Dapp radar
Dapp radar portfolio totals need matching wallet scope and NFT valuation methods
Dapp radar portfolio totals are comparable when their wallet coverage, chains, included assets and valuation methods match. For reconciliation, align valuation times; to measure change, retain each snapshot’s date. Separate token balances from NFT estimates before comparing saved figures. A difference can reflect changed holdings, different pricing methods or missing coverage. It doesn’t automatically measure investment performance, and an NFT subtotal doesn’t represent the entire portfolio.
- updatedKeep the original labels beside each saved amount. A wallet total, a collection value and an individual NFT estimate describe different things. Their relationship matters more than whether the figures appeared together on the same screen.
Compatible Records Before Comparable Totals
Saved portfolio records support different comparisons depending on the detail they retain. An itemized record can explain a discrepancy through asset quantities and prices. A screenshot containing only a headline total supports a narrower comparison because it hides the components behind that number.
The documentation lists the earlier NFT Value Estimator under deprecated tools, while a July 2025 announcement describes a bitsCrunch-powered version. Historical descriptions of its controls explain earlier records; they don’t establish that those controls remain available. Treat saved estimates as dated observations rather than amounts that an old interface will necessarily refresh.
Wallet and Chain Scope
Wallet and network coverage determine which holdings belong in the comparison before any price calculation begins. Matching account labels alone isn’t enough when the records cover different addresses or different sets of chains.
The Wallet Set
A single-wallet record and a combined record have different boundaries. List the addresses that each saved total actually includes. Wallet nicknames can change, and the same address can appear under several labels. Counting those labels as separate holdings duplicates assets. Historical portfolio versions also differed in how they presented wallet tracking, so don’t infer aggregation from a watchlist or several visible accounts.
The Included Assets
Chain coverage must match alongside wallet coverage. A shared address format doesn’t make balances on different networks interchangeable. Asset identity also needs more than a ticker or collection name: retain the network and asset identity, including the contract where applicable and the token identifier for an individual NFT. When one record omits a network, compare the common portion and describe the remainder separately.
Portfolio Sections and Collection Selections
The earlier portfolio organized holdings into Tokens, DeFi Portfolio and NFT Portfolio. Its Net Worth figure combined those components. Consequently, comparing that headline directly with an NFT-only total mixes different scopes, even when both records describe the same wallet.
The Tokens section showed token holdings and their subtotal. Within the NFT Portfolio, a collection dropdown exposed individual collection values beneath the wallet’s broader NFT valuation. Selecting a collection changed the group under inspection; it didn’t turn that collection into the wallet’s entire portfolio. Preserve that distinction when interpreting a saved view. The August 2025 Portfolio update merged the overview, token tab and NFT gallery into one page and removed the NFT financial view. It documented a Chain Selector for filtering displayed tokens and NFTs, plus switching between tracked wallets. A chain filter changes network coverage; a wallet switch changes the account under inspection. Match both before comparing totals from that version.
DeFi positions need their own treatment if they appear in the starting total. Omitting that component prevents a full reconciliation. Adding a position and a token that represents the same underlying claim can also overstate holdings. Include each economic position once, using the detail available in the record.
Token Quantities and Quoted Values
A token valuation combines the quantity held with a price expressed in the reporting currency. Compare quantities separately from their monetary values: an unchanged balance can have a different valuation when its quoted price changes. Conversely, identical totals can conceal changes in both quantity and price. A displayed token value also doesn’t specify the proceeds from selling the entire holding, because execution depends on available liquidity and transaction costs.
Why Can NFT Totals Change Without a Transfer?
NFT totals can change without a transfer because their valuation inputs can change while ownership stays constant. The wallet may contain the same assets even though the estimated collection subtotal moves.
Collection benchmarks respond to market activity. An individual estimate can also change when the valuation method incorporates different sales or asset attributes. Those updates affect the monetary figure without requiring an NFT to leave the wallet.
Historical NFT Portfolio views displayed both collection-level values and individual holdings. That distinction helps locate the change: a collection subtotal may move because its valuation changes, its included quantity changes or both.
Asset counts alone don’t identify unchanged holdings. Equal counts can conceal different token identifiers.
A useful comparison therefore retains the actual NFT identities alongside the values. If the identities match, investigate pricing and currency conversion. If the identities differ, the records also describe a change in holdings. Without item-level detail, the headline difference cannot distinguish those explanations.
Missing Prices and Duplicate Positions
An unpriced NFT creates a gap in the monetary total even when a record correctly shows the asset. Keep that gap visible. Treating an absent estimate as a confirmed zero silently changes an incomplete valuation into an apparent measurement of the entire wallet.
Duplicated entries create the opposite problem. The same collection can appear in an overview and an expanded breakdown, while a summary amount already includes its constituent NFTs. Adding both levels counts the same holdings twice. Compare totals at one aggregation level, with detailed rows explaining the subtotal rather than increasing it.
Differences in filtering can also change the included set. A record that excludes unwanted assets and one that includes every visible item don’t describe identical coverage. Retain the exclusion information when it’s available instead of assuming that the larger amount is more complete.
Last Sale, Floor and Estimated Price
NFT price labels describe different valuation methods. Preserve the label attached to each saved figure; matching the reporting currency doesn’t make the underlying methods equivalent.
Last Sale
A last-sale value refers to a previous transaction involving that NFT. Its age matters because it describes an earlier purchase. It may also predate the current holder’s acquisition, so it isn’t automatically that holder’s purchase cost.
Collection Floor
A collection floor applies a collection-level benchmark. Historical valuation descriptions used a sales-based floor over a period, which differs from the lowest active asking price. Don’t silently substitute one definition for the other when reconciling saved figures. A common collection benchmark also doesn’t capture every difference between individual NFTs.
Individual Estimate
The earlier in-house NFT Value Estimator used sales and NFT metadata to calculate individual valuations. That method differed from assigning a shared collection benchmark. A model estimate remains a valuation, without establishing a buyer’s commitment to purchase the asset.
Conversion Currency and Snapshot Time
Reporting currency and snapshot time affect the comparison even when holdings match. A value expressed in a cryptocurrency can remain unchanged while its converted fiat amount moves. Records taken at different times can also use different token quotes or collection benchmarks. Preserve both the valuation time and the displayed unit when available. A screenshot’s file timestamp may reflect when it was saved, copied or modified; it doesn’t necessarily identify when every underlying price last changed.
Matching a Saved Total to Its Components
To compare a saved portfolio total with a separate NFT record, choose a full reconciliation only when both records contain compatible coverage. If the NFT record covers only part of the wallet, a comparison of that shared portion is the defensible choice.
- Keep the starting total with its wallet identity, chain coverage, reporting currency and valuation time.
- Confirm that the separate NFT record covers the same collections and individual holdings and uses a compatible valuation method, reporting currency and valuation time before using its subtotal.
- Retain token and DeFi amounts when the starting total included them; don’t substitute the NFT subtotal for the whole portfolio.
- Calculate with each position included once, leaving missing valuations identified rather than assigning them a value.
- Keep the resulting component total beside the original amount and identify any remaining difference.
The comparison is reconciled when the components explain the saved total within its displayed precision. If incompatible coverage or an unknown valuation method leaves a residual difference, preserve that difference as unresolved. A higher replacement estimate doesn’t resolve missing information.
When Does a Difference Count as a Gain?
A positive portfolio difference represents a valuation gain only after the comparison accounts for changes in holdings and external transfers on a consistent basis. Deposits can increase the total without investment appreciation, while withdrawals can reduce it without a valuation loss.
For retained assets, higher comparable valuations describe an unrealized increase. A completed sale introduces actual proceeds and relevant costs, which require separate records. Collection trading volume and application rankings describe market activity; neither substitutes for the wallet’s own holdings or acquisition history.
The interpretation changes when coverage, valuation methods or reporting units change between snapshots. In that case, describe the change that the records establish. Keep an unexplained difference separate from performance until the underlying amounts support that conclusion.
Before you start with Dapp radar
Can Rounding Explain a Small Mismatch Between the Portfolio Total and Its Rows?
Rounding can explain a small mismatch when the total uses more precision than the displayed rows. Adding rounded amounts can produce a different answer from rounding their underlying sum. Compare the available decimal precision before treating a residual as a missing asset. A discrepancy that exceeds the possible rounding effect needs another explanation.
Does a Missing NFT Image Mean Its Value Should Be Removed From the Comparison?
A missing image alone doesn’t justify removing an NFT from the comparison. The thumbnail, ownership record and valuation are separate pieces of information. Identify the asset through its network, collection contract and token identifier. An unavailable image doesn’t establish that ownership ended or that an otherwise recorded estimate became zero.
How Should Transfers Between My Own Wallets Affect a Combined Portfolio Comparison?
Transfers between included wallets shouldn’t count as new external capital in a combined comparison. The asset changes location within the selected wallet set. Transfer costs can still reduce the combined value, and snapshots taken at different times can complicate matching. If the destination wallet falls outside the comparison, the same transfer crosses the chosen boundary.
Which Percentage Should I Use When Saved NFT Collection Returns Differ?
A combined percentage needs a common measurement period and an appropriate value basis for each collection. Adding individual percentage changes doesn’t produce a portfolio return. Even a weighted calculation can mislead when the figures measure different things, such as a collection benchmark change and a holder’s purchase-based return. Establish what each percentage measures before combining it.
Is an Old NFT Estimate Still Comparable After the Valuation Method Changes?
An old estimate remains a historical observation, but a method change breaks a direct performance comparison. The difference can include the effect of the new calculation as well as market movement. Preserve the original amount and its method. If both methods cannot be applied to a common set of holdings and dates, keep that limitation attached to the comparison.