Crypto market cap multiplies the current token price by circulating supply. Fully diluted valuation (FDV) applies the current price to a broader supply count, often total or maximum supply depending on the provider. Read the supply definition before comparing them: neither figure measures cash invested, saleable liquidity, or the price a future token release will receive.
A token can therefore have two apparently conflicting FDV figures without either multiplication being wrong. The useful next step is to reconstruct the denominator. That also reveals whether a reported change came from price, public distribution, new issuance, a burn, or a revised classification.
Start with three supply questions
Circulating supply asks how many tokens qualify as publicly circulating under a stated methodology. It is an estimate with classification rules. CoinGecko excludes locked and vested allocations and can also exclude unlocked tokens held by a team or foundation. A token becoming technically transferable does not automatically make it circulating in that methodology. CoinGecko supply methodology.
Total supply asks how many tokens currently exist after the applicable burn adjustment. It includes issued tokens that remain outside circulation. Maximum supply asks how many tokens can exist under the asset's issuance rules and the provider's treatment of burns. Those are different questions even when a fully minted token happens to produce equal answers.
Record the definition beside each number. A future issuance allowance is different from tokens already minted into a vesting contract. Both may sit outside today's circulating supply, but only the latter belongs in today's total supply under these definitions.
Identity comes first. Confirm the chain, contract address or native asset identifier, and token units before comparing pages with matching ticker symbols. The crypto symbol mapping guide explains the broader problem of familiar labels referring to different instruments.
Check what the provider calls FDV
The provider distinction is material. In documentation reviewed on 27 October 2026, CoinMarketCap defines FDV as price multiplied by maximum supply. It separately calls price multiplied by total supply, net of burns, “Minted Market Cap.” Its maximum-supply definition is also net of verified burns. CoinMarketCap supply definitions.
CoinGecko's documentation for its valuation metrics defines FDV as current market price multiplied by total supply. That means “FDV” alone is insufficient to establish a shared denominator across providers. CoinGecko valuation definitions.
Use explicit labels in a comparison worksheet:
| Calculation | Supply count used | What to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Circulating market cap = price × circulating supply | Public circulation estimate | Excluded wallets and classification date |
| Total-supply valuation = price × total supply | Issued tokens after burn adjustments | Minted amount, burns and remaining restrictions |
| Maximum-supply valuation = price × maximum supply | Stated maximum under the chosen convention | Issuance ceiling, burn treatment and whether a finite cap exists |
When reproducing a provider's displayed FDV, use that provider's actual field definition. When comparing providers, calculate the two supply bases separately. Calling both results “fully diluted” does not make them interchangeable.
As a diagnostic, divide the displayed FDV by its matching price. The result is the implied supply count. Compare it with the documented total and maximum figures, allowing for display rounding. An unexplained difference is a reason to inspect timing and methodology before drawing a conclusion.
Recompute a fictional token through four states
The following example is entirely hypothetical. It uses one fictional token, one USD price source and exact supply counts. Initially, price is $2.40, circulating supply is 200 million, total supply is 600 million, and maximum supply is 1 billion.
For the later burn, stipulate that burned units cannot be replaced and that the effective maximum used in this worksheet decreases with those burns. This assumption is part of the fictional token's rules; it must be checked rather than imposed on a real asset.
The table reports every valuation in USD millions. Each row changes only the input described relative to the preceding row.
| State | Input change | Circulating market cap | Price × total supply | Price × effective maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: baseline | Price $2.40; circulating 200m, total 600m, maximum 1,000m | 480 | 1,440 | 2,400 |
| B: public distribution | 60m previously issued tokens enter recognized circulation; price unchanged | 624 | 1,440 | 2,400 |
| C: new price observation | Price becomes $1.80; all supply counts unchanged | 468 | 1,080 | 1,800 |
| D: treasury burn | 40m noncirculating tokens burned; total becomes 560m and effective maximum 960m | 468 | 1,008 | 1,728 |
At baseline, market cap is $2.40 × 200m = $480m. A total-supply valuation is $2.40 × 600m = $1,440m; a maximum-supply valuation is $2.40 × 1,000m = $2,400m. One price produces three values because each multiplication counts a different set of tokens.
State B assumes both a distribution and recognition as circulating under the chosen methodology. It is more specific than an unlock date alone. Circulating supply rises 30%, so market cap rises 30%, from $480 million to $624 million, despite an unchanged price. No tokens are minted, and neither broader supply valuation changes. The $144 million increase in market cap does not establish that $144 million entered the market.
In state C, price falls 25%, from $2.40 to $1.80. Market cap is now $1.80 × 260m = $468m, only 2.5% below the original $480 million. A chart showing market cap alone would obscure the larger token-price decline because its supply multiplier changed between A and C.
State D burns treasury inventory that was already excluded from circulation. At the stipulated unchanged price, market cap stays $468 million. Total-supply valuation falls to $1.80 × 560m = $1,008m, while the effective-maximum valuation becomes $1.80 × 960m = $1,728m. A smaller denominator has changed the ratios; the example has not modeled a change in demand or predicted a price response.
Read the ratio as a supply comparison
For a positive matching price and supply denominator, price cancels from the ratio: market cap / FDV = circulating supply / FDV supply. That identity requires the same token, quote currency, price and observation basis on both sides.
At baseline, the maximum-supply version is 200m / 1,000m = 20%. The total-supply version is 200m / 600m = 33.33%, rounded. A report describing the token as “20% circulating” and another showing a 33.33% market-cap-to-FDV ratio may simply use different supply bases.
Neither percentage gives a return forecast. The inverse of 20% is five, but that does not imply fivefold price upside. It describes the relationship between two token counts. Nor does the remaining 80% establish how much will be sold next month: the number contains no release schedule, holder behavior or demand curve.
Watch for a second hidden assumption in dilution calculators. Holding baseline market cap fixed at $480 million after circulation reaches 260 million produces $480m / 260m ≈ $1.8462 per token, a 23.08% decline from $2.40. That is correct algebra conditional on fixed market cap. It becomes a forecast only by assuming the very outcome the calculation was supposed to investigate.
Handle the cases that break simple comparisons
An unlocked team allocation may remain outside a provider's circulating count. CoinMarketCap explicitly distinguishes circulating supply from unlocked supply. Preserve the unlock schedule as separate evidence and check the wallet classification before adding the release to circulating supply. CoinMarketCap circulating versus unlocked supply.
A burn can also be counted twice. If a reported total already excludes a verified burn, subtracting that burn again understates supply. Determine whether the starting field is gross minted units or an already adjusted total. For maximum supply, verify whether replacement issuance is possible and which convention the provider applies.
Some assets have no predetermined finite maximum. An absent maximum-supply value should remain unresolved or not applicable in a maximum-based calculation; replacing it with zero creates a meaningless zero valuation. A total-supply valuation can still be calculated if its inputs are known. CoinGecko's maximum-supply definition.
Multichain totals require another check. Adding locked source-chain tokens to the wrapped units representing them can count the same economic units twice. CoinGecko's FAQ treats native multichain issuance differently from lock-and-mint bridging; its lock-and-mint rule uses source-chain total supply. Check the actual bridge mechanism before aggregating chain balances. CoinGecko multichain supply treatment.
Finally, market cap does not measure the cash invested in a token or the quantity that can be sold near the displayed price. CoinGecko makes both limitations explicit in its market-cap explanation. Order-book or pool conditions need their own analysis. The same distinction appears in stablecoin supply versus liquidity.
Keep a valuation worksheet you can reproduce
Use this record for each asset and observation. Retain source responses or captures as well as links, because a live page can later change.
| Worksheet field | Evidence or acceptance check |
|---|---|
| Asset identity and units | Chain, contract or native identifier; all quantities expressed in token units |
| Observation | Provider, capture time, price time and supply effective time where available |
| Price | Value, quote currency and provider's price definition |
| Circulating supply | Count, source, excluded allocations and verification status |
| Total and maximum supply | Separate counts, burn adjustments, issuance assumptions and missing values |
| FDV basis | Exact denominator specified by the provider; recomputed price × supply |
| Change explanation | Price change, distribution, mint, burn or classification revision supported by evidence |
If the numbers do not reconcile, first check for mixed timestamps, rounded displays, different token identities and inconsistent supply definitions. Do not silently average conflicting counts. The data provenance guide explains how to preserve the specific inputs behind a derived claim.
A token valuation also cannot describe every position containing that token. For a liquidity-provider position, impermanent loss compared with holding requires a separate comparison of position quantities and value. A market-cap-to-FDV ratio does not perform that accounting.
Write one complete sentence beside the finished comparison: “At this time, this provider used this price, this circulating count and this FDV supply definition.” If any part lacks evidence, mark the comparison unverified and identify the missing field.