ERA

Caldera Price Today & AI Analysis

ERA
Ethereum·AI Analysis
Analysis as of Jul 21, 2026

$0.0597

+2.15%24h
LiveContract:0xe2ad0bf751834f2fbdc62a41014f84d67ca1de2aChain:EthereumHolders:18.9KMarket cap:$59.67MLiquidity:$4.10K

More tokens on Ethereum

RAGE

RAGE

Rage Guy

$0.05334018.0%
MC $3.3K
CHAMP

CHAMP

Super Champs

$0.0005888.9%
MC $13.1K
SWFTC

SWFTC

SwftCoin

$0.0021326.1%
MC $21.32M
w🍖

w🍖

Unicorn Meat

$0.0071310.5%
MC $713.1K
OM

OM

MANTRA DAO

$0.0056690.2%
MC $5.04M
USDS

USDS

USDS

$0.99980.0%
MC $6.63B

Advanced charting powered by TradingView

Continue in chat

Ask Unhosted AI about ERA

What's Twitter saying?

Sentiment, KOL mentions, top tweets

Whale activity

Who is accumulating or distributing

What are the risks?

Red flags, security, concentration

Should I buy?

Bull case, bear case, entry / exit

Movement since reportreport from Jul 21, 2026, 04:15 AM UTC
Market Cap

$18.33M

24h Volume

$12.82K

Liquidity

$39.77K

FDV

—

Holders

18.9K

24HLoading trading activity…

Holder Insights

Live

Total holders

—

AI Executive Summary

Caldera (ERA) is a 15.8-month-old Ethereum-based utility token for a modular blockchain infrastructure project that claims over $1B TVL and 17M unique wallets across its rollup ecosystem. At $0.1049 per token, ERA carries an $18.3M market cap but only $39.8K in DEX liquidity, making it structurally illiquid relative to its valuation. The token has surged ~70% in 24 hours on thin volume, but the 31-day holder trend is consistently declining and two of the three largest individual whale wallets received their positions via transfer just days ago, representing significant insider overhang. The security score of 63/100 and highly concentrated supply (top 10 hold 92%) compound the risk profile.

Figures cited above are from the market snapshot taken when this analysis ran — Jul 21, 2026, 04:15 AM UTC. Live values may differ; the key facts at the top of the page are current.

Risk: very_high
Sentiment: neutral
Backed by a live infrastructure product with claimed $1B+ TVL and 550M transactions — not a purely speculative token
Extreme liquidity-to-market-cap mismatch ($39.8K liquidity vs $18.3M market cap) creates both opportunity and severe exit risk
Two major whale wallets totaling 31.26% of supply were activated within the last week via transfers, representing fresh insider overhang with no market cost basis

Caldera AI Price Analysis

Low Confidence
Short-Term24h-7d
Bearish

ERA has surged ~70% in 24 hours and ~60% in the 4-hour window, a move driven by thin liquidity ($39.8K pool) rather than broad market participation — only 46 unique buyers executed that rally. Parabolic moves on shallow liquidity historically mean-revert sharply, and the declining holder base (down 325 over 31 days) provides no organic demand floor to sustain the price. The 60.6% buy pressure is real but the absolute dollar volumes ($7.8K buys vs $5K sells) are too small to signal institutional conviction.

Medium-Term30d-90d
Bearish

The 31-day holder trajectory shows a steady bleed from 18,993 to 18,668 holders — a net loss of 325 wallets with no reversal signal. Combined with a fully diluted valuation of $104.9M against only $39.8K in liquidity and a market cap of $18.3M, the token is structurally illiquid and vulnerable to any meaningful sell pressure from the 35.6% dumpable supply. Without a catalyst that drives genuine new-wallet adoption, the medium-term path of least resistance is lower.

Bullish Factors
  • +60.6% buy pressure over 24 hours with 186 buy transactions vs 119 sell transactions indicates short-term demand exceeds supply at current prices
  • +Caldera's described ecosystem metrics (1B+ TVL, 550M transactions, 17M unique wallets) suggest an operational product with real usage, which could attract token demand if awareness grows
  • +The 4-hour window shows 156 buys vs 91 sells from 36 unique buyers, suggesting the buying activity is not concentrated in a single wallet
Bearish Factors
  • -The 31-day holder timeseries shows a continuous decline from 18,993 to 18,668 holders — a -1.5% net loss over 30 days with no reversal, indicating organic demand is eroding
  • -The two largest individual whale wallets (25.04% and 6.22% of supply) were first active on July 15–17, 2025 — days before this analysis — and received their positions via transfer, not market buys, marking them as insider/airdrop recipients who face zero cost basis and maximum incentive to sell
  • -Total liquidity of only $39.8K against an $18.3M market cap creates extreme slippage risk; any whale exit from the 35.6% dumpable supply would collapse the price
  • -The FDV of $104.9M is 5.7x the current market cap despite 100% of supply already circulating, implying the market is pricing in significant dilution risk or the circulating supply figure is unreliable

Disclaimer: This AI-generated prediction is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments are highly volatile. Always conduct your own research.

ERA call history

Full track record →
Jul 21bearish
24h-11.0%
7d-29.0%
30d—

Calls are recorded the moment the analysis is generated and scored automatically against the market price 24h, 7d and 30d later — hits and misses alike, never edited.

Token Info

ChainEthereum
Contract0xe2ad...de2a
Total Supply—
Decimals—

Key Risks

•Insider whale dump risk: two wallets holding a combined 31.26% of supply were activated July 15–17, 2025 via transfers with zero cost basis — a single decision to sell would be catastrophic for the $39.8K liquidity pool
•Liquidity collapse risk: the 0.22% liquidity-to-market-cap ratio means the token's stated market cap is largely theoretical; actual realizable value for most holders is a fraction of the implied price due to slippage
•Declining holder base: 325 net holders lost over 31 days with no reversal, including 109 lost during a 70% price spike — this signals that even positive price action is not attracting new participants, pointing to structural demand weakness

Trading Insight

neutral

The 24-hour buy/sell ratio (60.6% buys) and transaction count imbalance (186 buys vs 119 sells) reflect genuine short-term buying interest, but the absolute volumes — $7.8K buys and $5K sells — are micro-scale and insufficient to sustain a $18.3M market cap. The spike in activity is concentrated in the 4-hour window (156 of 186 daily buys occurred there), suggesting a coordinated or momentum-driven event rather than sustained organic accumulation.

AI-generated insight. Not financial advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Trend Analysis

Short-Term (7d):
Bullish
Medium-Term (30d):
Bearish

The short-term price action is technically an uptrend given the 70% 24-hour and 60% 4-hour gains, but this move is occurring on a token with no OHLC history available, $39.8K liquidity, and a decelerating buy rate — characteristics of a liquidity-thin pump rather than a sustainable trend. The medium-term context is bearish: the holder base has declined continuously for 31 days, and the token's structural illiquidity means any reversal will be swift and deep.

Momentum

Status:
Overbought

A 70% single-day gain on $12.8K total volume in a $39.8K liquidity pool represents extreme relative momentum. The deceleration from 156 buys in the 4-hour window to 34 buys in the most recent hour signals momentum exhaustion. Without fresh catalysts or significantly larger capital inflows, mean-reversion pressure is elevated.

Volume Analysis

Buy 60.6%Sell 39.4%

Volume Trend: Decreasing

Total 24-hour volume of $12.8K ($7.8K buys + $5K sells) is concentrated in the 4-hour spike window. The hourly rate has dropped sharply — the 1-hour window shows near-parity between buys and sells (34 vs 30), indicating the volume surge is dissipating. On a $39.8K liquidity pool, even this modest volume level caused a 60%+ price move, underscoring how thin the order book is.

Recent Price Action

Vertical spike: +59.8% in 4 hours followed by deceleration to near-flat in the most recent hour (+0.89% over 5 minutes, -1.19% over 1 hour), consistent with a pump-and-plateau pattern on thin liquidity.

Vertical spikes on thin liquidity pools that decelerate within the same session typically resolve with a partial or full retracement as early buyers take profit and the absence of new demand becomes apparent. The -1.19% 1-hour reading may be the early signal of that reversion.

Holder Metrics

Total Holders18,929
24h Change-109
Growth Rate-0.58%

The 31-day daily timeseries confirms a structural decline — 325 net holders lost over 31 days with no recovery period visible. The 24-hour loss of 109 holders during a 70% price spike is particularly telling: even a dramatic price increase failed to attract net new holders, suggesting the token lacks organic discovery momentum and that existing holders are exiting into strength.

Holder Distribution

Top 10 Holders92%
Top 100 Holders100%
Retail Holders0.0%
Concentration Risk:
High

While the top 10 hold 92% of supply, the majority of that is locked in protocol/contract addresses (positions 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 totaling ~59%) and a Binance exchange wallet (1.85%) — none of which represent dumpable sell pressure. The genuine concentration risk comes from the 35.6% dumpable supply held by individual whales, two of whom received their allocations via transfer just days ago. This is a high — not critical — concentration risk because the protocol contracts provide a structural floor, but the insider whale overhang is a real and immediate concern.

Whale Activity

Sentiment:
Holding

The largest on-chain swaps recorded are micro-scale: the biggest single trade is a $203 sell by 0xf7f0f4, followed by a $186 buy by 0x0e14a3. No large whale wallet swaps are indexed for the top individual holders — their positions were acquired via transfer, not DEX activity.

  • •SELL $203 by 0xf7f0f4 — largest single swap recorded, still micro-scale relative to the pool
  • •BUY $186 by 0x0e14a3 — largest buy swap, indicating retail-level participation even at the top of the order book

The absence of any large DEX swaps from the top individual whale wallets (25.04% and 6.22%) means they are currently holding — but their transfer-acquired, zero-cost-basis positions make any future sell decision purely discretionary with no loss threshold. The retail-scale nature of the largest recorded trades ($203 max) confirms that the 70% price spike was driven by small-wallet activity on a thin pool, not whale accumulation.

Smart Money Indicators

Confidence:
Low
Profit-Taking Risk:
Medium

Six wallets each show identical realized PnL of +$635 (+12%) over exactly 64 trades each — the uniformity across all six entries is statistically anomalous and may indicate bot activity, wash trading, or a data artifact rather than genuine independent smart-money conviction.

The smart money data shows six traders with suspiciously identical PnL (+$635, +12%, 64 trades each), which undermines confidence in these as independent signals. A genuine +12% realized return is modest and does not indicate strong conviction. The uniformity pattern warrants skepticism — these may represent automated or coordinated trading activity rather than informed human capital.

Liquidity Analysis

Total Liquidity$39,772.83
Depth:
Shallow
Slippage Risk:
High

A $39.8K liquidity pool supporting an $18.3M market cap represents a liquidity-to-market-cap ratio of approximately 0.22% — critically shallow. The 70% price move on just $12.8K of volume proves this empirically: trades of a few thousand dollars move the price by double-digit percentages. Any holder attempting to exit a meaningful position will face severe slippage, and a whale selling even 1% of their 25% stake would represent ~$183K of sell pressure against a $39.8K pool — a mathematically destructive event.

Overall Risk:
Very High
82/100

Risk Breakdown

Volatility
High

A 70% single-day price move on $12.8K of volume in a $39.8K pool demonstrates extreme price sensitivity. The token can move double-digit percentages on trades of a few hundred dollars, making volatility risk severe for any position size above micro-scale.

Liquidity
High

At $39.8K total liquidity against an $18.3M market cap (0.22% ratio), ERA is critically illiquid. Exit slippage for any position above a few hundred dollars will be material, and a single whale exit could drain the pool entirely.

Concentration
High

35.6% of supply is held by dumpable individual whale wallets, two of whom received their allocations via transfer just days ago with zero cost basis. While protocol contracts hold the majority of the top-10 supply, the insider whale overhang is a concrete and immediate risk.

Smart Contract
Medium

The contract is verified (positive) but scores 63/100 on security assessment (concerning). Without a published professional audit, the specific vulnerabilities flagged by the security score cannot be assessed, warranting a medium risk classification.

Regulatory
Medium

As a utility token for a blockchain infrastructure project operating across multiple chains, ERA faces standard regulatory uncertainty applicable to the broader crypto sector, particularly regarding utility token classification in major jurisdictions.

Key Risks

  • •Insider whale dump risk: two wallets holding a combined 31.26% of supply were activated July 15–17, 2025 via transfers with zero cost basis — a single decision to sell would be catastrophic for the $39.8K liquidity pool
  • •Liquidity collapse risk: the 0.22% liquidity-to-market-cap ratio means the token's stated market cap is largely theoretical; actual realizable value for most holders is a fraction of the implied price due to slippage
  • •Declining holder base: 325 net holders lost over 31 days with no reversal, including 109 lost during a 70% price spike — this signals that even positive price action is not attracting new participants, pointing to structural demand weakness

Mitigating Factors

  • •Caldera's described ecosystem metrics ($1B+ TVL, 550M transactions, 17M unique wallets) suggest a live, operational product with real usage that could drive future token demand if the project gains broader recognition
  • •Protocol/contract addresses hold ~57% of the top-10 supply, providing a structural floor that limits the freely circulating dumpable supply to 35.6% rather than the full 92% top-10 concentration figure

Investor Suitability

ERA is suitable only for high-risk-tolerance investors with deep familiarity with micro-cap, low-liquidity tokens who can afford to lose their entire position. Position sizing must be minimal given the slippage constraints. Not suitable for risk-averse investors, those requiring liquidity, or anyone allocating more than a speculative fraction of their portfolio.

ERA presents a binary risk profile: a live infrastructure project with credible ecosystem metrics on one hand, and a critically illiquid token with fresh insider whale overhang and a declining holder base on the other. The near-term risk is dominated by the structural vulnerabilities; the medium-term thesis depends entirely on whether Caldera's ecosystem traction translates into genuine token demand.

Scenario Analysis

Bull Case
Low

Caldera's $1B+ TVL ecosystem gains mainstream recognition, driving a new wave of token buyers that reverses the holder decline. The Metalayer cross-chain product achieves a major integration or partnership that creates genuine utility demand for ERA, attracting liquidity providers and pushing the liquidity pool to a level that can support the market cap.

  • +Successful Metalayer adoption driving cross-chain fee demand for ERA tokens
  • +Broader modular blockchain sector rotation attracting capital to interoperability tokens
Base Case

The 70% price spike partially retraces over the next 7–14 days as buy momentum exhausts and no major new catalyst emerges. The token stabilizes at a lower price level with continued slow holder attrition, trading in a thin range on Uniswap v3 until a project-level announcement or broader market event creates a new directional move.

  • •Insider whale wallets continue holding in the near term, avoiding a catastrophic liquidity event
  • •No major Caldera ecosystem announcement materializes in the next 30 days to drive new wallet adoption
Bear Case
High

One or both of the freshly activated insider whale wallets (25.04% and 6.22% of supply) begin selling into the thin $39.8K liquidity pool. Even a partial exit of 5% of their combined holdings would represent ~$275K of sell pressure against a pool that moved 60% on $12.8K of buys — a price collapse of 80%+ is mathematically plausible. The declining holder trend accelerates as retail participants exit.

  • -Zero-cost-basis insider whale selling into the post-spike price elevation
  • -Continued holder base erosion with no catalyst to attract new buyers reversing the 31-day declining trend

Analysis Details

GeneratedJul 21, 2026, 04:15 AM UTC
Data FreshnessReal-time on-chain data
Model Confidence
Low

Data Snapshot

Price$0.104918209956842756
Market Cap$18.33M
24h Volume$12.8K
Holders18,929
Liquidity$39.8K

Data Sources

On-chain transaction data (Uniswap v3 swap history)
Holder distribution analytics (31-day daily timeseries)
Trading volume metrics (24h, 4h, 1h windows)
Smart contract security assessment (63/100 score, verification status)
Whale wallet forensics (first-active dates, acquisition method lookup)
Smart money realized PnL data
Token fundamentals and project description

Limitations

  • •No OHLC price history is available, preventing any swing-based technical level computation or historical volatility analysis
  • •The FDV vs market cap discrepancy ($104.9M vs $18.3M with 100% circulating supply) could not be resolved from available data and may indicate a data inconsistency
  • •Smart money data shows six wallets with identical PnL figures, suggesting a possible data artifact that limits the reliability of smart money signals
  • •Project description metrics ($1B TVL, 550M transactions, 17M wallets) are self-reported and could not be independently verified from the provided data

How we keep this honest

Every directional call on these pages is recorded before the outcome is known and scored on our public prediction track record. We apply the same standard to others: our audit of 1,581 crypto YouTube predictions found bullish calls did worse than random timing, and our memecoin pump anatomy study measured what chasing a pump actually costs.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments are highly volatile and risky. Always conduct your own research and consult with a financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Track ERA