HostJUICED vs CRD — price, size and safety, side by side
JUICED (Solana) vs CRD (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.
JUICED vs CRD — normalized performance, 2026-09-08 to 2026-09-17T23:42:29
| JUICED | CRD | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1.04 | $2.13K |
| Market cap | $57.95M | — |
| 24h volume | $1.09M | $4.03B |
| Liquidity | — | $1.99B |
| FDV | $57.95M | — |
| Holders | 3,816 | — |
| Age (days) | — | 1 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- CRD measures ~3,710× the 24h volume of JUICED
What the data says
JUICED
JUICED is the page in this cohort where honesty about limits matters most, so it leads with them: beyond the name its metadata carries, this token doesn't come with a public story our read can verify, and this page won't invent one. What the chain shows at mint 7GxATsNMnaC88vdwd2t3mwrFuQwwGvmYPrUQ4D6FotXk, per HostDeFi's September 16, 2026 snapshot: roughly $57.9 million of represented value held by 3,816 wallets, a freeze authority that reads revoked, and the value-equals-pool signature that characterizes receipt tokens — staking or yield-pool shares whose worth tracks deposits — rather than free-floating traded assets.
That signature shapes how to read everything else. A receipt token's supply expands and contracts with its pool by design, so "can supply grow?" has the same answer as for every liquid-staking token this site grades: yes, mechanically, as the product operating — with the freeze-authority check (passed here) being the one that actually protects holders. The nearly four thousand wallets holding it imply a real user base for whatever the underlying product is, not a treasury parked in a wrapper.
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, JUICED or CRD?
By tracked market cap: JUICED (Solana) measures $57.95M and CRD (Base) measures — — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, JUICED or CRD?
On the contract checks we publish: JUICED (Solana) grades A and CRD (Base) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have JUICED and CRD performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-08 and 2026-09-17T23:42:29, the measured snapshots show JUICED at +0.09% and CRD at 0.00%.
More comparisons
JUICED vs RYYJUICED vs FKBJUICED vs RDKJUICED 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, 2026-09-08→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.