NexPLAY vs GITLAWB — price, size and safety, side by side
PLAY (Base) vs GITLAWB (Base) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-11-07 / 2026-11-15.
PLAY vs GITLAWB — normalized performance, 2026-09-21 to 2026-11-07T18:16:33
| PLAY | GITLAWB | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.0109 | $0.000005889 |
| Market cap | $4.66M | $818.56K |
| 24h volume | $2.13M all venues | $52.82K all venues |
| Liquidity | $192.40K | $175.09K |
| FDV | $49.92M | $810.72K |
| Holders | 6,454 | 11,544 |
| Age (days) | 140 | 194 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- PLAY measures ~5.7× the market cap of GITLAWB
- PLAY measures ~40× the 24h volume of GITLAWB
- GITLAWB measures ~1.8× the holder count of PLAY
- over the shared window PLAY moved −65.1% while GITLAWB moved −87.6%
What the data says
PLAY
PLAY at 0x853a7c99227499dba9db8c3a02aa691afdebf841 is a Base asset 140 days into its record at the November 6, 2026 snapshot. The $4.7 million market cap prices under a tenth of the $49.9 million fully-diluted figure on 5.0 billion units — the emission overhang dominates this book's shape.
The book is workable and the tape is hot: $192.4 thousand of tracked depth on $1.1 million of 24-hour volume — the pool cycling itself several times daily. Contract-level controls were not assessed in this snapshot.
GITLAWB
GITLAWB at 0x5f980dcfc4c0fa3911554cf5ab288ed0eb13dba3 is a Base asset 194 days into its record at the November 6, 2026 snapshot, priced at a $819 thousand market cap across a 100.0 billion supply.
The book is unusually liquid for the cap: $175 thousand of tracked depth is deep — nearly a third of the valuation — and the $1.5 million daily volume nearly cycles the whole pool every day, a genuinely active tape rather than a dormant holding. Contract-level controls were not assessed in this snapshot, so authority posture is a live-scan question, not an assumption here.
FAQ
Which is bigger, PLAY or GITLAWB?
By tracked market cap: PLAY (Base) measures $4.66M and GITLAWB (Base) measures $818.56K — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, PLAY or GITLAWB?
On the contract checks we publish: PLAY (Base) grades A and GITLAWB (Base) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have PLAY and GITLAWB performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-21 and 2026-11-07T18:16:33, the measured snapshots show PLAY at −65.1% and GITLAWB at −87.6%.
More comparisons
RENDER vs PLAYAAVE.E vs PLAYPLAY vs GRASSUVM vs PLAYGITLAWB vs GRASSGITLAWB vs ETHFIGITLAWB vs ZRORENDER vs GITLAWB
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, 2026-09-21→2026-11-07T18:16:33; 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 NexFlow product.