The cNGN record reverted, and the count barely moved
cNGN's transfer volume fell 67.8% a week after its record, while its transfer count fell 2.7%. The whales left and the small transfers stayed, which is what we said the record was. Celo is the one chain that genuinely broadened.
- 18,612
- cNGN transfers
- $56
- Average transfer on Base
- 8.6x
- Celo transfer count
- $1.29M
- ZARP
down just 2.7% from 19,121
from $407 last week
171 to 1,470, at a $214 average
up 49%, on 10,064 transfers
A week ago cNGN recorded its highest transfer volume on record, $20.87M, and we said the record was a small number of large movements rather than more people using the token.
This week it did $6,708,757 — down 67.8%.
Its transfer count fell 2.7%, from 19,121 to 18,612.
That is the test, and it answers cleanly. Two-thirds of the value left and the transfers stayed. Whatever moved last week was not the token's user base.
Where the money went
| Chain | Volume, wk 43 | Volume, wk 44 | Transfers | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BSC | $13,675,604 | $5,476,634 | 1,068 → 1,297 | $4,223 |
| Base | $7,111,949 | $871,904 | 17,499 → 15,547 | $56 |
| Celo | $31,069 | $313,972 | 171 → 1,470 | $214 |
Base is the clearest. Its volume fell 88% while its transfer count fell 11%, and its average transfer went from $407 back to $56 — close to the dust baseline it normally sits at. The $407 was a few hundred large transfers sitting on top of tens of thousands of tiny ones. They did not return.
BSC moved more transfers for less money: 1,297 against 1,068, at $4,223 average instead of $12,805. The large-ticket chain is still large-ticket, but the tickets were a third of the size.
What did not revert
Two things we flagged as noise last week disappeared, which is the right outcome:
- ZARU did $599,111 on 53 transfers last week. This week: $11,350. It was a handful of large movements and nothing more.
- cNGN on Mento did $88,645 on 3 transfers. This week: $379.
Reporting those with their transfer counts is why neither reads as a collapse now. There was nothing to collapse.
Celo is the one that actually grew
cNGN on Celo went from 171 transfers to 1,470 — 8.6 times as many — at a $214 average, carrying $313,972.
That is the shape of broadening rather than a whale: the count moved by more than the average did, and $214 is neither dust nor desk-sized. It is small, and it is one week, so we are not calling it a trend. It is the only part of cNGN's week that moved in the direction more users would move it.
The rest of the native book
ZARP rose 49% to $1,288,772 on 10,064 transfers, and is now 16% of all native stablecoin transfer volume, against cNGN's 84%. A week ago cNGN was 93%.
Everything else stayed small: cKES $6,058 on 863 transfers, nTZS $3,719, cGHS $2,741 on 1,094 transfers, ZARSC $1,027, eXOF $319, cZAR $2.
cNGN's supply rose to $3,324,502 even as its transfer volume fell by two-thirds — more of the token outstanding, less of it moving.
Method
Transfer volume is on-chain transfers only — event_type 'transfer' — and excludes mints and burns. Measured across the chains where each token is deployed for the ISO weeks of 19–25 October and 26 October – 1 November 2026, valued at the daily rate. Transfer counts are stated beside every volume figure because cNGN's count is dominated by very small transfers: across the 30 days to 25 October, 89% of its transfers carried 0.7% of its volume, and on Base the median transfer was about $1. A chain-level average transfer size is therefore pulled far above the median by a few hundred large movements, and neither the average nor the count on its own describes what the token is doing. Supply is end-of-period circulating supply.
How attribution works →Cite this
Free to cite with attribution. No embargo, no approval needed.
AfriFlux (2026). The cNGN record reverted, and the count barely moved. Published 2 November 2026. https://www.afriflux.xyz/feed/cngn-record-week-reverted
Reproducing a chart? Use this line: Source: AfriFlux — on-chain intelligence for Africa's stablecoin economy. afriflux.xyz