Circulating supply verification for CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko

What does circulating supply verification cover?

Circulating supply verification establishes how a project arrived at the figure it reports and which token balances it treats as circulating. It is a documentation exercise as much as a calculation: reviewers need to understand the boundaries, sources, and assumptions behind the number.

A useful review separates balances by status rather than presenting one unexplained total. Depending on the token design, relevant categories may include tokens available to the public, locked allocations, unvested team or investor allocations, treasury balances, emissions, and provably burned tokens. Each category needs a stated treatment and supporting evidence.

For a founder, the practical test is whether another person can follow the calculation from source records to the reported figure. We compare your explanation with the token’s published allocation and unlock information, then flag gaps or mismatches before preparing platform materials. If the underlying arithmetic or categorization is unclear, resolving that comes before submission.

For broader listing support, see CoinMarketCap listing and CoinGecko listing. This service focuses specifically on circulating supply; it does not replace a full listing application or tokenomics review.

How do you build a reviewable supply calculation?

A reviewable calculation begins with a consistent definition of what is circulating, then traces each included or excluded balance to a source. The project should be able to explain why a balance belongs in a category and how that category affects the reported figure.

We start by collecting the token contract details, current supply information, allocation schedule, vesting or lock records, treasury wallet information, burn evidence, and any existing public supply statements. We then map each item to the calculation. If a wallet has more than one role, its purpose and treatment should be explicit rather than inferred from its label.

Before submission, check that the arithmetic can be recreated, that the reporting date is clear, and that the same figure appears consistently in materials the project controls. An allocation spreadsheet alone is not enough if it does not reconcile to on-chain balances or explain exclusions. Where data is incomplete, we identify the missing evidence and request it from the relevant internal owner.

Teams comparing approaches can use our guide to supply verification as a preparation reference. It helps founders distinguish the supply figure itself from the supporting explanation a platform reviewer may need.

How does supply verification on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap work?

For CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap, supply verification means preparing a platform-facing explanation and evidence package that corresponds to the project’s token data. The practical work is to make the calculation understandable, provide relevant records, and answer follow-up questions without changing the underlying story between submissions.

We prepare each submission for its intended destination rather than assuming one form or evidence set serves both. The package can include a concise methodology, a category-by-category reconciliation, relevant wallet or contract references, allocation and vesting documents, and links to public disclosures. The exact materials depend on what the project can substantiate and what the platform requests.

If you are already pursuing a wider profile update, keep the supply explanation aligned with the project description and token details used in your CoinGecko listing or CoinMarketCap listing. A discrepancy between submitted materials is easier to resolve before sending than after a reviewer asks which version is authoritative.

We maintain a submission record for your team: what was prepared, which evidence was supplied, when it was sent, and what response remains outstanding. That gives founders and their operations lead a shared reference for follow-up.

What should the project prepare before the review?

The fastest way to make a supply review useful is to provide source records alongside the project’s current reported figure. A founder, token operations lead, or finance owner should be available to explain allocation categories and confirm which public documents are current.

Prepare the materials that apply to your token:

• Contract address and chain, plus a current source for total supply and relevant balances.
• Allocation breakdown with the definitions used for each category.
• Vesting, lock, emissions, and unlock schedules, including their current status.
• Treasury and other controlled wallet references with an explanation of their role.
• Burn evidence and the source used to determine which tokens are no longer spendable.
• Public tokenomics materials and any previous supply submission or platform correspondence.

We reconcile these against one another, identify gaps, and ask the project to resolve factual questions before drafting. If records are held by different teams, designate one person to confirm the authoritative version. This avoids parallel edits and makes it easier to keep later submissions consistent. If you have also changed a contract or project identity, coordinate the supply work with the relevant migration and rebranding update so the records describe the same token and project.

What does the service deliver, and how long does it take?

The service delivers a checked supply calculation, an evidence-backed explanation, and prepared platform materials for the agreed scope. Work moves from record collection to reconciliation, drafting, and submission support; the calendar depends on how complete the source records are and whether the project can resolve open questions promptly.

Your workstream can include:

• An initial review of the current figure and the project’s stated methodology.
• A reconciliation of the supplied allocation, wallet, lock, and burn evidence.
• A written list of inconsistencies, missing records, and decisions for the project to confirm.
• Platform-specific submission text and an organized evidence pack.
• Support preparing responses to follow-up, plus a record of submission status.

At kickoff, we agree who provides each record, who approves the calculation, and who has authority to submit or respond for the project. We do not treat an unanswered platform request as a completed review: the project receives a clear status update and a list of actions still open. You can request how we work details if your team needs a defined review and approval path before sharing documents.

What can the platforms decide after submission?

A strong evidence package makes the project’s position easier to assess, but the platforms retain control over their review, classification, displayed supply figure, and update timing. CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko may apply their own methodologies or request further evidence, so an identical submission does not ensure identical treatment.

The project can control the quality and consistency of what it submits. Before sending, confirm that the calculation uses a stated reporting date, that exclusions are explained, and that supporting records are accessible to the reviewer. Keep copies of submitted materials and record any later change to supply, allocation, or unlock status; an earlier explanation should not be left in circulation after its assumptions change.

Our role is to make the evidence traceable, the explanation coherent, and the response process orderly. We will distinguish a confirmed fact from a project assumption in the materials, so your team can decide what it is comfortable attesting to. If you are uncertain whether a particular balance belongs in circulation, resolve the classification with the project’s responsible token or finance lead before presenting it as settled.

How it works

1. Share the current supply pictureSend the reported figure, its calculation, token allocation materials, and platform correspondence. We confirm the scope and identify the right project contact for factual questions.
2. Collect and reconcile evidenceWe map supplied records to the reported categories and check that the explanation is supported. Your team resolves missing facts or confirms how ambiguous balances are treated.
3. Approve the platform materialsWe prepare distinct submission text and supporting documents for the agreed platforms. A project owner reviews the factual statements before anything is sent.
4. Submit and track follow-upWe record the materials provided and help prepare responses to platform questions. Your team receives a clear status and any outstanding evidence requests.