Indexed as the top pair of AMBA — first seen block 53,264,109
Lamba coin
0x0451d45144008a6916c0ba50f244c8bbf08be901
What the panels below say, in words, and an opinion on it
Holders by day, and what the supply was worth
What sits on the other side. A pool is a trading pair, not collateral.
Wallets that sent or received L that day · 48 days
| # | Address | Pool id | Hook | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | AMBA | 0x99d9d…99009 | 0xf34fae…8415e1↗ | 5.92e-8 AMBA | $63.81 | $0.000004 | $9.6K | $3.8K | $37.22 | +0.4% | 0.00% | 0x0310…2acc | 53,264,109 |
A paired token with the dot is indexed: it links to its own page with holders and holders over time. The rest are known by address and pool only.
Prices, liquidity, volume and change per DexScreener as of 2026-09-15 11:34 UTC, refreshed hourly. A pool DexScreener has not picked up shows its on-chain tick price and liquidity L instead; fees are always read from the chain.
Accounts holding a balance at each day’s end · 48 days · exact
L daily close × supply that day · 10 days
Top 20 of 20 accounts with a balance, and how the supply is spread.
| Tier | Wallets | % Wallets | % Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whale$100K+ | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Shark$10K–100K | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Dolphin$1K–10K | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Fish$100–1K | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Crab$10–100 | 1 | 5.26% | 50.35% |
| Shrimpunder $10 | 18 | 94.74% | 49.65% |
| # | Account | Balance | Share | Transfers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 0x8366a3…e40951Uniswap v4 pools | 989,534,917.4851 | 98.95% | 674 |
| 002 | 0x56d346…fc1b5c | 5,269,233.5618 | 0.53% | 1 |
| 003 | 0xe7ef47…79570b | 1,742,279.9226 | 0.17% | 4 |
| 004 | 0xce1d7f…9598ef | 1,689,033.8522 | 0.17% | 4 |
| 005 | 0xfadb5e…65a73b | 1,232,436.9501 | 0.12% | 2 |
| 006 | 0x0d91fe…97ad5d | 192,672.5845 | 0.02% | 1 |
| 007 | 0xa6ad8e…65b06c | 119,181.8455 | 0.01% | 1 |
| 008 | 0x039335…372991 |
| 86,958.3901 |
| <0.01% |
| 1 |
| 009 | 0x7460f2…8bf14d | 56,050.2597 | <0.01% | 1 |
| 010 | 0x4c777e…399704 | 55,735.4950 | <0.01% | 1 |
| 011 | 0x7e7df6…261750 | 6,790.8722 | <0.01% | 2 |
| 012 | 0x349a10…d85a6b | 6,291.6123 | <0.01% | 1 |
| 013 | 0xabc94d…60946f | 5,826.7832 | <0.01% | 2 |
| 014 | 0x889bc3…b47055 | 2,555.2421 | <0.01% | 4 |
| 015 | 0x111111…03a902 | 35.1427 | 0.00% | 1 |
| 016 | 0x00f015…3d1a78 | 0.0000 | 0.00% | 2 |
| 017 | 0x0310cf…342acc | 0.0000 | 0.00% | 2 |
| 018 | 0x303541…378e31 | 0.0000 | 0.00% | 4 |
| 019 | 0x36ae25…03c19d | 0.0000 | 0.00% | 4 |
| 020 | 0x8f10b4…13f996 | 0.0000 | 0.00% | 23 |
What the data says
What it means
The cap fell but the holder base did not, so the selling came from a few wallets rather than a crowd heading for the exit. That is a tolerable kind of weakness, and it turns constructive the moment holders tick up into it.
Concentration is steady but high: the ten largest wallets hold most of the value, so any one of them can move the price on its own.
A mechanical read of this page over the last 30 days, not advice. The rules are fixed: holders against market cap, then concentration, activity and liquidity where they add something. Only the numbers move.
Share of wallet-held value in the 10 largest wallets · 48 days