FDV vs market cap: what do token supply and unlocks tell you?

Does a low crypto price mean a low valuation?

No. A token’s unit price must be multiplied by its defined supply before valuation comparisons become meaningful. Hypothetically, one trillion units at $0.001 imply $1 billion under that denominator; one million units at $100 imply $100 million. Neither calculation measures token rights, cash flow or executable sale proceeds.

The table retains September 26, 2026 CoinGecko prices and both supply denominators for APT, ENA and SUI; October 3 updates the explanation, not those observations. Compare price alongside circulating capitalization and this edition’s maximum-denominator FDV. Use full-precision inputs for arithmetic, not rounded float percentages.

A missing or disputed maximum is unknown, not zero. Do not combine another provider’s supply field with this provider’s price without stating the changed definition and time. A cheap-looking unit can coexist with a large supply valuation and weak holder rights.

Verify: Original full-precision supply observations

What is the simplest hypothetical dilution calculation?

For a clearly defined supply and value scenario, price ratio equals aggregate-value ratio divided by tradable-supply ratio. If the relevant supply rises 10% while aggregate value is constant, price becomes 1/1.10 of the prior price: a 9.09% decline, not 10%. If both rise 10%, price is unchanged. The table is arithmetic, not an observed unlock experiment.

Choose the supply variable before calculating. Vesting eligibility, escrow release, provider-reported circulation and tokens on an exchange are different quantities. A treasury transfer does not establish selling; an expected release may affect price before its date. The scenario is useful for checking assumptions, not estimating the amount recipients will sell or the size of the eventual price move.

An APT, SUI or ENA application therefore needs its own beneficiary, schedule, transfer and demand evidence. The three frozen valuation rows cannot provide a common “unlock causes this return” coefficient; project activity also does not automatically create cash flow to token holders.

Which token-unlock facts should you verify before a holding decision?

Verify the exact token, beneficiary, transfer restriction, dated release window and source confidence before comparing a potential release with float or turnover. Those ratios prioritize the size of the question; current depth and actual transfer/sale evidence are still needed to discuss execution or sell pressure.

Do not give “high FDV” or “high current float” a universal buy/sell grade. Demand growth can coexist with high FDV, and concentrated holders or weak rights can coexist with high float. Preserve the dated snapshot and separate three clocks: provider valuation, planned release and observed trading. If a critical source disagrees, resolve the definition before using a precise ratio.

Verify: Distinguish vesting, escrow and circulation in the unlock calendar · Inspect current crypto buying and selling pressure

What do the SUI, APT and ENA FDV examples actually show?

The recorded CoinGecko values imply SUI's $1.17 price × 4.0965 billion circulating units ≈ $4.793 billion circulating market cap, versus $1.17 × 10 billion maximum units = $11.70 billion FDV. APT's reported float ratio was 41.47%; ENA's was 67.30%. Their different prices, token rights and liquidity mean the float ratio cannot rank them as investments by itself.

A maximum-minus-circulating number is not a dated unlock. It may include allocations with different conditions, already-unlocked holdings outside the provider's circulation classification, or supply definitions that can change. The right next question is: which specific class becomes transferable, under which rule, and how large is that class relative to actual market liquidity?

Verify: Public row-level calculations · CoinGecko market-data field definitions

How do you calculate FDV, market cap and the float ratio consistently?

Use one named price and supplier definition: circulating market cap = price × circulating units; this edition’s FDV = the same price × reported maximum units; float ratio = circulating/maximum. These are consistent arithmetic comparisons, not independent estimates of intrinsic value or the amount sellable at that price.

SUI’s frozen $1.17 × 10 billion reported maximum gives $11.7 billion FDV, whereas its circulating denominator gives about $4.793 billion. The table’s legacy ‘Unreleased-to-current-float’ label means only (maximum − circulating)/circulating: it does not verify that those units are locked, unreleased or about to be sold. Other suppliers can use a different diluted base; inspect the field definition before comparing their labels.

Verify: Alternative provider supply definitions

Do token unlocks dilute holders or automatically make price fall?

A contractual or administrative unlock may make previously restricted tokens transferable. The effect on tradable float depends on whether those units were already counted as circulating, who receives them, whether they move, and whether buyers absorb the supply. Price also changes with demand and wider market conditions; the unlock date is not a deterministic sell signal.

The site's 180-day calendar distinguishes dated plans from broad interval forecasts and from events with no confirmed token amount. XRP escrow eligibility, SUI projected circulation and contributor vesting are different mechanisms. Do not sum gross XRP escrow eligibility as new issuance, and do not turn SUI's monthly circulation projection into an exact-day exchange sale.

Verify: CoinNudge 180-day unlock calendar · Sui Foundation supply schedule

How do the SUI, APT and ENA denominator gaps differ from scheduled unlocks?

The SUI, APT and ENA supply gaps are comparable arithmetic stocks under the same frozen September 26, 2026 CoinGecko definition—not comparable scheduled unlocks. Maximum minus circulating counts units outside that provider field; it does not establish whether they are locked, already transferable, held by an issuer or about to be sold. The ratio to reported current circulation sizes a verification question, not next-month supply flow.

The issuer mechanisms differ: Sui publishes projected circulating supply, Aptos documents allocation vesting and staking emissions, and Ethena describes contributor and ecosystem allocations. Later Aptos proposals do not become enacted rules merely because a provider maximum field exists. For a specific holding question, check the current governing schedule, beneficiary, restriction and actual transfers; do not interpret these three stocks as three identical 180-day releases or as measured selling pressure.

Verify: Frozen three-coin supplier fields and arithmetic · Sui official supply schedule · Aptos official tokenomics overview · Aptos later tokenomics update; check proposal status · Ethena official ENA allocation and vesting

How sensitive is the dilution scenario to demand and supply assumptions?

Changing the aggregate-value assumption changes the answer as much as changing supply. In the hypothetical +25% supply table, unchanged value gives −20% price, value +25% gives unchanged price, and value +50% gives +20% price. These sensitivities show why a supply calendar alone cannot forecast returns.

The identity is price = circulating market value/circulating units; the price-change ratio is (new value/old value)/(new units/old units) − 1. It does not establish a causal relationship between an unlock and investor demand. Provider circulation may not equal exchange-available float, recipients may hold, and quoted depth can be much smaller than headline capitalization.

The September 26 provider-defined maximum-minus-circulating stock was 144.11% of current circulating units for SUI, 141.16% for APT and 48.58% for ENA. Those theoretical stocks are not amounts scheduled over the next 180 days. Compare specific official tranches with actual market conditions; recipient selling remains unobserved here.

Verify: Dated supply inputs and ratios · Planned unlock events with source links

Does a higher circulating percentage make one crypto coin safer than another?

No. A float percentage becomes informative only alongside the beneficiary schedule, ownership, token rights and executable liquidity. A slow dispersed release and a concentrated near-term team cliff can have the same provider float ratio but represent different research questions.

In the frozen three-token snapshot, APT and SUI have similar float ratios yet different capitalization and supply mechanisms; ENA’s larger ratio does not establish lower risk or a better return. Use the table to identify missing evidence in each project rather than rank them solely by FDV. No absorption probability or real-sale impact is estimated by this dataset.

Verify: Official Sui supply forecast · CoinNudge market liquidity research

What if max supply, market cap and FDV are missing or disagree?

Keep unavailable fields missing and reconcile definitions before producing a ratio. Check the asset identifier, observation time, currency, price source and whether “diluted supply” means maximum, total or an estimate. Recomputing a provider’s displayed valuation with a different denominator can create an apparent error that is really a definition mismatch.

If the token has no credible finite maximum, this edition’s price-times-maximum comparison cannot be applied without a separately named assumption. If supply or the governing schedule conflicts across sources, retain both dated versions and mark the field unresolved. Do not replace the unknown with zero, select whichever FDV looks cheaper or present a provider revision as an actual sale.

Verify: CoinGecko price and supply field definitions · Frozen CoinGecko source rows used in this comparison

What is the exact supply data method and its limitation?

The case freezes one September 26 CoinGecko /coins/markets response for SUI, APT and ENA. We compute the formulas above from its current_price, circulating_supply and max_supply fields without filling nulls or changing provider. The original provider response, computed JSON, row-level CSV, code contract and SHA-256 manifest are available. Price and supply are a single provider snapshot, not a time-series performance test; there is no confidence interval or causal unlock result to claim.

The three assets were chosen to demonstrate differing float ratios and official-document follow-up, not sampled to estimate what proportion of crypto is low-float. Vendor classifications can differ, official plans change, and an exact circulation census may not be independently available. Re-query source timestamps before using any number after this publication date.

Verify: Frozen source response · Recalculated JSON · Row-level CSV · Release file hashes

How do you turn FDV research into a verifiable tokenomics review?

Create a dated review that separates valuation stock, planned transfer eligibility, observed distribution and executable liquidity. The output should say what is verified, what is only an issuer/provider statement and what remains unknown; it should not turn a single FDV number into an entry signal.

For each unresolved supply question, name the official schedule, deployed restriction or market observation needed next. Recheck when the issuer revises its plan or actual transfers appear, retaining the original snapshot. The 180-day calendar can locate planned events; it neither establishes that they execute nor proves the recipients sell.

Frequently asked questions

Sources and verification

• CoinGecko markets API documentationProvider definitions for price and supply fields.
• Frozen CoinGecko responseExactly the three provider rows used here.
• Recomputed comparison JSONFormulas, results, version and hashes.
• Sui Foundation supply scheduleOfficial planned circulation and allocation context, not verified sale activity.
• Aptos official tokenomics and later updateAllocation and emissions context; proposed changes must not be treated as enacted without verification.
• Ethena official ENA launch and vestingIssuer-described allocations and vesting, not a current exchange-sale record.
• Supply-metric definitionsAlternative definitions show why an FDV denominator must be named; this page uses CoinGecko's maximum field.
• October 2 explanatory evidence editionOriginal experiments preserved; normalized accounting, snapshots and new-study input hashes.
• October 2 readable chart editionChart file hashes and bindings to unchanged frozen numerical evidence.
• Independent October 2 arithmetic auditSeparate arithmetic, checksums and replay diagnostics; not certification of future results.

See planned releases and their evidence boundaries.

Use the scheduled unlock calendar as a starting point; verify whether a dated event actually executes.