Is SUI the Next Solana? Stage-Matched Analysis

Financial Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk, including the potential loss of your entire investment. Always conduct your own research and consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Last Updated: June 2025

The question is SUI the next Solana can be examined through architecture, ecosystem growth, operational history, and token supply rather than price narratives alone. The June 2025 source data shows some similarities with Solana's early stage, but Sui also faces different competition and token-unlock pressure. For complementary context, see the complete Solana vs SUI comparison and the technical SUI vs Solana speed comparison.

Every market cycle produces a new round of "next Solana" comparisons. Ethereum attracted the same framing before Solana did, and several chains that received it never delivered. What makes the Sui comparison worth taking seriously is that it rests on verifiable architecture, funded ecosystem development, and on-chain metrics that line up with Solana's early-stage indicators, not just community narratives. This article uses a stage-matched framework, examines tokenomics risk, and identifies the conditions that would strengthen or weaken the comparison.

What Is SUI and Why Are People Comparing It to Solana?

Sui Network is an independent Layer 1 blockchain (a base-layer chain that processes transactions directly, rather than sitting on top of another network) that launched its mainnet in May 2023. It was built by Mysten Labs, a company founded by former Meta engineers who worked on the Diem blockchain project, the Facebook-backed payment network that was shelved before public launch. Mysten Labs CEO Evan Cheng, a former Meta engineer who led development of the Diem blockchain and the Move programming language, co-founded the company alongside four other ex-Meta researchers. The lab raised approximately $300 million in a Series B round in 2022, valuing it at $2 billion, a level of early institutional backing that mirrors Solana's pre-launch capital formation.

Sui is used for decentralized finance (DeFi) applications, NFT ownership and trading, and blockchain gaming, with its object-based data model providing architectural advantages for each use case. Its smart contracts are written in Move, a language built originally for Diem. Aptos, another blockchain that spun out of Meta's Diem research, also uses Move, a point of reader confusion that this article addresses in the risk section.

The reason investors compare Sui to Solana is structural, not superficial. Both are high-performance Layer 1 blockchains that challenged Ethereum's dominance with genuine technical innovations. Both launched with substantial venture backing. Both positioned developer adoption through grants and hackathons alongside ecosystem funding as their primary growth mechanism. Both make speed and low fees their market differentiators. The surface-level similarities are real. The architecture beneath them is meaningfully different.

Technology Face-Off: How SUI and Solana Actually Work

Sui and Solana both target high throughput and low fees, but the architectural paths they take to get there differ in ways that matter for evaluating long-term performance. Both chains approach the classic blockchain trilemma (the tension between scalability, security, and decentralization) by prioritizing performance, which critics argue comes at some cost to decentralization. The comparison table below captures the headline metrics; the subsections explain what those numbers actually mean.

Sources: DefiLlama, CoinGecko, Sui Explorer, Solana Beach, Mysten Labs documentation. Figures verified June 2025. Cryptocurrency metrics change rapidly. Verify current data from cited sources before making any decisions.

Consensus and Speed: Mysticeti vs. Proof of History

TPS, or transactions per second, measures how many transactions a blockchain can process at once. Higher numbers indicate greater network capacity. Sui's theoretical TPS advantage looks substantial on paper, but the more meaningful comparison is sustained real-world throughput under live network load, not marketing-cited maximums.

Sui used Narwhal for data dissemination and Bullshark for consensus in its earlier architecture. The supplied June 2025 technical comparison states that Mysticeti replaced Bullshark in 2024 and delivers sub-second finality through a DAG-based BFT design. Historical stage comparisons should therefore distinguish Sui's earlier Narwhal/Bullshark configuration from its current Mysticeti consensus.

Solana takes a different approach. Proof of History (PoH) is a verifiable delay function, a cryptographic timekeeping mechanism that timestamps transactions before consensus runs, allowing validators to agree on transaction order without the communication overhead of traditional consensus. PoH was invented by Anatoly Yakovenko, a former Qualcomm engineer whose 2017 whitepaper laid Solana's technical foundation. To be precise: PoH is not Solana's consensus mechanism. Tower BFT handles actual consensus. PoH is the timekeeping innovation that makes Solana's throughput possible.

Both chains achieve real-world TPS in the thousands under live conditions, a dramatic improvement over Ethereum's 15–30 TPS. The architectural distinction matters more for developer design decisions than for raw speed comparisons at current network load levels.

Programming Model: Move vs. Rust and What It Means for Developers

The programming model is where Sui and Solana diverge most sharply, and where Sui's architectural bet either pays off or becomes a liability for developer adoption.

Move is a smart contract programming language originally developed for Meta's Diem blockchain, designed with built-in resource safety rules that make certain classes of exploits structurally impossible. Assets in Move cannot be accidentally copied or destroyed. The language enforces ownership rules at compile time, making double-spend and re-entrancy bugs impossible by construction rather than by developer discipline. Solana uses Rust, a systems programming language that is powerful and battle-tested but requires developers to enforce the same asset safety rules manually.

Sui's data architecture centers on the object model, the most important differentiator in this comparison. Most blockchains, including Solana, store state in accounts: like a bank ledger where your balance is a number in a table. Sui stores state in objects. Think of each digital asset as a physical item you own, with its own unique ID, ownership record, and version history, rather than an entry in a shared ledger. Each Sui object carries a unique identifier, a type, an owner, and a version history.

This architecture enables parallel transaction execution: because each object is independent, transactions that touch different objects can run simultaneously without waiting for a global state lock. Solana's Sealevel runtime also supports parallel execution, using account access lists to identify non-conflicting transactions. Sui did not invent parallel execution. The distinction is that Sui's object model enables more granular parallelism at the asset level, which is the primary mechanical reason for its high theoretical TPS.

For developers evaluating Sui's Move variant: Aptos also uses Move, but an account-based variant closer to original Diem Move. Sui's object-centric Move implementation is architecturally distinct, as assets are first-class objects with unique IDs, not entries in account state. The two implementations are meaningfully different despite sharing a language lineage.

What Made Solana So Successful — and Can SUI Replicate It?

To evaluate whether Sui can replicate Solana's trajectory, the comparison needs to be set at the same stage of development. Comparing Solana at its $78B market cap against Sui today would be an unfair benchmark that flatters Solana. The fair method is stage-matched: Solana at Month 12 post-mainnet (approximately March 2021) against Sui at Month 12 post-mainnet (approximately May 2024). Solana's 2021 peak also coincided with a broad crypto market expansion that amplified all high-quality Layer 1 narratives, a tailwind that cannot be assumed to repeat on demand.

Sources: DefiLlama historical data, CoinGecko historical charts, Solana Beach, Sui Explorer. Past performance does not predict future returns.

Solana at Month 12: What the Data Actually Showed

Solana's Month-12 data, covering the period through approximately March 2021, shows a network generating real ecosystem activity despite significant early reliability problems.

By March 2021, Solana, co-founded by Anatoly Yakovenko, had accumulated approximately $300 million in TVL anchored primarily by Serum DEX, a high-speed order-book exchange that could only exist on a chain with Solana's throughput characteristics. SOL had moved from roughly $1.50 at the start of 2021 to approximately $14 by March, a 9x move in three months driven by DeFi narratives and developer momentum. The five leading indicators that predicted Solana's longer trajectory were:

1. Technical differentiation that only its architecture could deliver (PoH-enabled throughput at a scale Ethereum could not match)
2. Credible founding team with verifiable engineering credentials
3. Substantial VC backing that funded ecosystem grants and developer programs
4. Clear developer onboarding path through Solana Season hackathons
5. Anchor DeFi protocol providing liquidity depth that attracted subsequent protocols

Applying this five-factor framework to Sui at the same stage reveals where the parallel holds and where it breaks down.

Solana experienced 3–4 significant network instability events during its first year. Resource exhaustion from bot spam and consensus-related failures caused slowdowns and, in some cases, full outages. Even with that reliability record, ecosystem metrics indicated genuine developer conviction, as protocols continued building despite the instability.

The most severe test came later. The FTX/Alameda collapse in November 2022 sent SOL falling from approximately $38 to roughly $8, down roughly 95% from its November 2021 all-time high of approximately $260, as FTX and Alameda Research, both major SOL holders, collapsed simultaneously. Solana's ecosystem continued building through the downturn and SOL subsequently recovered to new all-time highs. Ecosystem resilience under existential stress matters more than peak price performance as an indicator of network legitimacy.

SUI at Month 12: How the Numbers Stack Up

Sui's first-year record tracked ahead of Solana at the comparable stage on most metrics, and the evidence suggests the structural parallel holds, with one important gap.

By May 2024, Sui's TVL had reached approximately $580 million, meaningfully above Solana's $300 million at the same stage. Sui's cumulative active wallet count exceeded 6 million, compared to Solana's approximately 500,000 at Month 12, though wallet counts are partially inflated by Sui's low transaction fees enabling casual address creation. Sui experienced zero confirmed major network outages in its first year, a cleaner reliability record than Solana's at the comparable stage.

The leading DeFi protocol at Sui's Month 12 was Cetus Protocol, a concentrated liquidity DEX, alongside lending protocols Scallop and yield aggregators including Aftermath Finance. The ecosystem showed genuine primitive-layer DeFi development, not just incentive-farmed TVL from a single protocol. Sui's gaming and NFT ecosystems were earlier-stage at Month 12 than Solana's had been, particularly in NFT volume and consumer mindshare.

The gap that matters most: Solana at Month 12 had no direct architectural peer competing for the same developer community. Sui at Month 12 shared Move developer mindshare with Aptos. This competitive dynamic has no Solana equivalent and represents the most meaningful structural difference in the stage-matched comparison.

Ecosystem and Adoption: Who Is Building on SUI Right Now?

As of June 2025, Sui's TVL stood at approximately $2.1 billion according to Sui TVL data on DefiLlama, roughly 21% of Solana's current $9.8 billion TVL, but a figure that requires context to interpret correctly. TVL (Total Value Locked) measures the total USD value of assets deposited in a blockchain's DeFi protocols. DeFi, short for decentralized finance, refers to financial services like lending and trading that run without traditional intermediaries. TVL is the primary metric for ecosystem financial activity and changes daily with asset prices and deposit flows.

DeFi Protocols and TVL on SUI

Sui's DeFi landscape is anchored by Cetus Protocol, a concentrated liquidity DEX that held approximately $450M in TVL as of June 2025 (DefiLlama), making it the chain's largest single protocol by assets. The top five Sui DeFi protocols by TVL at time of writing:

• Cetus Protocol, concentrated liquidity DEX, ~$450M TVL
• Scallop, money market lending protocol, ~$320M TVL
• Aftermath Finance, liquid staking and AMM, ~$280M TVL
• Turbos Finance, concentrated liquidity DEX, ~$180M TVL
• Navi Protocol, lending and borrowing market, ~$160M TVL

These figures represent genuine DeFi primitives: a DEX, a lending market, a liquid staking protocol, rather than a single incentive-farm anchoring all liquidity. At Solana's comparable stage (March 2021), TVL was similarly concentrated in Serum as the anchor protocol. The breadth of Sui's DeFi stack at Month 12 compares favorably.

Solana's current DeFi ecosystem, anchored by Jupiter DEX aggregator, Raydium, Marinade Finance, and Jito, has a longer development runway and deeper liquidity. That comparison is unfair by the stage-matched framework. At equivalent stages, the protocol count and primitive coverage favor Sui slightly.

NFTs and Gaming: The Consumer Adoption Layer

Solana's consumer adoption during 2021–2022 was anchored by its NFT ecosystem. Magic Eden emerged as the dominant marketplace and processed billions in NFT volume, giving Solana user activity and brand recognition well beyond DeFi. On the gaming side, Solana projects like Star Atlas and Aurory built early blockchain gaming communities, with DRiP adding content distribution mechanics that attracted non-financial users. Sui's object model, which treats each NFT as a discrete owned object with a unique ID, is architecturally well-suited for NFT ownership and secondary trading.

Sui's primary NFT marketplace as of mid-2025 is Tradeport, with secondary volume also flowing through Clutchy and the Mysten Labs-supported Sui Kiosk standard. NFT volume on Sui remains below Solana's at comparable stage, a consumer adoption gap that DeFi metrics do not capture. Sui's gaming ecosystem includes Panzerdogs and Cosmocadia among projects with active user bases, with Sui Foundation grants actively funding game development through mid-2025.

The honest assessment: Sui's NFT and gaming adoption in year two is earlier-stage than Solana's NFT ecosystem was at the same point. The architectural advantage is real; the consumer traction still needs time to materialize.

SUI Tokenomics: Token Supply, Unlock Pressure, and Price Implications

SUI's tokenomics present a genuine supply-side consideration that any serious analysis of the thesis must address. The total supply is 10 billion tokens, against a current circulating supply of approximately 3.1 billion SUI as of June 2025 (CoinMarketCap).

Token unlocks occur when locked or vested tokens become available for sale. A significant unlock event can increase circulating supply and create downward price pressure if sell pressure exceeds demand. The total SUI allocation breaks down approximately as follows, per official Sui tokenomics documentation:

• Community Reserve: ~20% (ecosystem grants, development funding)
• Early Contributors (team): ~20%, vesting over 4 years from mainnet
• Investors: ~14%, vesting over 2 years from mainnet with 6-month cliff
• Mysten Labs Treasury: ~10%
• Public Sale and other distributions: remaining allocation

The investor tranche, approximately 1.4 billion tokens, completed its primary two-year vesting window by mid-2025. Through 2025 and into 2026, team and early contributor tokens continue unlocking on a monthly schedule. The largest remaining unlock pressure comes from the early contributor allocation, with meaningful tranches releasing through late 2025.

FDV (fully diluted valuation) is total supply multiplied by current token price. It represents the theoretical market cap if all 10 billion SUI tokens were in circulation today. As of June 2025, SUI's circulating market cap sits at approximately $10 billion against an FDV of approximately $28 billion (SUI on CoinGecko). That FDV-to-circulating ratio signals roughly 3x more supply entering the market over the vesting schedule, a forward pressure that Solana at comparable stage did not face to the same degree.

For context: early SOL tokenomics had approximately 60% allocated to insiders and investors, a common criticism at the time that did not prevent Solana's 2021 growth cycle. The unlock risk is real and quantifiable, but history suggests it is not automatically disqualifying. If SUI were to reach Solana's current market cap of approximately $78 billion from its current approximately $10 billion, that implies roughly a 7.8x multiple from current levels, a scenario that requires sustained ecosystem growth, successful token unlock absorption, and favorable market cycle conditions. This is not a prediction. Past performance of Solana does not predict Sui's results.

The Risks: Why SUI Might NOT Be the Next Solana

The stage-matched data makes a reasonable case for the parallel, but four risk factors could prevent Sui from completing Solana's trajectory. A strong thesis requires understanding what could break it.

Token Unlock Pressure and Supply Overhang

The most immediate supply-side risk is SUI's ongoing vesting schedule. As established in the tokenomics section, approximately 6.9 billion tokens remain outside current circulation, representing roughly 69% of total supply still to enter the market. Early investors who received tokens at seed-round prices of well below $1 have a financial incentive to sell as each tranche unlocks, increasing circulating supply against demand that may or may not absorb it.

The FDV-to-market-cap ratio of approximately 2.8x at time of writing signals that current holders are pricing the asset against a fraction of total eventual supply. When insider allocations begin unlocking in meaningful quantities through late 2025 and 2026, the circulating supply expansion will test demand depth. Solana faced significant insider allocation criticism during its 2021 growth phase and navigated it, but Solana's VC and team unlock tranches were spread over a period when price appreciation created sufficient demand absorption. Sui's unlock timeline runs concurrent with a period when the overall market cycle may or may not provide equivalent tailwinds.

The Aptos Problem: SUI Isn't the Only Move-Based Chain

Sui's closest architectural peer is Aptos, and unlike Solana, which had no direct competitor using the same programming model, Sui must win developer attention against a chain that shares its language lineage.

Aptos launched its mainnet in October 2022, approximately seven months before Sui. It was also built by ex-Meta/Diem engineers, a different team led by Mo Shaikh and Avery Ching, and also uses the Move language. The key architectural distinction: Aptos uses an account-based Move model closer to original Diem Move, while Sui uses an object-centric Move variant. These are fundamentally different data architectures despite the shared language origin.

As of June 2025, Sui's TVL of approximately $2.1 billion leads Aptos's approximately $800 million (DefiLlama), a meaningful gap that suggests the object model is winning the near-term DeFi competition. But both chains compete for the same pool of Move-language developers, the same DeFi liquidity providers, and many of the same ecosystem grant programs. The Move developer community is not large enough that both chains can grow without directly competing for it.

Solana represents the market precedent for what a high-performance L1 can achieve at scale. Aptos is a peer in the current cycle; Solana is the benchmark for the destination. Sui's object model provides capabilities, including granular parallel execution and richer asset programming models, that Aptos's account model structurally cannot match. That differentiation may prove decisive over a 3–5 year cycle. In the near term, Aptos remains a competitive drain on Sui's developer ecosystem.

Centralization and Network Maturity

High-throughput blockchains face a characteristic tension between performance and decentralization, and Sui's current validator concentration reflects that tradeoff.

Validators are the nodes that process transactions and secure the network. The more validators, and the more geographically distributed they are, the more decentralized and censorship-resistant the blockchain. Sui currently operates with approximately 114 active validators (Sui Explorer, June 2025), compared to Solana's approximately 1,900+ validators, one of the larger validator sets among high-performance Layer 1 chains. Sui's Nakamoto coefficient, the minimum number of validators needed to compromise the network, sits at approximately 19 at time of writing, meaning a coalition of roughly 19 validators could theoretically control consensus. Mysten Labs retains significant stake in early network governance, which represents a concentration risk that Sui Foundation governance is designed to progressively address.

High-TPS chains require powerful hardware to validate: server-grade machines that well-funded operators run, not consumer hardware. This concentrates validation among institutional operators by design. Early Solana faced identical criticism and experienced 10+ major network outages between 2021–2022 before stability improvements took effect. Solana addressed these progressively through protocol upgrades. Sui's clean uptime record in year one, zero confirmed major outages, is a meaningful data point, but it is not a guarantee of future stability under higher load.

Broader sector risks also apply: evolving crypto regulation in major markets, competition from Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solutions that offer lower fees without requiring a full ecosystem migration, and the possibility that the broader market cycle fails to provide the liquidity conditions Layer 1 narratives require to attract mainstream capital.

These risks are real but not automatically disqualifying. Each has a precedent in Solana's own early history. The verdict section evaluates which risks carry the most weight against the thesis.

Verdict: Is SUI the Next Solana?

The stage-matched comparison delivers a clearer answer than most coverage of this question: Sui at Month 12 tracked above Solana at Month 12 on TVL, wallet count, DeFi protocol breadth, and network stability, which partially supports the structural parallel. The evidence does not support dismissing the comparison, nor does it support the maximalist version of the thesis.

Where the thesis holds:

Three specific parallels to early Solana emerge from the data. First, Sui's Month-12 TVL of approximately $580 million exceeded Solana's $300 million at the equivalent stage, a meaningful lead for a chain entering a more competitive L1 market. Second, Sui's object model delivers a genuine architectural differentiation that, like Solana's PoH, is not easily replicated by competing chains; it is baked into the protocol design. Third, Mysten Labs' team pedigree and Series B capital formation mirrors the credibility signals that validated Solana early: a technically credible founding team backed by institutional capital before mainstream recognition arrived.

Where the thesis is weakest:

Sui faces a competitive dynamic Solana did not. Aptos occupies the same Move-language developer community, splitting mindshare that Solana owned entirely. And Sui's token unlock schedule, with approximately 6.9 billion tokens yet to reach circulation, represents a supply overhang Solana did not carry at comparable stage. These are quantifiable headwinds with specific timelines, not speculative concerns.

Evidence-based assessment:

The evidence supports a partial parallel. Sui exhibits the foundational characteristics that Solana showed at Month 12, including technical differentiation, institutional backing, and measurable ecosystem traction ahead of expectations, while carrying supply-side and competitive pressures Solana did not face. For the thesis to hold at Solana's scale, three conditions would need to remain true: Sui's DeFi TVL growth rate needs to outpace Aptos over the next two years, token unlock sell pressure needs to be absorbed by expanding demand, and the broader market cycle needs to provide the liquidity conditions that allow Layer 1 narratives to attract capital. None of these conditions are guaranteed.

The clearest leading indicator to watch is Sui's TVL trajectory relative to Solana's growth rate between March 2021 and March 2022, the twelve months during which Solana's ecosystem moved from $300 million to over $10 billion TVL. If Sui follows a comparable trajectory from its May 2024 baseline, the parallel becomes substantially more defensible. If TVL stagnates while unlock pressure builds, the thesis weakens materially.

Past performance of Solana does not guarantee Sui's results.

Frequently Asked Questions: Is SUI the Next Solana?

Is SUI the Next Solana?

The stage-matched data partially supports the parallel. Sui at Month 12 tracked above Solana's comparable metrics on TVL, protocol count, and network stability. Two specific indicators, a differentiated architecture and institutional-grade team pedigree, match what Solana showed early. The thesis weakens if token unlock pressure exceeds demand absorption or Aptos captures Move developer mindshare. The comparison is evidence-based, not hype-driven.

What Is the Difference Between SUI and Solana?

Three material differences define the comparison. First, data model: Sui stores assets as discrete owned objects with unique IDs, while Solana uses an account-based model where state lives in program accounts. Second, programming language: Sui uses Move, designed with built-in asset safety rules; Solana uses Rust, which requires developer discipline to achieve the same safety. Third, consensus: Sui currently uses Mysticeti, which replaced its earlier Narwhal and Bullshark design in 2024; Solana uses Proof of History combined with Tower BFT. Both chains achieve high throughput through architecturally distinct mechanisms.

What Are the Biggest Risks of Investing in SUI?

Three SUI-specific risks deserve attention before any position decision. Token unlock pressure: approximately 6.9 billion SUI tokens remain unvested, representing 69% of total supply that will enter circulation through 2026 and beyond, and early holders with low cost basis have incentive to sell. Aptos competition: both chains share Move language developer mindshare, and Aptos provides a directly competing platform for the same builders and liquidity. Validator centralization: Sui's 114 active validators and Nakamoto coefficient of approximately 19 indicate concentration risks common to high-TPS chains. This article does not constitute financial advice. Consult a qualified advisor before making any investment decisions.

Does SUI Have DeFi?

Yes. As of June 2025, Sui's DeFi ecosystem holds approximately $2.1 billion in TVL (DefiLlama). The top protocols are Cetus Protocol (concentrated liquidity DEX, ~$450M), Scallop (lending market, ~$320M), Aftermath Finance (liquid staking and AMM, ~$280M), Turbos Finance (~$180M), and Navi Protocol (~$160M). This represents a deeper DeFi primitive stack than Solana had at the comparable Month-12 stage.

What Is the Difference Between SUI and Aptos?

Sui and Aptos are separate companies, separate protocols, and separate token economies, despite both using Move language and both being founded by ex-Meta/Diem engineers. The key technical difference: Aptos uses an account-based Move model closer to the original Diem design; Sui uses an object-centric Move model where assets are discrete owned objects with unique IDs. These architectures produce different smart contract design patterns and different parallelism characteristics. Sui's TVL of approximately $2.1 billion currently leads Aptos's approximately $800 million (DefiLlama, June 2025).

Is SUI a Good Investment in 2025?

The bull case rests on three conditions holding simultaneously: Sui's TVL growth rate outpacing Aptos, token unlock sell pressure being absorbed by expanding demand, and the broader market cycle providing liquidity conditions that favor Layer 1 narratives. The bear case centers on token supply dynamics, approximately 6.9 billion tokens still to enter circulation, and Aptos competition splitting the Move developer ecosystem. The stage-matched record shows Sui's ecosystem development tracking ahead of Solana at the comparable stage, which the comparison reveals as a meaningful signal. This article does not constitute financial advice. Conduct your own research and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

Related Reading

• SUI vs Solana: Layer-1 Blockchain Comparison
• SUI vs Solana Speed: Which Blockchain Is Faster?

Financial Disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency investments are speculative and involve significant risk of loss. Always conduct your own research and consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Data Sources (all figures verified June 2025)

• DefiLlama (defillama.com): TVL data for Sui and Solana chains
• CoinGecko (coingecko.com): market cap, FDV, and price data
• Sui Explorer (suiexplorer.com): TPS benchmarks and validator data
• Solana Beach (solanabeach.io): Solana TPS and validator data
• Sui Foundation tokenomics documentation (sui.io/tokenomics): supply and vesting schedule
• CoinMarketCap (coinmarketcap.com): circulating supply reference

Cryptocurrency metrics change rapidly. Verify current figures from the cited sources before making any decisions.