HostGNS vs SQD — price, size and safety, side by side
GNS (Arbitrum) vs SQD (Arbitrum) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-10-17 / 2026-10-17.
GNS vs SQD — normalized performance, 2026-09-21 to 2026-10-17T03:15:24
| GNS | SQD | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.4578 | $0.02156 |
| Market cap | $11.60M | $37.76M |
| 24h volume | $21.37K DEX | $42.85K DEX |
| Liquidity | $213.78K | $192.69K |
| FDV | $8.18M | $38.30M |
| Holders | 14,134 | 17,087 |
| Age (days) | 832 | 824 |
| Safety grade | D | D |
Where they differ
- SQD measures ~3.3× the market cap of GNS
- SQD measures ~2.0× the 24h volume of GNS
- over the shared window GNS moved +3.75% while SQD moved −22.5%
What the data says
GNS
GNS at 0x18c11fd286c5ec11c3b683caa813b77f5163a122 is the Gains Network token on Arbitrum — the asset of a decentralized leverage-trading platform, 832 days into its record at the October 6, 2026 snapshot. 14,134 holders share the book around a $11.6 million market cap, against a $8.2 million fully-diluted figure that sits below the cap — an unusual inversion reflecting a circulating float larger than the measured local supply basis of 16.7 million units.
The D grade is earned on the contract side: mint authority is still active and new supply can be minted. Freeze authority is revoked, and it is not a proxy. The ten largest wallets hold 56.7% of supply. $213.8 thousand of workable tracked depth sees $22.6 thousand of daily volume.
SQD
SQD at 0x1337420ded5adb9980cfc35f8f2b054ea86f8ab1 — Subsquid — is the Arbitrum deployment of the blockchain data-network token, 809 days into its record at the October 6, 2026 snapshot. The $37.8 million market cap prices nearly all of the $38.3 million fully-diluted figure on 1.3 billion units — the float is essentially out.
The book is thin for the cap: $192.7 thousand of tracked depth on $14.9 thousand of 24-hour volume — a held-token profile. Contract-level controls were not assessed in this snapshot.
FAQ
Which is bigger, GNS or SQD?
By tracked market cap: GNS (Arbitrum) measures $11.60M and SQD (Arbitrum) measures $37.76M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, GNS or SQD?
On the contract checks we publish: GNS (Arbitrum) grades D and SQD (Arbitrum) grades D. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have GNS and SQD performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-21 and 2026-10-17T03:15:24, the measured snapshots show GNS at +3.75% and SQD at −22.5%.
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→2026-10-17T03:15:24; 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.