How can the top 10 holders be both 44% and 92.6% on the same page? quq I’ve run the numbers on this page twice, and I’m more confused than ever. Let me say this upfront: I’m setting this coin aside for now. I’ll revisit it once the numbers add up. 😅
I wrote about it once 8 days ago, when its turnover was 84x. Checking again today, turnover has climbed to 106x. 24-hour volume is $143 million: 13,500 buy orders totaling $71.7 million and 13,400 sell orders totaling $71.6 million—almost perfectly balanced. Yet the price is down just 0.38%, currently at $0.00167, basically unchanged. 53,000 people hold it, and the listed market cap is $1.32 million.
The main pool has less than $100,000 in it, while daily volume is more than 1,500 times the pool size—that pool can’t even hold a fraction of a day’s trading volume. What’s even crazier is the top 10: the page says the top 10 hold 44%, but adding up the top 10 on the holder leaderboard below gives 92.6%. The pool address alone accounts for 47.7%, and there’s also a burn address holding 20.7%. Two figures on the same page, more than double the difference—which one am I supposed to trust?
A second market data site broadly agrees: the price is around $0.0017, 24-hour volume is in the $134–137 million range, and there are 53,000 holders. Nothing looks off there. So the problem isn’t whether the volume is real; it’s that the figures on this page contradict each other.
If you’re holding it, check just one thing right now: what does the top 10 percentage on your page say? If the two figures still don’t match, don’t rush to add to your position. What would change my mind? The leaderboard needs to use a consistent definition of the top 10, and the pool’s funds need to make sense relative to the trading volume. Then I’ll take another look. If volume stays this high while the price doesn’t move, that’s just tokens being passed around—stay away.
This is not investment advice. Alpha projects are high-risk and could go to zero. Two top-10 figures on the same page—which do you trust, 44% or 92.6%? 👇
$quq
#BinanceAlpha #口径打架 #OnChainAccounting
I wrote about it once 8 days ago, when its turnover was 84x. Checking again today, turnover has climbed to 106x. 24-hour volume is $143 million: 13,500 buy orders totaling $71.7 million and 13,400 sell orders totaling $71.6 million—almost perfectly balanced. Yet the price is down just 0.38%, currently at $0.00167, basically unchanged. 53,000 people hold it, and the listed market cap is $1.32 million.
The main pool has less than $100,000 in it, while daily volume is more than 1,500 times the pool size—that pool can’t even hold a fraction of a day’s trading volume. What’s even crazier is the top 10: the page says the top 10 hold 44%, but adding up the top 10 on the holder leaderboard below gives 92.6%. The pool address alone accounts for 47.7%, and there’s also a burn address holding 20.7%. Two figures on the same page, more than double the difference—which one am I supposed to trust?
A second market data site broadly agrees: the price is around $0.0017, 24-hour volume is in the $134–137 million range, and there are 53,000 holders. Nothing looks off there. So the problem isn’t whether the volume is real; it’s that the figures on this page contradict each other.
If you’re holding it, check just one thing right now: what does the top 10 percentage on your page say? If the two figures still don’t match, don’t rush to add to your position. What would change my mind? The leaderboard needs to use a consistent definition of the top 10, and the pool’s funds need to make sense relative to the trading volume. Then I’ll take another look. If volume stays this high while the price doesn’t move, that’s just tokens being passed around—stay away.
This is not investment advice. Alpha projects are high-risk and could go to zero. Two top-10 figures on the same page—which do you trust, 44% or 92.6%? 👇
$quq
#BinanceAlpha #口径打架 #OnChainAccounting