Worked case study / Follow the assumptions
Supply changes, three different stories
An unlock can lower a modelled price without changing its assumed market cap. A burn can raise it. Neither calculation tells you what buyers will actually pay.
Start with one fictional token
Imagine 100 million tokens in circulation, each priced at CAD 0.01. Multiplying the two gives a circulating market cap of CAD 1 million. If the assumed fully diluted supply is 500 million tokens, the same quote gives a fully diluted valuation of CAD 5 million. These are two valuations using different supply counts, not two pots of money.
Now change the supply assumptions in three separate examples. Each begins at that same starting point. They are alternatives, not a forecast in which an unlock must happen first and a burn follows later. Keeping the scenarios separate makes it easier to see which input creates the result.
Story one: more circulation, unchanged valuation
Assume 60 million additional tokens enter the circulating count. The new total is 160 million. If circulating market cap stays at CAD 1 million, the implied price becomes CAD 1,000,000 divided by 160,000,000: CAD 0.00625. That is 37.5% below the original quote.
This result follows because the scenario deliberately holds market cap constant. It does not demonstrate that an actual unlock causes a 37.5% market decline. An unlock may remove a transfer restriction without every token immediately being claimed, sold or included in a data provider's circulating figure. The example assumes that the entire additional allocation enters that figure.
Story two: more circulation, unchanged price
Use the same 160 million circulating tokens, but keep the quoted price at CAD 0.01 instead. The resulting circulating market cap is CAD 1.6 million, an increase of 60%. The larger number is the consequence of multiplying an unchanged price by a larger token count.
It does not mean CAD 600,000 of fresh money entered the market. Market cap marks the whole circulating supply at a quote; it does not add up deposits or measure how much every holder could withdraw. Order-book depth, pool liquidity and available buyers are different questions.
Story three: fewer tokens, two possible outcomes
Return to the original 100 million circulating tokens. Assume 50 million of those tokens are permanently removed and the circulating count falls to 50 million. At the unchanged CAD 1 million market cap, the implied price doubles to CAD 0.02. The example keeps market cap fixed. It does not mean a real burn will double the price.
For the counterexample, let market cap fall to CAD 250,000 after that same supply reduction. Dividing by 50 million now gives CAD 0.005, half the original price. A lower supply and a lower price can coexist when the assumed valuation falls enough.
| Independent scenario | Circulating supply | Assumed market cap | Implied price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting point | 100 million | CAD 1,000,000 | CAD 0.01 |
| Unlock, fixed cap | 160 million | CAD 1,000,000 | CAD 0.00625 |
| Unlock, fixed price | 160 million | CAD 1,600,000 | CAD 0.01 |
| Burn, fixed cap | 50 million | CAD 1,000,000 | CAD 0.02 |
| Burn, lower cap | 50 million | CAD 250,000 | CAD 0.005 |
Read the assumption before the result
In the calculator, enter a token count and market cap, then compare them with a second example. Ask what you held constant: market cap, price or neither. Do not combine a circulating supply from one scenario with a diluted supply from another and present the outputs as one consistent valuation.
When you compare examples, note which input changed and which stayed the same. These calculations cannot tell you future demand, what a sale will bring in, when tokens will be claimed or whether a reported token count is reliable. The examples use CAD; they do not assume there is a liquid market where the token trades in Canadian dollars.