There’s an interesting phenomenon lately: many people, when discussing WLD, are still obsessing over FDV as if it’s the only metric—but in reality, this already reflects a divergence in everyone’s understanding of market logic.

First, let’s look at the current situation of WLD. At its peak, the project really did attract a lot of attention. However, if you’re still using FDV to judge its value now, you may be a bit outdated. WLD’s current circulating supply is roughly over 3.3 billion tokens, total supply is 10 billion, its circulating market cap is around $940 million, and its fully diluted market cap is only $2.79 billion. These numbers don’t look particularly special, but if you know that its circulating supply accounts for only one-third of the total, you can understand why many people say FDV has no reference value here.

In fact, understanding what FDV means is simple: it’s the number you get by multiplying the current token price by the total supply. But in today’s crypto market—especially for new projects with extremely low circulating supply—this metric is no longer as important as it used to be. Why? Because what truly affects short-term price isn’t this number, but supply and demand, narrative strength, and market sentiment.

I’ve noticed a very clear shift. In the past, project financing models were relatively straightforward, but now they’re much more complex. Multiple rounds of funding, airdrops, market makers, exchanges—every step affects token circulation and the unlock schedule. Take the example of Starknet: they adjusted their unlock plan from a one-time release to a linear release, and as a result, the STRK price jumped 14%. What does this show? It shows that market attention has shifted to the unlock schedule and the supply cadence, rather than simply looking at how high FDV is.

The logic of short-term trading is actually quite straightforward: prices rise when supply is less than demand. I remember when STRK was listed on a certain exchange—because on-chain claims were stuck, large holders couldn’t dump, and the price surged straight to $7. This wasn’t because FDV was low; it was because supply was restricted at that time.

That said, it’s also not correct to say FDV is completely useless. For leading projects like OP and ARB, we can still see FDV’s impact on pricing. OP’s price has stayed around two times that of ARB. The underlying logic is that OP’s FDV was lower in the past. But as the Arbitrum ecosystem develops, if future demand for ARB ends up exceeding OP’s, then even if ARB’s FDV is higher, its price could still overtake OP. This actually tells us that market logic itself is evolving.

What’s truly worth focusing on is where the money is. The capital flows of Bitcoin ETFs, the amount locked in Ethereum’s restaking track—these can reflect the real market situation more promptly. Instead of getting fixated on a single indicator, it’s better to observe market capital flows and narrative changes from multiple dimensions. That’s how to survive in an increasingly professional market like this.