Host67 vs CCV — price, size and safety, side by side
67 (Solana) vs CCV (Base) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-09-17 / 2026-09-17T23:42:29.
67 vs CCV — normalized performance, 2026-09-08 to 2026-09-17T23:42:29
| 67 | CCV | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.001509 | $2.01K |
| Market cap | $1.65M | — |
| 24h volume | $56.95K | $2.74B |
| Liquidity | $167.74K | $1.69B |
| FDV | $1.65M | — |
| Holders | 18,479 | — |
| Age (days) | — | 1 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- CCV measures ~10,101× the liquidity of 67
- CCV measures ~48,134× the 24h volume of 67
- over the shared window 67 moved −30.8% while CCV moved 0.00%
What the data says
67
67 starts from a genuinely strong place at the contract level. The mint key is burned, so the supply is capped and stays that way, and freeze has been renounced as well, so no one can hold your tokens in place. Both powers being renounced is the main reason 67's 92/100 comes down to market factors, not contract ones (2026-09-16).
By the numbers, 67 is showing $167.74K of on-chain liquidity and 18,479 holders as of 2026-09-16. The $167.74K pool stands up well to a ~$1.65M cap — depth like that means 67 absorbs normal flow without the price lurching. The 18,479-wallet base is a reasonable spread of ownership, though a headline count doesn't show whether a few wallets dominate — the concentration read on this page speaks to that.
CCV
Cucuvo belongs to a genre, and the genre is the story. Base's low fees make it one of the cheapest places in crypto to launch a token, and each week produces a wave of day-old tickers whose listing-feed numbers are tuned to catch screener sorts. CCV entered HostDeFi's records on August 19, 2026 — roughly one day after it began existing — carrying the wave's characteristic costume: about $1.69 billion in claimed liquidity and $2.74 billion in claimed daily volume, wrapped around a recorded market cap of zero and no holder count at all. Real markets earn numbers like those over years and show millions of holders doing it; this profile shows the numbers and nothing that would produce them.
The claimed figures come from venue feeds, and venue feeds report what pools tell them — including pools whose "volume" is an operator trading with themselves and whose "reserves" are valued against a price the same operator sets. Our capture graded the market shape those feeds described, which is why the grade on this page should be read as a grade of the costume, not the token. The contract at 0xedb2bbe57fe65de82039bed17d47d22c083e5609 — its mint powers, owner functions, and whether a buyer can actually sell — was not assessed in this snapshot.
FAQ
Which is bigger, 67 or CCV?
By tracked market cap: 67 (Solana) measures $1.65M and CCV (Base) measures — — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, 67 or CCV?
On the contract checks we publish: 67 (Solana) grades A and CCV (Base) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have 67 and CCV performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-08 and 2026-09-17T23:42:29, the measured snapshots show 67 at −30.8% and CCV at 0.00%.
More comparisons
67 vs RYY67 vs FKB67 vs CRD67 vs RDKCCV vs RYYCCV vs FKBCCV vs CRDCCV vs RDK
The grade column is the one CMC's compare page cannot print — our grade is computed from the contract itself (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration). Changes are measured over the shared window stated on the chart, 2026-09-08→2026-09-17T23:42:29; a token with fewer measured points measures a shorter span inside it.
Figures are dated on-chain snapshots, not a live feed. Safety grades are structural checks — not investment advice. Free · no signup · a HostDeFi product.