HostZC vs NES — price, size and safety, side by side
ZC (Ethereum) vs NES (Ethereum) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-10-16 / 2026-10-17.
ZC vs NES — normalized performance, 2026-10-06 to 2026-10-16T21:15:32
| ZC | NES | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.002615 | $0.0003344 |
| Market cap | $17.94M | $75.57K |
| 24h volume | $4.04M DEX | $71.64 DEX |
| Liquidity | $326.97K | $264.43K |
| FDV | $18.08M | $111.63K |
| Holders | 5,596 | 28,890 |
| Age (days) | 6 | 50 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- ZC measures ~237× the market cap of NES
- ZC measures ~56,458× the 24h volume of NES
- NES measures ~5.2× the holder count of ZC
- over the shared window ZC moved −86.7% while NES moved −46.7%
What the data says
ZC
There's a lot to like about how ZC's contract is set up. Nobody can print fresh supply, which keeps every holder's share intact, and the contract can't pause or block transfers, leaving you free to trade on your own terms. Neither lever existing is the main reason ZC's 90/100 comes down to market factors, not contract ones (2026-10-09).
By the numbers, ZC is showing workable liquidity of $326.97K, 5,596 holders and a brand-new record at 6 days as of 2026-10-09. Against a market cap of about $17.94M, the $326.97K 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 5,596-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. On concentration, the deployer wallet holds just 0.73% of ZC as of 2026-10-09, so the person who launched it isn't sitting on a dominant share.
NES
Nesa (NES) is an AI-inference network token — a small-cap bet on decentralized model serving — at contract 0x230f1e241c621d5af670dad83ebcdd18971e2995. Our October 6, 2026 read shows $264 thousand of tracked pool liquidity.
The honest shape: AI-inference is a crowded thesis, and the differentiator is never the name — it is whether real inference volume settles through the network and whether the token captures any of it. At this size, treat the claim as unproven until the usage numbers say otherwise.
FAQ
Which is bigger, ZC or NES?
By tracked market cap: ZC (Ethereum) measures $17.94M and NES (Ethereum) measures $75.57K — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, ZC or NES?
On the contract checks we publish: ZC (Ethereum) grades A and NES (Ethereum) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have ZC and NES performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-10-06 and 2026-10-16T21:15:32, the measured snapshots show ZC at −86.7% and NES at −46.7%.
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, 2026-10-06→2026-10-16T21:15:32; 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.