HostGHO vs CCV — price, size and safety, side by side
GHO (Monad) vs CCV (Base) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-09-17T23:42:29 / 2026-09-17T23:42:29.
GHO vs CCV — normalized performance, 2026-09-15 to 2026-09-17T23:42:29
| GHO | CCV | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.9984 | $2.01K |
| Market cap | — | — |
| 24h volume | $200.80K | $2.74B |
| Liquidity | $3.99M | $1.69B |
| FDV | — | — |
| Holders | — | — |
| Age (days) | 77 | 1 |
| Safety grade | B | B |
Where they differ
- CCV measures ~425× the liquidity of GHO
- CCV measures ~13,652× the 24h volume of GHO
What the data says
GHO
GHO is Aave's answer to the question every lending market eventually asks: why should our own stablecoin pay someone else? Deposited collateral on Aave mints GHO against it, interest on GHO borrows flows back to Aave's DAO rather than a stablecoin issuer, and the peg is held by arbitrage against the lending market rather than a redemption window. The deployment at 0xfc421ad3c883bf9e7c4f42de845c4e4405799e73 is on Monad — new territory for a token that lives or dies by integration depth, and one of the first assets our index tracks there.
Our September 16, 2026 snapshot shows $4.0 million of tracked pool liquidity — real depth for a chain this young. The honest caveat: a stablecoin's worth is its peg history plus the health of the lending market behind it, and on a new chain both are short records so far. Our snapshot also did not assess this deployment's contract-level controls — the live scan is the check for 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, GHO or CCV?
By tracked market cap: GHO (Monad) measures — and CCV (Base) measures — — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, GHO or CCV?
On the contract checks we publish: GHO (Monad) grades B and CCV (Base) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have GHO and CCV performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-15 and 2026-09-17T23:42:29, the measured snapshots show GHO at −0.14% and CCV at 0.00%.
More comparisons
GHO vs RYYGHO vs FKBGHO vs CRDGHO 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, 2026-09-15→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.