On-Chain Data Exposes: CORE Token Holdings Are Highly Concentrated, with 89% of the Circulating Supply Held by 25 Addresses

A community screenshot has sparked widespread discussion. User “Kabu Kabu” disclosed CORE’s latest on-chain holdings distribution:

“From the 3rd to the 27th largest addresses, a total of 960 million tokens are held, accounting for 89% of the current circulating supply (1.079 billion). The remaining approximately 11% is shared among all the remaining addresses. TOP1 is a long-term linear release locked address holding 1.02 billion tokens.”

If the data is true, it means:

25 addresses control nearly nine-tenths of the circulating tokens;
Adding the TOP1 locked address, the CORE controlled by the first 28 addresses far exceeds the circulating supply;
The remaining tens of millions of token-holding addresses can only split fewer than 120 million tokens.

Criticism 1: The “Decentralization” Narrative Severely Misaligns with On-Chain Reality

CoreDAO’s white paper repeatedly stresses “community-driven” and “decentralized governance.” However, on-chain data shows that 89% of the circulating chips are concentrated in the hands of 25 addresses. Under this structure:

So-called “community voting” is essentially decided by those 25 addresses;
Ordinary users’ staked voting power is insignificant in the face of whales;
Any “DAO governance” proposal can be easily vetoed or passed by a small number of addresses.

The “community direct voice” depicted in the white paper, against an extremely concentrated chip structure, is more like a slogan.

Criticism 2: The “Whale Dumping” Risk Is Real

The screenshot author pointed out: “Whales currently hold 89% of the circulating supply. If the price drops 99%, and then they dump again, they’re basically dumping their own bags—dump until it gets delisted.”

This logic may seem reasonable, but it overlooks several key points:

Whales have extremely low costs: the cost basis of their holdings from early mining, airdrops, and institutions’ low-price allocations may be close to 0. Even at the current price of $0.04, it is still an enormous profit for them.
Dumping doesn’t necessarily require selling everything: as long as they keep making small, continuous sell-offs, they can suppress the room for a price rebound, while also earning profits on both sides in the derivatives market.
Liquidity exhaustion risk: when 89% of the chips are locked or inactive in a small number of addresses, the actual circulating supply is extremely small. Any single large sell-off could cause an instant price collapse.

Criticism 3: “Store of Value” Requires a Diversified Consensus Foundation

One of the core reasons why Bitcoin is recognized as “digital gold” is that token holdings are dispersed. Satoshi himself held only about 1 million BTC (less than 5%). The top 100 addresses hold a much lower proportion than CORE.

But CORE’s chip distribution shows: decentralization is just a vision written in the white paper—the on-chain data is the real medical checkup report. If a network is controlled by only a tiny number of addresses, how can it carry the grand narrative of a “Bitcoin consumption payment system”?

Based on the above on-chain facts, do you think:

👉 A. Highly concentrated chips are the norm for early projects, and over time they will naturally become more dispersed
👉 B. This is a “price-control” tool used by the project team or institutions, and retail investors should be wary of the risks
👉 C. The data itself is questionable and needs confirmation through official or third-party audits

Warm reminder: On-chain data is public and transparent. It is recommended that every user check their token-holding distribution on their own before participating. Investment decisions should not rely solely on narratives, but must look at the facts.

$CORE $BTC $ETH ​​​