HostRAD vs WM — price, size and safety, side by side
RAD (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.
RAD vs WM — normalized performance, 2026-10-06 to 2026-10-16T21:15:32
| RAD | WM | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.2889 | $1.0000 |
| Market cap | $20.29M | $82.04M |
| 24h volume | $2.16M DEX | $26.37K DEX |
| Liquidity | $1.18M | $1.01M |
| FDV | $34.34M | $76.48M |
| Holders | 8,022 | 322 |
| Age (days) | 1,821 | 744 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- WM measures ~4.0× the market cap of RAD
- RAD measures ~82× the 24h volume of WM
- RAD measures ~25× the holder count of WM
- over the shared window RAD moved −15.9% while WM moved −0.06%
What the data says
RAD
Where a lot of tokens leave a door open, RAD has closed both. The contract holds no mint power, so the supply stays honest and predictable, and no wallet can be blacklisted either, so no one can hold your tokens in place. It's a reassuring starting point: 100/100 as of 2026-10-09, with the structural risks already off the table.
Market-wise, RAD carries a $1.18M pool, 8,022 wallets holding and 1,821 days old as of 2026-10-09. Against roughly $20.29M in market cap, the $1.18M of liquidity is genuinely healthy: deep enough that ordinary trades clear cleanly, which is exactly what you want to see. 8,022 holders is a decent base; just remember the number alone doesn't reveal how much the top wallets control, so weigh it with the concentration figure. Reassuringly, the wallet that created RAD holds under 5% of supply (<0.01%) as of 2026-10-09 — the deployer hasn't kept an oversized stake to unload.
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, RAD or WM?
By tracked market cap: RAD (Ethereum) measures $20.29M and WM (Ethereum) measures $82.04M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, RAD or WM?
On the contract checks we publish: RAD (Ethereum) grades A and WM (Ethereum) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have RAD and WM performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-10-06 and 2026-10-16T21:15:32, the measured snapshots show RAD at −15.9% 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.