HostGULD vs CRD — price, size and safety, side by side
GULD (Ethereum) vs CRD (Base) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-09-17T20:24:07 / 2026-09-17T20:24:07.
GULD vs CRD — normalized performance, 2026-09-14 to 2026-09-17T20:24:07
| GULD | CRD | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.02103 | $2.13K |
| Market cap | — | — |
| 24h volume | $1.09M | $4.03B |
| Liquidity | $1.80M | $1.99B |
| FDV | — | — |
| Holders | — | — |
| Age (days) | 124 | 1 |
| Safety grade | B | B |
Where they differ
- CRD measures ~1,100× the liquidity of GULD
- CRD measures ~3,686× the 24h volume of GULD
What the data says
GULD
GULD is a gold-themed Ethereum token — the name suggests the same tokenized-gold ambition as PAXG's class, at a fraction of the depth. The contract 0x14d6c649292c5c9790c5196d1a9ea039307947a1 carries September 14, 2026 snapshot liquidity of $1.8 million.
The honest caveat for the name: gold branding on a token proves nothing about gold backing — PAXG's claim is a regulated NYDFS trust with LBMA vaults; a small "gold" token's claim is whatever its issuer says it is. Whether GULD is a genuine metal-backed asset or a theme coin trading on the ticker is exactly what the contract and issuer checks exist to resolve.
CRD
Four billion dollars is what CRD's venue feed claimed the token traded in a single day — on August 19, 2026, when Cirudu was approximately one day old. Put that figure next to the rest of the same snapshot: about $1.99 billion in claimed liquidity, a recorded market capitalization of zero, and no holder count at all. For scale, four billion dollars of daily turnover is what entire major exchanges do; a nameless day-old Base token reporting it while having no measurable owners is describing something that cannot exist. The parsimonious explanation is reported-figure inflation — trading volume manufactured against the token's own pools so that listing feeds repeat impressive numbers.
This page's honest scope: HostDeFi's EVM snapshot grades market structure from those very venue feeds, which is why the incoherence above is the most valuable output the capture produced. The contract itself — mint powers, owner functions, transfer taxes, honeypot mechanics at 0x95735d3f68d045c942afb9ea1090f6b03150bfab — was not assessed in this snapshot, and with a token in this category, the contract is where the actual answer lives. Run the live scan above; it reads the chain, not the feed.
FAQ
Which is bigger, GULD or CRD?
By tracked market cap: GULD (Ethereum) measures — and CRD (Base) measures — — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, GULD or CRD?
On the contract checks we publish: GULD (Ethereum) grades B and CRD (Base) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have GULD and CRD performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-14 and 2026-09-17T20:24:07, the measured snapshots show GULD at 0.00% and CRD at 0.00%.
More comparisons
GULD vs RYYGULD vs FKBGULD vs RDKGULD vs CCVCRD vs RYYCRD vs FKBCRD vs RDKCRD vs CCV
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, 2026-09-14→2026-09-17T20:24:07; 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.