HostWBTC vs LION — price, size and safety, side by side
WBTC (Ethereum) vs LION (Cronos) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-10-17 / 2026-10-17.
WBTC vs LION — normalized performance, 2026-10-09 to 2026-10-17T03:15:24
| WBTC | LION | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $81.15K | $0.001255 |
| Market cap | $9.63B | $42.48M |
| 24h volume | $185.99M DEX | $5.52K DEX |
| Liquidity | $220.70M | $1.07M |
| FDV | $9.63B | $138.47M |
| Holders | 197,266 | 10,332 |
| Age (days) | 1,583 | 585 |
| Safety grade | C | A |
Where they differ
- WBTC measures ~227× the market cap of LION
- WBTC measures ~206× the liquidity of LION
- WBTC measures ~33,714× the 24h volume of LION
- WBTC measures ~19× the holder count of LION
- over the shared window WBTC moved −2.13% while LION moved −9.33%
What the data says
WBTC
WBTC is the original wrapped Bitcoin — the ERC-20 that put BTC on Ethereum's DeFi rails in 2019, custodied by BitGo with a mint-and-burn pipeline run through KYC'd merchants. The deployment 0x2260fac5e5542a773aa44fbcfedf7c193bc2c599 is the canonical mint, one of the oldest contract addresses in DeFi; our October 9, 2026 snapshot reads $220.7 million of tracked pool liquidity on this pair set — a slice of a float that spans every major venue.
The honest frame is unchanged since launch: holding WBTC means trusting BitGo's custody — the reserve is attested and the mint pipeline is transparent, but the claim is institutional, not cryptographic. Coinbase's cbBTC arrived as the regulated-competitor answer; the two trade the same BTC exposure with different custodians, and the depth split between them is the market's live verdict on whose custody it prefers.
LION
LION gets the fundamentals right where it counts most: the contract itself. The contract cannot mint new supply, so the float can't be diluted, and it can't pause transfers or blacklist wallets either, so your tokens stay yours to move and sell. Neither lever existing is the main reason LION's 100/100 comes down to market factors, not contract ones (2026-10-09).
Looking at the market data, LION shows $1.07M of on-chain liquidity, a holder base of 10,332 and an established 585-day history as of 2026-10-09. Against a market cap of about $42.48M, the $1.07M pool is workable rather than deep — fine for ordinary size to move in and out, though a larger position would start to feel the pool's edges. The 10,332-wallet base is a reasonable spread of ownership, though a headline count doesn't show whether a few wallets dominate — the concentration read on this page speaks to that. Reassuringly, the wallet that created LION holds under 5% of supply (<0.01%) as of 2026-10-09 — the deployer hasn't kept an oversized stake to unload.
FAQ
Which is bigger, WBTC or LION?
By tracked market cap: WBTC (Ethereum) measures $9.63B and LION (Cronos) measures $42.48M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, WBTC or LION?
On the contract checks we publish: WBTC (Ethereum) grades C and LION (Cronos) grades A. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have WBTC and LION performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-10-09 and 2026-10-17T03:15:24, the measured snapshots show WBTC at −2.13% and LION at −9.33%.
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, 2026-10-09→2026-10-17T03:15:24; 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.