Supply (Circulating, Total, Max) – CoinMarketCap

If you would like to verify your circulating supply (and market cap), please submit a request here for the team's evaluation. Verification will be done in accordance with our methodology. Please refer to our FAQ guide.

Circulating Supply Verification Process

As the adage goes, don't trust, verify. Anyone can tell us that their project has a putative market cap of USD 164 billion and it would be expedient for us to publish that figure without any critical analysis. In fact, many actors in this space have every incentive to inflate their CS/MC, which could displace honest projects from our rankings page.
In the spirit of fairness and data fidelity, should we take what projects say at face value and let them grade their own homework or should we strive to apply a consistent methodology across the assets on our site? Users and the media often question us over large balances that are ostensibly 'circulating' for certain projects, which necessitate reasonable efforts on the due diligence front.
Our decision on whether to publish the verified CS will therefore depend on the team's ability to verify the data with a reasonable level of confidence. In particular, the team will evaluate the asset's trading venues, volume, and liquidity to determine whether these are commensurate with the notional market cap/rank.

Circulating Supply

Circulating Supply is the best approximation of the number of assets that are circulating in the market and in the general public's hands. We have found that Circulating Supply is a much better metric than Total Supply for determining the market capitalization. The method of using the Circulating Supply is analogous to the method of using public float to determine the market capitalization of companies in traditional investing.
Assets that are locked (via smart contracts or legal contracts), allocated to insiders (e.g. teams or private investors), or not sellable on the public market are generally not regarded as circulating, regardless of whether they are unlocked. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Private sale - Assets that were earmarked for a subset of investors and not available to the public through open bidding/balloting.
2. Ecosystem/Bounty/Marketing/Operations/Airdrops - Assets that have been earmarked for activities to grow the project’s ecosystem. For example, airdropped tokens are generally excluded from circulating supply unless the project is able to furnish evidence that there was active demand for the asset (e.g. users had registered/KYCed for the airdrop).
3. Masternodes/Staking - Assets that have been ‘staked’ in masternodes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis - Factors such as masternode distribution, ownership, and lock-up periods are also taken into consideration.
4. Team/Foundation/Treasury/Escrow - Assets held by project members or major ecosystem participants. Such holdings can constitute a significant percentage of the supply.
Circulating Supply is verified by our team through communication with the project’s team. We ask for details including but not limited to the initial distribution, private allocations, locked addresses, team-controlled addresses, and addresses containing portions of the supply allocated for future use.
We may not take the figures from APIs/whitepapers/blog posts because we have our own calculation schematic which may differ from the project teams.
We examine the project’s blockchain and distribution table to determine the best approximation of what is freely circulating in the market based on the information provided.
After the information is verified, the circulating supply is usually updated in real-time by (i) referencing deductible wallet balances or (ii) using relevant block explorer APIs if there is scrutability and reproducibility.
It is in every project’s interest to provide accurate and well-documented information in good faith. Most well-run projects are able to account for the distribution of their assets across different addresses. If a project has difficulties furnishing the requisite documentation or if there are irregularities in their submission, we would not able to verify their CS data.
Projects that attempt to manipulate or artificially inflate their supply figures will be permanently disqualified from the rankings.

Total Supply

We define Total Supply as the total amount of coins in existence right now, minus any coins that have been verifiably burned.

Max Supply

The best approximation of the maximum amount of coins that will exist in the forthcoming lifespan of the cryptocurrency, minus any coins that have been verifiably burned. This is also known as the theoretical max number of coins that can be minted, minus any coins that have been verifiably burned.

Unlocked Metrics

The UCS and UMC provide a clearer picture of unlocked tokens, helping users understand the maximum amount of supply that can be potentially sold on the market at any given time.

Unlocked Circulating Supply (UCS)

Max Supply (net of burnt supply) - Unminted Supply - Locked Supply.
This is derived from Token Release Schedules (TRS)

Unlocked Market Capitalization (UMC)

Price x UCS

FAQs

What's the difference between CS and UCS?

CS excludes insider allocations
1. Analogous to float (excludes insider holdings) in TradFi
UCS includes all unlocked allocations.
1. Analogous to shares outstanding in Tradfi
2. Assumes that all unlocked coins are sold immediately

S/N	Unlocked Circulating Supply (UCS)	Circulating Supply (CS)
Definition	# of unlocked assets, derived from Token Release Schedules (TRS).	# of assets in the public's hands, analogous to public float in traditional markets.
Formula	Max Supply - Unminted Supply - Burnt Supply - Locked Supply	CS = TS - insider wallets
Pros	Easy to understand Shows max sell pressure	Verifiable on-chain (Transparent) Shows float Low CS/TS % shows supply overhang SEC guidelines call for disclosure of insider/treasury allocations
Cons	Inflates market cap & rank Assumes unlocks are sold immediately Self-reported business plan May not correspond to onchain reality if business plans change 0.00462% industry coverage (~600/13M coins)	Implementation challenges Evasion by projects results in inconsistency Infrastructure constraints

Is there a need for different metrics?

UCS, CS, TRS, and float % are complementary metrics
1. UCS represents the maximum sell pressure (that may not have been realised)
2. TRS shows the project’s business plan
3. CS represents the float that generally reflects the on-chain reality
  1. Float % is a good gauge of incremental sell pressure
    1. Higher float % → less supply overhang (BTC, ETH) → Safer
    2. Lower float % → more supply overhang → Riskier

Note: Specialist token unlock sites like tokenomist, dropstab, and cryptorank all report CS and UCS as separate metrics. Cryptorank ranks cryptoassets by CS-derived market cap.

Projects have perverse incentives to exploit UCS-derived market cap to maximise visibility

Using UCS to calculate ranked market cap can only work if all projects operate in good faith.
Since CMC’s inception, 80% of traffic has been on the CMC homepage (CMC top 100).
With ~14M tokens, visibility on the CMC homepage can help one stand out.
Projects, therefore, have every incentive to inflate their ranked market cap to attract users.
Does not scale as a ranking mechanism for the broader industry (14M tokens)
1. TRS is harder to maintain since it is a business plan that may change
2. TRS data only covers 0.00462% of all coins (~600/13M).

How to exploit the use of UCS to calculate ranked market cap to maximise visibility

Total Supply = 1,000,000,000
Price = $10
Locked tokens = 950,000,000
Current Market Cap = (1,000,000,000 - 950,000,000) * $10 = $0.5B
A few days later, the project unlocks all tokens.
Unlocked Market Cap (using UCS): 1,000,000,000 * $10 = $10B

UCS makes it much easier for projects to manipulate ranked market cap
1. Issue a coin with a high total supply
2. Allocate 95% of supply to insiders → 5% public float → Easy to manipulate price
3. Trade it at a high price on ~2 exchanges
4. Unlock everything to inflate rank

MANTRA ($OM) Case Study

$OM saw a 95% red candle in <1 hr caused by whale/insider dumping. Given the magnitude of the dump, analysts contend that this is likely due to the float being inflated due to the project using UCS.

Melania Token Case Study

1. Vesting schedule states an initial lock-up period of 30 days.
2. TGE date: 20 Jan 2025 (GMT+8)
3. 1st unlock date = TGE (20 Jan 2025) + 30 days = 19 Feb 2025
  1. 20 Jan 2025: 85% of the supply was held in one wallet
  2. 31 Jan 2025: Supply was moved multiple times before the first unlock date (19 Feb 2025)
    2. Conclusion: All tokens are unlocked since they can still be moved freely.
  3. Since all tokens can be moved, the entire supply is unlocked.
  4. Does that mean that CS = TS = MS = 1B $MELANIA?
  5. No - The industry consensus has been to exclude all team/insider allocations from CS.
    1. As of 31 Jan 2025, most data sites report CS and UCS as distinct metrics.
    2. Users are able to estimate supply overhang (incremental sell pressure) by calculating the delta between CS and TS and/or UCS).

If one were to apply Cambridge's definition strictly, the word 'circulating' entails movement.

Air circulates.
News circulates.
Blood circulates.

Just as blood circulates through the body to deliver nutrients and oxygen, the CS of a cryptoasset moves through the crypto economy, providing liquidity and enabling transactions.

1. The concept of "actual flows" in circulating supply is a useful ideal due to:
  1. Liquidity: Just as blood flow ensures proper organ function, a healthy circulation of tokens ensures market liquidity, making it easier for investors to buy and sell.
  2. Price discovery: The movement of tokens through the system, like blood through capillaries, helps in efficient price discovery and valuation of the asset.
  3. Network health & Active Participation: Active circulation of tokens, analogous to blood flow, indicates a healthy and active ecosystem.