Circulating Supply Verification on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap

What does circulating supply verification cover?

Circulating supply verification establishes a reasoned, evidence-backed account of how many tokens the project reports as circulating. It is not simply a token total: the team must explain which balances are counted, which are excluded, and why those classifications fit the project’s documented arrangements.

For a reviewer, the most useful package connects a stated figure to records that can be checked. That may include contract and wallet information, vesting schedules, treasury records, burn evidence and the token allocation table. The package should also distinguish supply concepts that are often presented together but are not interchangeable, such as total supply, maximum supply and circulating supply.

This service is suitable for teams preparing a new listing profile, correcting a previously reported figure or updating supply after a material change to token allocations. It also helps teams identify gaps before submission, rather than relying on a number in a spreadsheet without a supporting explanation.

For broader listing preparation, see Listings and verification. If the underlying listing profile also needs work, our CoinGecko listing support and CoinMarketCap listing support can be coordinated with the supply review.

How does the CoinGecko supply verification process work?

The CoinGecko supply verification process starts with a clear account of the project’s token structure and the evidence available for each classification. CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap each review information through their own processes; our role is to make the project’s submission coherent, traceable and consistent with its published materials.

We first compare the proposed circulating figure with the project’s allocation and wallet records. Then we map the explanation to the relevant platform request and prepare the supporting material in a format the team can review. Where the project has already submitted information, we examine the available correspondence and identify what needs clarification or correction before further follow-up.

A sound submission should let a reviewer follow the reasoning without having to infer how balances were treated. In practice, that means using consistent labels for locked, vested, treasury and publicly available balances, and making sure figures do not conflict across the project website, token documentation and listing profiles.

This work can be paired with contract migration and rebranding updates when a contract or project identity has changed. For projects that need to address broader profile inconsistencies, listing profile remediation is a separate but complementary service.

Which records should the project prepare?

The project should be able to trace its reported figure to current records and explain the treatment of balances that are not available to the public market. We use a kickoff checklist to separate materials the client supplies from the analysis and submission materials our team prepares.

The client provides:

• Token contract details and the network or networks in scope.
• The current allocation table, including team, investor, treasury and community allocations.
• Vesting or lockup schedules, with relevant wallet addresses or supporting documents.
• Any records for burns, emissions, staking arrangements or other supply changes that affect the calculation.
• Current public disclosures and, if applicable, platform correspondence or an earlier submission.

We prepare:

• A reconciled supply worksheet that connects each classification to its source.
• A concise methodology explaining what is included and excluded, with reasons.
• A consistency review across the supplied disclosures and platform-facing materials.
• A submission-ready evidence index and a record of outstanding questions.

The checklist is a working control, not a request to publish confidential records. We flag sensitive documents for agreed handling and identify which claims need public, independently checkable support. If a balance cannot be classified confidently from the available evidence, we mark it for the client to resolve instead of quietly assigning it to a category.

How do we manage submission and quality control?

We manage the work as a documented review, with a named account lead coordinating the intake, analysis and platform follow-up. Before submission, MegaSatoshi runs a reconciliation review: a second check of the calculation, source references and wording against the client-approved disclosures.

The sequence is practical and controlled:

• Intake: agree the platforms in scope, identify the current reported figure and collect the kickoff checklist.
• Reconciliation: compare allocation records, wallet classifications and the stated methodology; return specific questions where evidence is incomplete.
• Drafting: prepare platform-facing explanations and organize supporting records for review.
• Client approval: confirm factual accuracy and approve what may be shared before any submission.
• Follow-up: track responses, coordinate clarifications and deliver a closeout record of submitted materials and remaining actions.

The timeline is set after intake because the amount of reconciliation depends on the project’s records and any previous platform correspondence. You receive a written scope, a list of requested materials and a clear owner for questions. The closeout record makes it easier for the team to maintain consistent disclosures when supply changes later.

What can CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap decide independently?

A well-supported submission helps make the project’s circulating-supply calculation clear, but CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap each control how they review that evidence and what their profiles display. A reviewer may ask the team to clarify how a wallet, vesting schedule, treasury balance or burn record was treated, and the platforms may assess the same evidence differently. Before submission, we check that the reported figure, classification notes and public disclosures tell a consistent story, and we keep a record of the materials shared. Our commitment is to the agreed reconciliation, submission materials and follow-up; neither a particular supply classification nor a profile change is within our control.

When should supply verification be coordinated with other updates?

Coordinate a supply review with any change that could make the reported figure or its explanation outdated. Examples include a vesting event, a treasury policy change, a token burn, a migration or a revision to the allocation disclosures. Updating only the number while leaving the supporting explanation untouched can create avoidable inconsistencies across public materials.

If the project is preparing a broader listing sequence, we can align the supply package with other tracker listings and a CoinMarketCap community verification workflow where relevant. That coordination is useful when the same project facts need to be presented across multiple profiles, while still respecting each platform’s separate review.

Before kickoff, send the token contract details, current supply breakdown, allocation and vesting records, relevant public links, and any platform messages already received. We will return a scoped checklist, identify any evidence gaps and confirm the review plan before work begins.

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. Confirm scopeWe identify the platforms, the reported supply figure and the reason for the review. You receive a focused checklist of records to provide.
2. Reconcile the evidenceWe compare the proposed calculation with allocation, wallet and vesting information, then raise any classification questions for your team.
3. Prepare the submissionWe draft the methodology and organize supporting records for the relevant platform request. The client approves factual statements before submission.
4. Coordinate follow-upThe account lead tracks platform correspondence and prepares clarifications based on the evidence and the agreed scope.
5. Deliver the recordYou receive the submitted materials, review notes and any open actions, so future supply updates can follow the same documented approach.