed for Algorand mainnet (algorand.scan.biatec.io) and Algorand testnet (testnet.scan.biatec.io). The stack is network-generic, so any AVM chain including private chains can be onboarded by configuration.
  • Localization into 9 languages (English, Slovak, Czech, German, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Polish, Hungarian), making Algorand DEX data accessible to non-English communities.

Open source from the start: frontend (scholtz/biatec-scan-web), backend (scholtz/AVMTradeReporter). Other Algorand projects can self-host the stack or consume the public APIs.

Some of the features:

About the team

The Biatec Group dev team has been building on Algorand for more than 6 years. We built the first open-source Algorand wallet, a decentralized scheduler, the Aramid bridge, Vote Coin, ASA Gold, Algorand Scan, the Explodinos game, an invoicing app, the AVM gas station, an identity solution, and Algorand’s first concentrated liquidity AMM (Biatec DEX), ARC56 Registry, Algo Safe - smart contract wallet, Biatec Rourer, and other projects. We also maintain the .NET Algorand SDK (C# support for Algorand), funded by a previous xGov grant, which this project builds directly on top of — Biatec Scan is a real-world proof of that SDK powering a production, high-throughput indexing service.

Additional Info

This grant request is retroactive for work already done between August 2025 and August 2026 (~750 commits across the frontend and backend repositories). We received no funding for this work yet. We will continue operating and developing Biatec Scan regardless of the outcome: hosting the public deployments, Elasticsearch infrastructure, and ongoing feature work (deeper protocol coverage, more analytics).

The platform strengthens the ecosystem beyond the explorer itself: the public API and SignalR streams give wallets, bots, and dashboards free access to aggregated DEX price data, and the whole stack demonstrates enterprise-grade C#/.NET tooling on Algorand. Biatec router is one of the consumers of the signalr data.

Adoption Metrics

  • Unique monthly visitors is uknown as we do not track visitors for privacy reasons
  • Mainnet trade events tracked: 28 326 819
  • Mainnet liquidity change events: 877 464
  • Languages supported: 9
  • GitHub: 2 open-source repositories, ~750 commits in the funding period

Amount Requested

AI Suggested i should ask for 230-300k Algo, so I will ask for 190k, which is in manhour rate at the current algo prices is 190000/800*0.08=$19/h

Do you think it is fair request?

2

The public API angle is particularly interesting for wallets. Are these endpoints intended to serve as stable public infrastructure, and will you document rate limits, uptime expectations, historical-data retention, and the versioning or deprecation policy?

Those details would help wallet teams evaluate the data for user-facing portfolio and DEX information. Asking from the perspective of Gem Wallet, an open-source multichain wallet that supports Algorand.

3

Note: Enhanced with AI for readability, see the first iteration of this comment for the original comment

By that logic, nearly every explorer could claim to support “Algorand Foundation spending analytics.” I think that feature statement is a bit of a reach.

Someone previously built a dedicated dashboard specifically for tracking Foundation wallet spending and balances. I can’t remember the exact URL, but I surprisingly found that yet another person built something similar through xGov-19, though I’m not sure whether it’s still live:

And, of course, there’s AF Wallet Watcher, which provides Foundation wallet notifications on X and also received funding.

There’s also a screenshot in the collection in your post that looks eerily similar to Lora. Likewise, the trading pages look quite similar to Vestige. I won’t assume whether one was based on the other, but the resemblance is there.

A lot of the website also appears to have been AI-assisted. I don’t inherently disagree with that — plenty of backend developers now use AI to help with frontend design, and frontend developers use it to save significant amounts of time as well. I would, however, give the site another pass on mobile. A few things are a bit wonky, as in the screenshot below:

IMG_5853
IMG_58531284×2778 259 KB

I also don’t think AI output is an appropriate way to determine what the grant should be asking for. The estimate is certainly generous, but without some formal and verifiable methodology behind that number, it’s very easy to unintentionally guide an AI toward the valuation you want.

Ludo, there are a few genuinely unique things you’ve built that I found interesting and remember being discussed in Discord some time ago. In particular:

  • The reverse search/linking of open-source ARC-56 files to approval programs.
  • The trading-data API, which I think has real value.
  • CLMM trading-view support, if I’m remembering correctly.

Those are the things I would make the centerpiece of the proposal.

I’d remove the fluff around anything that isn’t truly unique and focus on what you’ve built that either doesn’t exist elsewhere or isn’t currently open-sourced. Make those implementations shine, then reevaluate the requested amount around that scope.

I’d also include usage metrics and analytics specifically for those unique implementations. When I first looked through what you’ve shown here — most of which looks good and I presume is functional — it wasn’t immediately clear to me what new implementations the proposal was bringing to the ecosystem.

That distinction matters even more now because the barrier to producing a polished explorer or trading interface has dropped considerably. A lot of people have access to the tools and tokens necessary to produce something similar. That doesn’t mean the additional features aren’t useful or that the work has no value; it means the strongest justification for community funding is increasingly going to be the parts that advance what the ecosystem can actually do.

Especially with the xGov Treasury becoming finite and increasingly dependent on rewards generated from AF-controlled infrastructure, I think we should prioritize less duplicative work and more genuinely new implementations.

I suspect a lot of people would rather see something new and useful funded than another explorer or trading view. And in your case, I think you actually do have some of those unique pieces — they’re just getting buried underneath everything else in the proposal.

4

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, it is intended to serve as public infrastructure.

Check out the rate limits at the AVM Trade Reporter readme. 60 requests/minute for unauthenticated callers and 300 requests/minute for authenticated using the ARC14 authentication.

For public infrastructure I will not disclose the uptime SLA as we have long running costs with this and one time grant will not cover it. If you seek some higher usage we are open to provide you dedicated endpoints with guaranteed SLA.

Versioning and deprecation policy is by the standard as is normal development. Preferably use the generated swagger client to connect to the api so that you get the best dev experience.

Because of your feedback i started the dedicated status page for the biatec services to show the long term engagement in the algorand ecosystem including the health monitor for Biatec Scan, AVM Trade Reporter, ASA.Gold, Vote Coin, Aramid products, Biatec OIDC, Biatec MCP, Biatec Wallet / A-Wallet and more..

Also to ensure you for the long term dedication, the AVM Trade reporter currently feeds data at least to:

  • Biatec DEX
  • Biatec Scan
  • Biatec Router
  • Biatec Wallet

Hi Leo, thanks for great feedback.

The main purpose of the biatec scan is not to monitor algorand accounts, it is just side effect on allowing to track any account on Algorand.

Lora is open source and does not have any asset analytics. It is great explorer for developers. However it is missing few features the biatec scan has to offer, for example better decompilation of the smart contracts, where in the biatec scan decompiller you can track the PC pointer to the specific line in the AVM code which is useful mainly when you are doing multiple inner app calls to other apps they did not released the source code. Also biatec scan provides better analytics for the existing app calls which are in the ARC56 registry. Lora on other side has better custom abi call composition framework which i dont intend to implement to the biatec scan.

Vestige was long time the only asset price discovery option on algorand, but looks like they run out of the funding and their development is stucked. They double count the TVL and are not ready for the concentrated liquidity amms on algorand. If users are happy to see the non updated prices or trading volume which is missing the trades, its the users decision. Also Vestige is closed source to my knowledge.

Hay screener seems to be in better condition as they are newer product. They promised me to do also the Biatec DEX integration, but after almost year nothing has happened, so I assume they are out of funding as well or they have the same issue as Vestige that they show the TVL as double counted and cannot easily split it and be ready for concentrated liquidity AMMs. To my knowledge they are closed source as well.

I dont understand the vestige and hay much why they do not integrate the biatec dex as the main vote pool with 1 BP lp fee runs on biatec dex. They have also the dex aggregation services and they do not provide the best trading quotes for their users because after the swaps the other arbitragers can step in and just do the risk free arbitrage settlements.

Allo is the public explorer, but is the closed source as well and some features are behind pay wall.

So to summarize, the Biatec Scan is good for developer and is good for general public for the asset discovery, and is completely open source including the backends which is indexing blockchain and gathering the dex operations.

The design glitch on mobile in account detail page has been fixed now, thanks for reporting.

According to the xGov rules i can run only one project funding at a time. I believe now is the best time to get funding on what has been done in the biatec scan side.

I believe there is no truly open source algorand explorer with the price discovery options.
The existing price discovery explores are missing trades and have bad data.

Its like telling someone to swap at specific pact pool without the liquidity which would move the asset price +50% while the main liquidity would be at tinyman.. We can tell people to swap at bad pools and they will get the token, and they will be in loss 50% right away after arbitragers will settle the trades..

If there is no competition here, people will pay. If there will be better competition the protocols will improve. At the moment development of the hay and vestige seems to be stucked and they are not incentivized to be improved.

Also note that people from vestige and hay are in the xgov council i believe so I hope the other council members will have enough power to move the ecosystem forward.

Its not my intention to just bring another explorer to the ecosystem. The discussions with the existing explorers failed (biatec scan was released before hay screener, and after the promise and dev help they did not implement it.. the vestige guys are quite hostile, and cannot even add the asagold token to the list of stable assets). I needed the service which would provide me the data for the Biatec DEX trades, and when everyone refused to cooperate i decided to build my own trade reporting service which would provide better price feed. I had experience from past from integrating the trading view charts which come handy.

Dont worry about my development path.. The biatec scan/trade reporter is only one small piece of the puzzle we have at Biatec and we are progressing no matter what happens. It is my passion and I devote my spare time to Algorand.

I would appriciate more marketing from AF towards my products.

5

Will try to be brief just to consolidate / reiterate:

Not trying to be reductive about what you’ve built, I just think that the Algo amount requested should reflect on what value it brings to the ecosystem. If there are several open-sourced solutions whose features overlap with something that’s been built, I think a majority of the value should derive from features that do not overlap. Otherwise, we would be funding features multiple times over as we’ve seen historically just because they were within the scope of the entire project.

Just as an extreme example, the LORA Transaction Viewer snippet you included which is a supported feature, would you feel that there is some value earned in integrating this existing solution onto your platform?

All I’m saying is it may be beneficial for you to highlight the key unique features that this new platform offers and trying to obtain funding for that, opposed to shooting for 190K Algo for the project bundled in its entirety. I understand you feeling the key developments needed to be included into 1 proposal as a tactical solution to avoid fragmenting the work into separate proposals, this was not something I was trying to point out in my original comment but that’s also something to note. I understandably had to fragment work between two platforms into 3 separate proposals, with 2 of them on hold until further notice, but in hindsight it makes sense.

I would suspect the council feels similarly about the ask amount vs. uniqueness of features, there is also the claim of lack of metrics due to privacy reasons — but they will speak for themselves when they have time.

Some general concerns regarding the xGov Proposal Process

W.R.T. longevity of the xGov treasury — I don’t know if anyone has the foresight of what resources will be like as of yet once treasury top-up has been made. My understanding is that it will be funded just enough to cover the outstanding xGov proposals that have passed within the last 3 months — then the treasury will be topped-up exclusively from node rewards. I can only presume this will have the xGov treasury running on fumes — now is the most critical time to be as careful as possible with what gets funded given the uncertainty of the treasury’s reserves.

My fear, for all we know, is if this proposal did pass after top-up is depleted and xGov treasury runs on node rewards only, that it could take months to reach a 190k Algo target to fund this proposal alone — imagine the nightmare that would be for others. Which is why, again, I am concerned about fluff, encourage valuing not only yours but all proposals only on new innovations with metrics going forward, and, honestly, a genuine valuation that is not output from an unverifiable LLM.

6

Thanks for the detailed reply — this is helpful. The usage limits and the new status page make it much easier to understand what people can expect from the service.

Please share the public status-page link when it is available. I’d be interested in following it.

7

I dont understand. I did not know the lora provides the transaction viewer snippet.. Does it? i am not able to find it..

my solution is not depenant on lora. yes, for devs the UX looks the same because i
like it and it is good to have it.
When AF will go bankcrupt or will cut its budget to support future development of lora or hosting, it is good to have an alternative.

And of course, please do not evaluate my proposal from the point of bringing the features which exists in other open source project. Please evaluate it according to the fact that there is no open source price scrapping solution out there, and existing close source solutions could provide the better data.

If there is budget only 190k algo per quarter planned for the projects to be distributed in the xGov platform, its quite bad. 190k algo is the same thing as 58k algo last year.. The 0.07736 now vs 0.2552 algo/usd last year.

Do you think for senior it developer to be paid less then $20/h is ok?

Its in the first post, but i can post here as well: https://status.biatec.io

8

Was referring to this snippet:

IMG_5866
IMG_58661284×2778 405 KB

From what I see the foundation has 50M Algo earning rewards for Chess funding that generated 47k algo last week (7 day period)

If they plan to dedicate 110-120M Algo to xGov treasury I would expect at least 60k-70k Algo per week for xGov Treasury — 190K Algo is nearly a months worth of rewards, 25%~ of what is available per quarter.

Again, emphasizing we all, collectively, need to be mindful of resources that are at the xGov program’s disposal.

Regarding whether or not I think your rate is appropriate, I don’t think developer hours input are verifiable anyways — funding should be relative to the impact and output of the work, not how many hours were input or a developer’s rate. This may be an unpopular opinion — but is why I feel we boil proposals down to key innovations instead of looking at the total scope of work that overlaps with other work open-sourced.

Note: Sorry that some of my points are becoming a larger conversation that may be detracting from your proposal — perhaps there should be a separate thread dedicated to bigger-picture. Although it does apply to your proposals ask in some way.

9

Thanks for pointing that out — I understand your concern. Would it help if I removed that part from the first post, so the proposal isn’t seen as overlapping with existing work?

Regarding the budget: if the total allocation is 47k per week, that leaves roughly $3,619/week to distribute. If that amount is split among all the developers here, I worry the xGov funding loses much of its purpose — receiving only 5–10% of the budget wouldn’t even cover my server costs. My goal is to build something with a long-term vision that can eventually become sustainable, not just to cover hosting expenses. I hope that perspective makes sense

10

Any modifications to your post you should wait for advisement from xGov council. Just sharing my thoughts for the valuation estimate.

Just to clarify the 47k Algo is weekly rewards from a node used for Chess partnership funding with 50M Algo staked, the last council meeting stated 110-120M Algo would be staked for xGov rewards to replace top-ups we’ve been seeing. I agree that it is limiting regardless, but if it’s what were given to work with it’s important we keep it in mind.

You can see the account that’s generating 47k Algo per week reference here in Algorand Watcher weekly AF holdings tweet: Algorand Watcher on X: "Foundation Wallet Weekly Summary: Total Remaining Foundation Funds: 933,287,793.93A | $72,858,846.86 198 were not included due to less than 10 Algo balance Foundation: Miscellaneous Addresses 2 Value: 140,567,990.05A | $10,973,701.50 Foundation: Ecosystem Support 67 Value:" / X