#nil $NIL @Nillion
I pulled four public pages on NIL's circulating supply and got four different numbers: roughly 448M, 487M, 500M and 510M.
On a 1B cap, that's a 62M token spread, about 14% of the lowest figure. At a price near $0.04 it's only about $2.5M, but the market cap in the snapshots I saw sits around $18M to $23M. So the disagreement alone is the difference between a ~$18M project and a ~$20M one, and between 45% and 51% of supply unlocked.
Most small-cap analysis leans on the FDV to market cap ratio as a proxy for how much supply is still waiting to unlock. If the unlocked share is uncertain by six percentage points, any unlock-pressure model built on it inherits that error. The two CoinGecko snapshots also show FDVs of $35.8M and $46.7M, which imply prices near $0.036 and $0.047. So price movement and supply definitions get mixed together, and it's hard to tell which one is moving the headline number.
Caveats: the snapshots have different dates, and I only compared aggregators. I didn't verify on-chain whether the gaps come from timing, staked or locked tokens being counted differently, or just stale data.
My takeaway is a boring one. Before debating utility, burns or roadmap, I'd want a single canonical, on-chain-verifiable circulating supply from the team. Right now the ratio everyone quotes rests on a number nobody agrees on.
When a small cap's basic supply figure differs this much across trackers, what's the first thing you check to decide which one to trust?
I pulled four public pages on NIL's circulating supply and got four different numbers: roughly 448M, 487M, 500M and 510M.
On a 1B cap, that's a 62M token spread, about 14% of the lowest figure. At a price near $0.04 it's only about $2.5M, but the market cap in the snapshots I saw sits around $18M to $23M. So the disagreement alone is the difference between a ~$18M project and a ~$20M one, and between 45% and 51% of supply unlocked.
Most small-cap analysis leans on the FDV to market cap ratio as a proxy for how much supply is still waiting to unlock. If the unlocked share is uncertain by six percentage points, any unlock-pressure model built on it inherits that error. The two CoinGecko snapshots also show FDVs of $35.8M and $46.7M, which imply prices near $0.036 and $0.047. So price movement and supply definitions get mixed together, and it's hard to tell which one is moving the headline number.
Caveats: the snapshots have different dates, and I only compared aggregators. I didn't verify on-chain whether the gaps come from timing, staked or locked tokens being counted differently, or just stale data.
My takeaway is a boring one. Before debating utility, burns or roadmap, I'd want a single canonical, on-chain-verifiable circulating supply from the team. Right now the ratio everyone quotes rests on a number nobody agrees on.
When a small cap's basic supply figure differs this much across trackers, what's the first thing you check to decide which one to trust?