HostP2P vs CCV — price, size and safety, side by side
P2P (Solana) vs CCV (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.
P2P vs CCV — normalized performance, 2026-09-08 to 2026-09-17T23:42:29
| P2P | CCV | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.4004 | $2.01K |
| Market cap | $4.79M | — |
| 24h volume | $408.69 | $2.74B |
| Liquidity | $994.01K | $1.69B |
| FDV | $10.34M | — |
| Holders | 552 | — |
| Age (days) | — | 1 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- CCV measures ~1,705× the liquidity of P2P
- CCV measures ~6,707,736× the 24h volume of P2P
What the data says
P2P
P2P is P2P Protocol's token — another MetaDAO launchpad issue, identifiable by the "meta" suffix on the mint P2PXup1ZvMpCDkJn3PQxtBYgxeCSfH39SFeurGSmeta: its treasury and issuance sit under futarchy governance. Our September 16, 2026 read shows $4.8 million market cap ($10.3 million fully diluted), $994 thousand of pool liquidity, and 552 holders.
The honest framing, bluntly: 552 holders is the number that owns this page — that is a book, not a crowd, and a small number of wallets deciding price. The mcap-to-FDV gap (under half circulating) compounds it. Small-cap rules apply at double strength.
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, P2P or CCV?
By tracked market cap: P2P (Solana) measures $4.79M and CCV (Base) measures — — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, P2P or CCV?
On the contract checks we publish: P2P (Solana) grades A and CCV (Base) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have P2P and CCV performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-08 and 2026-09-17T23:42:29, the measured snapshots show P2P at +0.12% and CCV at 0.00%.
More comparisons
P2P vs RYYP2P vs FKBP2P vs CRDP2P 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, 2026-09-08→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.