$POCKETS token distribution reveals an interesting supply structure worth examining. Insiders control 13% of the total supply, while the development team holds a modest 2.95%. Early snipers account for 4.8% of circulation. On-chain data from bubblemap shows a concentrated cluster controlling 6.1%, but the most telling metric is the exchange-level concentration: CEX wallets hold 67.4% collectively. Breaking down the major venue exposure, wallets funded by major exchange platforms show significant positions—one leading platform has 24.5%, another holds 19.4%, while a third venue accounts for 5.6%. This distribution pattern suggests substantial centralization at the exchange level relative to individual holders, which could impact liquidity dynamics and market movement potential during volatile periods.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
7 Likes
Reward
7
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
CoffeeNFTs
· 21h ago
CEX took 67.4%... How centralized is that? Do retail investors still have a chance?
View OriginalReply0
DaoTherapy
· 21h ago
67.4% held on exchanges? Isn't that just centralized exchanges with a different appearance? Why talk about decentralization...
View OriginalReply0
governance_lurker
· 22h ago
Does CEX hold 67.4%? This thing is just a withdrawal machine for exchanges.
$POCKETS token distribution reveals an interesting supply structure worth examining. Insiders control 13% of the total supply, while the development team holds a modest 2.95%. Early snipers account for 4.8% of circulation. On-chain data from bubblemap shows a concentrated cluster controlling 6.1%, but the most telling metric is the exchange-level concentration: CEX wallets hold 67.4% collectively. Breaking down the major venue exposure, wallets funded by major exchange platforms show significant positions—one leading platform has 24.5%, another holds 19.4%, while a third venue accounts for 5.6%. This distribution pattern suggests substantial centralization at the exchange level relative to individual holders, which could impact liquidity dynamics and market movement potential during volatile periods.