HostWCRO vs LION — price, size and safety, side by side
WCRO (Cronos) 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.
WCRO vs LION — normalized performance, 2026-10-09 to 2026-10-17T03:15:24
| WCRO | LION | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.05806 | $0.001255 |
| Market cap | $34.77M | $42.48M |
| 24h volume | $557.59K DEX | $5.52K DEX |
| Liquidity | $38.17M | $1.07M |
| FDV | $43.46M | $138.47M |
| Holders | 89,649 | 10,332 |
| Age (days) | 1,792 | 585 |
| Safety grade | A | A |
Where they differ
- WCRO measures ~36× the liquidity of LION
- WCRO measures ~101× the 24h volume of LION
- WCRO measures ~8.7× the holder count of LION
What the data says
WCRO
WCRO starts from a genuinely strong place at the contract level. The contract can't create new tokens — the supply is capped for good, and the contract can't pause or block transfers, leaving you free to trade on your own terms. Clearing both of those in one go is a strong sign, and it's what puts WCRO at 100/100 as of the 2026-10-09 snapshot.
On liquidity and holders, WCRO shows a $38.17M pool, 89,649 holders and an established 1,792-day history as of 2026-10-09. Encouragingly, that $38.17M pool is deep relative to a market cap of about $34.77M — the kind of ratio that lets real size move in and out without much slippage. 89,649 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. The creator's own position is small — <0.01% of supply as of 2026-10-09, comfortably under the 5% line the scanners flag — which is what you want to see.
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, WCRO or LION?
By tracked market cap: WCRO (Cronos) measures $34.77M and LION (Cronos) measures $42.48M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, WCRO or LION?
On the contract checks we publish: WCRO (Cronos) grades A and LION (Cronos) grades A. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have WCRO and LION performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-10-09 and 2026-10-17T03:15:24, the measured snapshots show WCRO at −4.81% 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.