Holder concentration

Concentration is the frame you read the whole holder list against. A brilliant set of wallets in a token where one address controls half the supply is still a token where one address controls half the supply.

What we measure

👥 Top 10 hold 21.4%  ·  largest single holder 4.2%  ·  1,240 holders

• Largest single holder — the biggest non-contract wallet, as a share of total supply
• Top 10 — the ten largest non-contract holders combined
• Holder count — addresses with a positive balance

Non-contract matters. Liquidity pools, routers and burn addresses hold enormous balances and are not people. Counting them makes every token look dangerously concentrated; excluding them without saying so hides real risk. We classify each top holder as contract or wallet and only count the wallets — and where we can't classify one, it counts as neither rather than being quietly waved through.

Where the lines are

The market has published bands here, and they don't fully agree:

Signal	Healthy	Caution	Danger
Top 10 combined	< 20%	20–50%	> 50%
Single holder	< 5%	5–10%	> 10%

The top-10 bands are GMGN's published guidance. The single-holder line at 10% comes from Solana Tracker's risk model, which weights any holder above 10% as a danger on its own. Solana Tracker also treats top-10 above 15% as a danger — considerably stricter than GMGN's 20%.

Reading it in context

A high number isn't automatically fatal. A token an hour old will always be concentrated — there hasn't been time for anything else. What matters is concentration relative to the token's age and where the supply sits.

A low number isn't automatically safe. Supply split across two hundred wallets funded by the same source is one holder wearing two hundred hats. That's what the cluster label on Smart wallets is for, and it's why concentration alone was never enough.

The direction matters more than the level. Concentration falling as holders arrive is distribution. Concentration rising while the price rises is one or two wallets absorbing everything — which ends exactly one way.

What this doesn't catch

• Freshly split supply. A deployer who spread the supply over fifty wallets before launch reads as beautifully distributed. Our deployer and funding-source checks exist for that, not this one.
• Locked or vesting supply. A large holder that literally cannot sell is not the same risk as one that can. Where lock status is unknown, we say unknown — we don't assume either way.