HostQNT vs WM — price, size and safety, side by side
QNT (Ethereum) vs WM (Ethereum) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-10-16 / 2026-10-17.
QNT vs WM — normalized performance, 2026-10-06 to 2026-10-16T21:15:32
| QNT | WM | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $200.93 | $1.0000 |
| Market cap | $3.82B | $82.04M |
| 24h volume | $1.78M DEX | $26.37K DEX |
| Liquidity | $1.17M | $1.01M |
| FDV | $11.93B | $76.48M |
| Holders | 183,572 | 322 |
| Age (days) | 600 | 744 |
| Safety grade | B | B |
Where they differ
- QNT measures ~47× the market cap of WM
- QNT measures ~67× the 24h volume of WM
- QNT measures ~570× the holder count of WM
- over the shared window QNT moved −23.6% while WM moved −0.06%
What the data says
QNT
There's one detail worth understanding before anything else on QNT. As of the 2026-10-09 read, the contract's mint function hasn't been removed, which means the team can still create new supply. Read the rest of the page with that in mind — it's why QNT is at B (75/100) as of 2026-10-09, with real room to improve.
Looking at the market data, QNT shows a $1.17M pool, 183,572 holders and an established record at 600 days as of 2026-10-09. Against a market cap near $3.82B, that $1.17M of liquidity is the real constraint here: a pool this shallow relative to the cap makes slippage, not the contract, the thing to plan around. With 183,572 holders, ownership is spread wide — the opposite of the handful-of-wallets setup that lets one seller steer the price. The creator's own position is small — <0.01% of supply as of 2026-10-09, comfortably under the 5% line the scanners flag — which is what you want to see.
WM
Wrapped M is M^0's portable institutional dollar — the bridged representation of the M stablecoin, which is itself issued against T-bill collateral under a framework designed for institutional minters. The deployment 0x437cc33344a0b27a429f795ff6b469c72698b291 is the wrapped mint on Ethereum; our October 6, 2026 snapshot reads $1.0 million of tracked pool liquidity.
The honest framing: wM is a claim on M, and M is a claim on a collateral book operated under M^0's rules — so the holder sits two layers from the T-bills, one more than a USDC holder does. The design's pitch is interoperability (M is meant to power bespoke stablecoins); the cost is that the custody chain is longer than the marketing implies.
FAQ
Which is bigger, QNT or WM?
By tracked market cap: QNT (Ethereum) measures $3.82B and WM (Ethereum) measures $82.04M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, QNT or WM?
On the contract checks we publish: QNT (Ethereum) grades B and WM (Ethereum) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have QNT and WM performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-10-06 and 2026-10-16T21:15:32, the measured snapshots show QNT at −23.6% and WM at −0.06%.
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, 2026-10-06→2026-10-16T21:15:32; 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.