The measurement gap

This page checks 4 kinds of public figure twice. It shows which paired readings agree and where endpoint coverage, timing or counting rules leave a gap. A gap does not prove which figure is right.

Two public views can return two different totals.

Two independent counts of how much exists land 0.38% apart. The paired trading views tested here land 8.96% apart, about 24 times further. Market value, which is a multiplication rather than an observation, comes back 0.01% apart. The wider trading result is an endpoint coverage gap: the summary and returned ticker list do not necessarily contain the same records.

All readings taken at one moment, 07 September 2026

One scale, from close agreement to a wide coverage gap.

Each row is a kind of figure. The dot is the typical gap between its paired readings. The bar is the full range found in this run.

The top row is arithmetic, so it should sit near the line. The trading rows compare summary figures with the tickers returned by separate endpoints. Those endpoints may not cover the same records.

Arithmetic, which must agree

Two independent counts of what exists

Summary view against returned tickers

The control, asked two ways0.01%Market value against price times counted supply. Arithmetic, so it must agree.

Independent stock counts0.38%apart, after ambiguous symbols are removed.

Trading endpoint gap8.96%apart, summary figures beside returned tickers.

The widest returned gap+48.96%on Dogecoin in this run.

Every check, and what it returned.

The control comes first. Each block then states exactly what was compared, because two endpoints from one provider can still have different coverage.

A figure that is a multiplication, asked for two waysthe control

Market value against price multiplied by the counted supply

This is arithmetic, not observation, so the two must agree. It is here to show that the calculation itself is working before endpoint coverage is compared.

typically 0.01% apart30 readingsfrom -0.32% to +0.29%

Reading	One way	The other way	Apart by
Zcash	$20.15B	$20.22B	-0.32%
XRP	$88.47B	$88.21B	+0.29%
Gram (prev. Toncoin)	$3.95B	$3.94B	+0.16%
Stellar	$6.61B	$6.62B	-0.15%
Hedera	$3.54B	$3.54B	-0.05%
Avalanche	$3.37B	$3.37B	+0.05%
Monero	$10.14B	$10.13B	+0.03%
Litecoin	$4.24B	$4.24B	+0.02%
Bitcoin Cash	$5.14B	$5.14B	-0.02%
Dogecoin	$13.98B	$13.98B	+0.02%
WhiteBIT Coin	$8.65B	$8.65B	-0.02%
Rain	$11.77B	$11.77B	-0.01%

How much of a dollar-tracking coin existsclose match

Two independent counts of the same coin's outstanding amount

A stock can be counted at one moment. Only symbols that appear once in each source are paired, so an ambiguous ticker cannot create the gap.

typically 0.38% apart13 readingsfrom -32.77% to +4.39%

Reading	One way	The other way	Apart by
USDS	$6.62B	$9.85B	-32.77%
DAI	$4.79B	$4.59B	+4.39%
USDD	$1.51B	$1.47B	+2.78%
USDG	$3.20B	$3.26B	-1.90%
PYUSD	$2.92B	$2.94B	-0.81%
BUIDL	$2.82B	$2.83B	-0.60%
USD1	$4.27B	$4.25B	+0.38%
USDC	$74.66B	$74.53B	+0.18%
USDE	$4.37B	$4.37B	-0.10%
USYC	$2.62B	$2.62B	-0.09%
USDT	$183.36B	$183.39B	-0.02%
RLUSD	$2.41B	$2.41B	-0.01%

How much of a coin changed hands todaycoverage differs

A coin's stated daily trading against the sum of its own listed markets

These are two views from one provider: a summary figure and the tickers returned by a separate endpoint. Their scope and update timing may differ, so the result measures endpoint coverage rather than the true total.

typically 9.98% apart13 readingsfrom -20.00% to +48.96%

Reading	One way	The other way	Apart by
Dogecoin	$1.24B	$831m	+48.96%
USDC	$8.71B	$10.89B	-20.00%
TRON	$328m	$279m	+17.71%
Tether	$37.88B	$46.02B	-17.68%
BNB	$1.24B	$1.08B	+14.79%
Ethereum	$11.66B	$10.42B	+11.88%
Solana	$4.04B	$3.67B	+9.98%
XRP	$1.82B	$1.67B	+9.21%
Bitcoin	$23.77B	$22.18B	+7.17%
Monero	$123m	$124m	-0.23%
Hyperliquid	$1.41B	$1.41B	-0.22%
Rain	$38m	$38m	-0.11%

How much an exchange traded todaycoverage differs

An exchange's stated daily volume against the sum of its own listed pairs

The same coverage check one level up: an exchange summary beside the tickers returned for that exchange. It does not decide which is complete.

typically 7.94% apart8 readingsfrom -14.71% to -0.62%

Reading	One way	The other way	Apart by
MEXC	$901m	$1.06B	-14.71%
Gate	$1.20B	$1.34B	-10.65%
Binance	$7.13B	$7.97B	-10.51%
Bitget	$583m	$637m	-8.43%
Kraken	$888m	$959m	-7.45%
OKX	$1.37B	$1.46B	-5.92%
Coinbase Exchange	$1.32B	$1.38B	-4.13%
OSL Exchange	$161m	$162m	-0.62%

Charlie's analysisThe cleanest match is a stock counted at one moment: 0.38% apart here, using only symbols that appear once in each source. Trading is different. The summary endpoint and the ticker endpoint can cover different markets or update at different times, producing a 8.96% typical gap. The arithmetic control returns 0.01% apart, so the calculation is sound. What remains is a difference between the public views, not a measurement of the unseen true total.

The same coverage check, one level up.

Coin and exchange views are tested separately. A repeated gap shows the issue is not confined to one asset.

Charlie's analysisThe same coverage check was made at two levels. A coin's stated daily trading was set beside the tickers returned for that coin, and an exchange summary beside the tickers returned for that exchange. The median gaps are 9.98% and 7.94%. That repetition shows the endpoint issue is not confined to one asset. It still does not tell us which endpoint is more complete.

How wide it gets.

The single worst disagreement found, and the range across every reading.

Charlie's analysisThe widest single case is Dogecoin for how much of a coin changed hands today, where the two returned views sit +48.96% apart: $1.24B one way against $831m the other. Both are published to the dollar. The paired endpoint readings run from -20.00% to +48.96%.

What argues against reading this as a scandal.

Charlie's analysisThe closer readings are not perfect either. Counts of what exists agree to 0.38% typically after ambiguous symbols are removed, but USDS has two sources -32.77% apart on the same coin. That can reflect different definitions or treatment, so it calls for a closer source check. A wide gap is not evidence of anything improper. Endpoint scope, pagination, update timing and inclusion rules can all create it. Nothing here separates those causes.

Questions this page can answer.

Every answer below is drawn from the readings on this page and nothing else. The last one is refused.

Which figures agree?Why trading differs How wide does it get? Do stock counts differ sharply?Which source is right?How should I use it? Does it test itself?Is this manipulation?

Which public figures agree most closely?

The count of how much exists is the closest match here. Asked through two independent sources, it comes back 0.38% apart. The paired trading views come back 8.96% apart, which is about 24 times further. The control shows the calculation is stable: market value, which is a multiplication rather than an observation, comes back 0.01% apart. That sets a clean baseline for reading the endpoint gaps below.

Market value against price multiplied by the c0.01%

Two independent counts of the same coin's outs0.38%

A coin's stated daily trading against the sum 9.98%

An exchange's stated daily volume against the 7.94%

How far the paired public readings sit apart, typically.

Why do the trading views differ more?

Because they are counted in completely different ways. How much of something exists can be read off a public ledger once and checked by anyone, and two people counting carefully will land in the same place. How much of it traded has to be watched continuously across dozens of venues that each report on their own schedule, in their own way. More importantly here, a provider's summary endpoint and returned ticker list can cover different sets of markets or update at different times. This page measures that returned gap. It does not claim either view is the full market.

No chart. This is the mechanism behind the numbers above.

How wide does the gap get?

For how much of a coin changed hands today, the paired readings sit typically 9.98% apart, and the widest single case is Dogecoin at +48.96% — $1.24B one way against $831m the other. Both figures are published to the dollar. The two endpoint views do not have to contain the same set of records, so this page does not label either one the true total.

Dogecoin+48.96%

USDC-20.00%

TRON+17.71%

Tether-17.68%

BNB+14.79%

Ethereum+11.88%

Solana+9.98%

XRP+9.21%

Bitcoin+7.17%

Monero-0.23%

The widest gaps between the summary figure and returned ticker view.

Do the stock counts ever differ sharply?

Yes, and the exceptions matter. Counts of what exists agree to 0.38% typically, but the worst case here is USDS, where two sources are -32.77% apart on the same coin: $6.62B against $9.85B. When something that should be countable differs this much, the definitions, treatment or source coverage need a closer look.

USDS-32.77%

DAI+4.39%

USDD+2.78%

USDG-1.90%

PYUSD-0.81%

BUIDL-0.60%

USD1+0.38%

USDC+0.18%

USDE-0.10%

USYC-0.09%

Two independent counts of the same outstanding amount.

Which source is right?

This page does not say. The two readings may use different coverage, timing or inclusion rules. Naming a winner from the gap alone would be guesswork. What can be published is the distance between the returned views and the exact question each view answered.

Refused. Publishing a disagreement is honest. Resolving it from the outside would not be.

What should a reader do with this?

Check scope before comparing totals. The two public views tested here differ by a typical 8.96%, but that is this provider and this set of returned records, not a universal error margin. Ratios built from the same endpoint can be more useful than mixing totals from endpoints with different coverage.

No chart. This is how to use the readings above.

Does this page apply the test to itself?

It does. This page calls the 8.96% result a gap between specific returned views, not an error rate for all crypto data. Other pages must name their own source scope. A ratio can preserve a comparison when both sides come from the same read, but it does not guarantee that missing records cancel evenly.

No chart. A statement about how the rest of this site should be read.

Is a wide disagreement evidence of manipulation?

No, and it would be careless to suggest it. Two honest counters watching a market from different angles can disagree because they return different records or use different rules. Wash trading, missing tickers, pagination and update timing can all affect a total, and this page does not separate them. A coverage gap is not evidence of intent.

Refused. The data cannot support the question.

What would make this reading wrong.

Charlie's analysisThis page would be wrong if it treated the summary and ticker endpoints as identical questions. It does not: it labels the result as a coverage gap. The stock check would also be wrong if two unrelated assets shared a symbol, so ambiguous symbols are removed. All readings were taken in one run on 07 September 2026. The page measures the returned difference, never the unseen true total.