How to Verify Circulating Supply on CoinMarketCap

What does circulating supply mean on CoinMarketCap?

Circulating supply is a data provider’s assessment of how many units of a token are available in the market. For a CoinMarketCap profile, a project should be ready to explain the figure with a consistent calculation and evidence, rather than treating the number on its own as proof.

Start by defining the token and the point in time your records describe. Then reconcile the issued supply with the allocations you say are not circulating. Depending on the project’s token structure, these may include locked allocations, unvested team or investor tokens, treasury holdings that are not available to the public, and tokens sent to a provably unspendable address. Do not exclude an allocation simply because the project prefers a lower figure; state why it is unavailable and show how that status is established.

A useful check is whether an independent reviewer could follow the calculation from the stated total to the reported circulating amount without relying on an undocumented assumption. That clarity also gives readers and AI search systems a consistent source to interpret. If the listing itself is not yet in place, see our guide to getting listed on CoinMarketCap; for a dedicated document and calculation review, visit circulating supply verification.

Which documents should you prepare for a supply review?

Prepare evidence that connects token terms, wallet balances, and your circulating-supply calculation. The strongest submission lets a reviewer trace each figure to a source and understand why a balance is included or excluded.

Gather these materials before drafting the explanation:

• The token contract address and the relevant chain explorer links.
• Current total and circulating supply figures, with the calculation date clearly stated.
• A wallet schedule showing each material address, its balance, its label, and its proposed treatment.
• Token allocation records, including vesting terms, lock schedules, treasury policy, and any relevant agreements.
• Evidence for burns or other permanently unavailable units, with the address and transaction history that support the claim.
• A short methodology note explaining how you handle unlocked allocations, project-controlled wallets, and any supply changes.

Use the project’s own signed or published records where available, and make sure they agree with the on-chain data. If a label is based on a contract or allocation document rather than a public address label, identify that basis. A document that says “locked” is not enough by itself if it does not identify the wallet or explain the restriction. Keep the originals and provide an organized index so the reviewer can move from each claim to its evidence.

How do you reconcile wallet balances with the supply calculation?

Reconcile supply by creating one auditable bridge from the token’s issued amount to the figure you propose as circulating. The purpose is to show the treatment of every relevant balance, not just to present a final total.

Build a working schedule with a row for each relevant address or allocation. Record the address, token balance, owner or function, source of the label, restriction or availability, and treatment in your calculation. Then compare the schedule with the contract’s visible supply data and project allocation records. Investigate unexplained differences before submitting; do not use a balancing figure to make the totals agree.

For each proposed exclusion, ask:

• Can the wallet or contract be identified on-chain?
• Is the restriction still in effect, and what record supports that conclusion?
• Does the project control the balance or have a practical route to make it available?
• Is the same allocation already counted elsewhere in the reconciliation?

Record assumptions separately from confirmed facts. If a contract has changed, a vesting tranche has become available, or tokens have moved between project wallets, update the schedule and explain the change. That makes the calculation easier to review and gives the project a reliable baseline for future disclosures.

How should you present the evidence to CoinMarketCap?

Present the evidence as a compact, navigable case: proposed figure, calculation, wallet schedule, and documents that substantiate the schedule. Check CoinMarketCap’s current official submission guidance before sending materials, because the requested fields and route should come from the platform’s own instructions.

Write the explanation for a reviewer who does not know your token design. Define the terms you use, distinguish total supply from circulating supply, and state the date represented by the calculation. Link each wallet entry to its explorer record and each contractual restriction to the relevant source document. Where a file is confidential, note that clearly and ask how CoinMarketCap wants it provided rather than publishing sensitive material in a public channel.

Before submission, run a consistency pass across the profile information, token documentation, allocation table, and public project materials. Resolve differences in token names, contract addresses, or supply figures first. Keep a copy of the submitted version and note any follow-up request so that later edits do not silently change the evidence trail. For listing context beyond supply, our CoinMarketCap listing guide covers the broader preparation work, while the CoinMarketCap listing service can help organize a listing submission.

How do you keep supply information consistent after review?

Keep the calculation current whenever an event changes which tokens are available, and update the project’s public explanation to match. A review-ready supply record is useful only while its assumptions remain true.

Set a clear owner for the wallet schedule and define which events trigger a refresh: a vesting release, a treasury transfer, a burn, a token migration, or a change to a lock arrangement. After an event, reconcile balances again and preserve the prior version with its date and evidence. Do not overwrite the old calculation without noting what changed; a simple change log helps the team answer questions without reconstructing the history from memory.

Use the same definitions across your website, token documentation, and listing materials. If CoinMarketCap displays a figure that differs from your current records, compare the displayed value with the version you submitted and use the platform’s official support route to ask about the discrepancy. Do not claim a change has been accepted until the profile reflects it. A well-maintained source record also strengthens the consistency of the project’s AI search visibility, because public references can be checked against a clear, dated explanation rather than conflicting figures.

What can a CoinMarketCap supply review not settle?

A complete set of supporting records improves the quality of your submission, but CoinMarketCap controls how it reviews the materials and what figure it displays. Its assessment of whether units count as circulating, its follow-up requests, and the timing or outcome of a profile change are outside the project’s control; no document package can compel acceptance of a proposed figure.

That is why the project should preserve a defensible methodology even if the displayed value does not change as requested. Keep the calculation transparent, explain the specific disagreement with evidence, and avoid presenting an unconfirmed figure as platform-approved. Where a restriction is temporary or depends on project control, describe that fact plainly instead of assuming the balance will be excluded. The practical goal is a submission that can be checked, a clear record of what was provided, and a public explanation that remains accurate while the platform completes its own review.

What should you send for a supply verification review?

Send the contract address, your current supply calculation, the wallet schedule, and the records behind any proposed exclusions. With those materials, AIPromote can check whether the arithmetic, wallet labels, and written methodology tell the same story before the submission is prepared.

Our kickoff checklist identifies missing evidence first. The Source Plan then maps each claim to its supporting record, so the project team knows what to provide and where a reviewer can verify it. You receive an organized calculation and document pack, plus a clear list of unresolved questions rather than a polished but unsupported headline figure. The project team remains responsible for confirming sensitive or legally restricted material before it is shared.

If CoinMarketCap has already queried a figure, include the exact displayed value, your submitted calculation, and the platform’s message. If you are preparing a first request, send the materials in their current state; do not delay to make an incomplete record look final. Start with a supply verification review and ask for help organizing the supporting records. The next step is a focused review of your source records, followed by a concrete list of what is ready and what needs clarification.

Prices

Starting prices in USD. Custom bundles and volume discounts on request. Payment in USDT, USDC, BTC, ETH, SOL, TON or your project token.

How it works

1. Collect the source recordsShare the contract address, token terms, allocation records, wallet labels, and the calculation you currently use.
2. Reconcile the balancesMatch each material wallet to its source and document the reason for every proposed inclusion or exclusion.
3. Resolve evidence gapsFlag conflicting figures, undocumented restrictions, and assumptions that need confirmation from the project team.
4. Prepare the submission packOrganize the calculation, wallet schedule, and supporting documents around CoinMarketCap’s current official instructions.
5. Track the platform responseKeep a record of what was submitted and review any follow-up against the project’s source documents.