HostCTM vs 龙虾 — price, size and safety, side by side
CTM (Ethereum) vs 龙虾 (BNB Chain) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-10-16 / 2026-10-17.
CTM vs 龙虾 — normalized performance, 2026-09-21 to 2026-10-16T21:15:32
| CTM | 龙虾 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.2128 | $0.02842 |
| Market cap | — | $43.87M |
| 24h volume | $2.08M DEX | $6.76M DEX |
| Liquidity | $1.44M | $1.16M |
| FDV | $69.11M | $43.87M |
| Holders | 4,989 | 92,257 |
| Age (days) | 189 | 224 |
| Safety grade | B | A |
Where they differ
- 龙虾 measures ~3.2× the 24h volume of CTM
- 龙虾 measures ~18× the holder count of CTM
- over the shared window CTM moved −18.1% while 龙虾 moved −89.0%
What the data says
CTM
c8ntinuum (CTM) is a small-cap multi-chain protocol token whose contract 0xc8fb80fcc03f699c70ff0cc08c09106288888888 is deliberately vanity-shaped — the trailing 888888 is part of the address, not a typo. Our October 9, 2026 read shows $1.4 million of tracked pool liquidity, which is real depth for a token at this profile.
The honest note: at this scale, everything hinges on whether the protocol ships and sustains — the liquidity is present, but the holder base and the revenue surface are what to check before treating it as more than a speculative position.
龙虾
The token at 0xeccbb861c0dda7efd964010085488b69317e4444 — tickered 龙虾 ("lobster") — is a BNB Chain community asset 206 days into its record at the October 9, 2026 snapshot, priced at a $43.9 million market cap across a 1.0 billion supply.
The book is thin for a quarter-billion float: $1.2 million of tracked depth on $6.8 million of 24-hour volume — a tape cycling nearly three times the pool daily. That profile — high cap, thin measured book, heavy turnover — is the one where the pool number matters most, because it bounds what an on-chain exit of any size can actually clear. Contract-level controls were not assessed in this snapshot.
FAQ
Which is bigger, CTM or 龙虾?
By tracked market cap: CTM (Ethereum) measures — and 龙虾 (BNB Chain) measures $43.87M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, CTM or 龙虾?
On the contract checks we publish: CTM (Ethereum) grades B and 龙虾 (BNB Chain) grades A. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have CTM and 龙虾 performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-21 and 2026-10-16T21:15:32, the measured snapshots show CTM at −18.1% and 龙虾 at −89.0%.
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, 2026-09-21→2026-10-16T21:15:32; 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.