Small market caps can be deceptive, because so called market cap is at least on small scales basically fictitious.
For well over a decade now I have found with small market caps it makes more sense to set them up "backward" as it were:
Instead of looking at a recent sale or at the highest buy offer or even some average or depth-adjusted derivative of such things simply have a "treasury" of assets for each coin or token and divide the total value of that "treasury" by the number minted / number in existence to come up with a "valuation" for the thing.
This is along the lines of a "fundamental value" one might calculate for a corporation's shares, basically add up all the company's assets and divide by the number of shares.
I know another valuation method looks instead at earnings, but consider what happened when the penny-stock people dove into the mainstream stock-market: in mainstream a lot of companies' shares had been valued based on earnings, whereas the penny-stock folk looked at "fundamentals" and realised that many many of those companies in those days owned a whole lot of real-estate, worth a lot, so the penny-stock folk bought up a controlling interest of shares in such companies and broke them up, basically putting the real-estate into their own hands or into holding companies set up to rent the real-estate, leaving the earnings-valued companies to rent the real-estate rather than own it.
So there are presumably pros and cons to both approaches to valuation and maybe separating into earnings companies who rent from holding companies might even have helped sort out whether for a given enterprise its earnings or its actual holdings counted for more overall.
A nice side-effect of the "treasuries" system of valuation is that in order for a coin or token to show up on market cap based aggregator sites' lists of assets it also needs to build its buy-side on exchanges, since ultimately it tends to be the visible buy-side that results in a good valuation on such sites; but historically it became clear that one cannot count such buy-sides on third-party exchanges as part of an asset's "treasury" from which to calculate a valuation because lets face it, such buy-sides so often vanish as exchanges fly by night, take the classic "sorry we got hacked" exit-strategy, or who knows maybe in a few cases even actually do get hacked.
So each asset also needs to have "slush funds", funds it can use to build buy-sides on exchanges as well as for day to day operations, over and above its actual official "treasury" from which we can calculate its value per coin token share etc (instance).
Heck so far it has not even been necessary to include the value of "fully owned subsidiaries" into an asset's "official treasury", so the valuations obtained by this "treasuries system" should actually by design be an under-estimation of the values. It also does not take into account all kinds of "game assets" such as planets, deathstars, goldpieces, armies, navies, nations, magic swords, whatever.
Basically we treat what we can actually secure into an official "treasury" as if it were the market cap, and compute price from that instead of computing market cap from current prices on exchanges, because basically the markets are stupefyingly "inefficient" so moment to moment prices on spot markets are extremely unreliable guides especially at small market caps.
-
MarkM-