Taproot vs SegWit Adoption RaceTRINITY EXCLUSIVE
EXCLUSIVE - Adoption curves of Taproot (from Nov 2021 activation) and SegWit (from Aug 2017 activation) aligned by days since activation. Directly compares adoption velocity of Bitcoin's two most significant soft forks under different market conditions.
Trinity exclusive model
This metric is a proprietary Trinity Insights model. Its formula, inputs, weights and parameters are NOT disclosed. The page documents only the output (bounded scale, interpretation zones, historical context). Access to the score and its time series is via the REST API and the MCP server, subject to the required tier.
What is it?
This metric compares adoption speed of Bitcoin's two most significant soft forks: SegWit (Aug 2017, block 481,824) and Taproot (Nov 2021, block 709,632). The X-axis is 'days since activation' (not calendar date), enabling a direct comparison of adoption trajectory. For each day post-activation, we compute the share of outputs using the respective script (P2WPKH for SegWit, P2TR for Taproot) in total outputs.
How to read
Two curves starting from day 0 (activation). The P2TR curve (blue) starts Nov 2021. The P2WPKH curve (purple) starts Aug 2017. If P2TR is above P2WPKH for the same number of days post-activation → Taproot is being adopted faster. CAVEAT: the P2TR explosion in 2023 (day ~460) is due to Ordinals, not wallet adoption - it's an artificial catalyst absent for SegWit.
Key zones
Day 0-365: integration phase (wallets/exchanges). Day 365-730: growth phase. Day 730+: maturation. SegWit took ~4 years to reach 60% share. Taproot reached ~10% in ~2 years, but with the Ordinals caveat. SegWit's inflection point was mid-2019 (Coinbase + Blockchain.com integrations).
What to observe
The slope of each curve indicates adoption speed at each phase. SegWit had a long plateau period (2017-2019) before acceleration. Taproot had a late explosive takeoff thanks to Ordinals. The key question: is P2TR's 'base' (excluding Ordinals spikes) comparable to SegWit's trajectory at the same age?
Historical context
SegWit (BIP 141) was activated Aug 24, 2017. Initial adoption was very slow (<5% for 1 year) as major wallets were slow to implement bech32. Taproot (BIP 341) was activated Nov 14, 2021. Adoption was even slower initially (<1% for 14 months) as wallets had no strong incentive (no significant fee reduction). Ordinals (January 2023) were the unexpected catalyst.
Expert notes
⚠️ Trinity Exclusive Model - IMPORTANT BIAS: activation conditions are fundamentally different. SegWit offered a direct economic incentive (~40% fee reduction via witness discount). Taproot only offers privacy and script flexibility benefits, with no notable fee reduction for key-spend paths. Additionally, the 2017 ecosystem (few exchanges, basic wallets) vs 2021 (mature, major exchanges) affects the comparison. Use this chart for narrative, not to conclude one upgrade 'worked better' than another.
Common mistakes to avoid
Comparing curves without mentioning Ordinals is misleading. If you mentally 'filter' the Ordinals effect from the P2TR curve, Taproot actually has slower adoption than SegWit at the same age. 'True' Taproot adoption (payments, LN channels) is estimated at ~2-3% of outputs - well below SegWit at the same stage.
Programmatic access
REST API
curl -sS \
'https://api.trinityinsights.io/api/v1/onchain/taproot-segwit-race/history?days=90' \
-H 'X-API-Key: $TRINITY_API_KEY'MCP server
{
"tool": "get_chart_value",
"metric_id": "taproot-segwit-race",
"timeframe": "1y"
}Required tier: performance. See the pricing grid for the tier list and the MCP documentation for multi-client configuration.
Related metrics
Institutional disclaimer
Trinity Insights is an educational and analytical tool. The metric above does not constitute investment advice. Trinity Insights is not a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) registered under MiCA Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. See the full disclaimer.