QNT Inflation Analysis · September 2026 · Mixed flows, supply roughly steady
Quant Network created every QNT that exists in a single afternoon in June 2018 and has created none since, so the Pressure Framework reads 0 sell against 0 buy on 14.54M circulating QNT — a net of 0.00% over the last 90 days and 0.00% projected forward, against a monitor reading of −0.25% for a gap of 0.25 percentage points. QNT is not deflationary, though: Overledger licences are invoiced in pounds, the token has no burn function and cannot be upgraded to gain one, so nothing removes supply either. The two live questions are that the 2018 mint function was parked rather than renounced, and that the chain shows 267,884 QNTmore issued than Quant's own published supply figure admits.
The verdict, in one paragraph
Over the 90 days to Sep 5 2026 the QNT ledger records 0 QNT of new supply reaching the market and 0 QNT removed from it, which on a circulating base of 14,544,176 QNT is a net of exactly 0.00%. The independent supply monitor reads −0.25% for the same window, leaving a gap of 0.25 percentage points — inside the framework's 0.5pp tolerance, so no data-conflict chip is raised. That gap is measurement noise, not disagreement: the monitor infers supply by dividing market capitalisation by a four-significant-figure price, which drifts by thousands of QNT a day on a float that has not moved at all. QNT is a dormant fixed-supply token with a parked mint switch — flat rather than scarce, and flat by neglect rather than by design.
Sell pressure: where new QNT comes from
Nowhere, and that is a measurement rather than an assumption. Quant Network operates no blockchain of its own — QNT is an ERC-20 token on Ethereum — so there is no block reward, no staking payout and no emission curve to produce Sell #1 protocol inflation. To prove the zero rather than infer it, every token-creating event in QNT's life was replayed from the chain's own logs, from the token's creation block to the present: there are 608 of them in total, they sum to 24,431,259 QNT, and all 608 landed between two blocks five hours and twenty-two minutes apart on Jun 25 2018. Not one falls inside this window. That zero carries its own liveness controls, because a sweep returning nothing is the classic silent failure: the identical filter returns 608 non-empty results in the 2018 portion of the very same run, and an unfiltered sweep of the same window returns thousands of ordinary QNT transfers, so the log path is demonstrably live at both ends of the range.
Sell #2 vesting unlocks is zero because there is nothing left to vest. The entire QNT distribution completed inside that one 2018 day, there is no vesting or escrow contract anywhere on chain, and the unlock trackers that cover this kind of schedule list no calendar for Quant at all — the row is zero because the mechanism finished seven years ago, not because a cliff happens to fall outside the window. Sell #4 long-term locked or bankruptcy is zero for the simplest reason available: no bankruptcy estate holds QNT and no trustee distribution schedule exists, so nothing can arrive on that line.
Sell #3 foundation and unscheduled unlocks is also zero for the window, but it is the row that carries the risk, and it is covered in its own section below.
Buy pressure: where new QNT goes
Also nowhere. Buy #1 programmatic buyback is zero because Quant Network invoices Overledger licences in pounds sterling and no protocol path routes any of that revenue back into QNT. There is no buyback contract, no accumulation wallet and no announced programme, which means the framework never has to answer the buyback-destination question for this coin at all.
Buy #2 protocol fee burn is the row where a wrong zero would do the most damage, so it was verified on both surfaces the framework requires. The dead-address surface sat unmoved at 0.117006 QNTat both ends of the window. The supply surface was flat too — and here the verified contract source matters, because QNT's reported total supply is a hard-coded constant that no function ever writes, so its flatness proves nothing on its own and would have been worthless as evidence. What settles it is that the deployed token has no burn entry point at all, and its runtime bytecode is byte-identical at both ends of the window with both standard upgrade slots reading empty, so a burn path cannot be added later either. The only irreversible removal in these 90 days was 11.80 QNTof stray user sends into the token's own address — a genuine one-way sink, since the contract has no owner, no rescue and no withdraw — arriving in 15 transfers whose inflows minus outflows close against the measured balance change to within float noise. At 0.00008% of the float it does not move the displayed figure.
Buy #3 foundation buy is zero because Quant publishes no company wallet and has disclosed no dated purchase. Buy #4 new long-term lockis the interesting one: Overledger is designed so that licence payments lock QNT in a treasury contract for the term of the licence, which would be a real buy-side mechanism if it were being used. Quant's own public repository names four mainnet treasury contracts, and all four were read at both ends of the window. Every one holds 0 QNT. Their code was confirmed present before any balance was read, so these are measured zeros rather than the artefact you get from querying a balance on an address that is not a contract. The licence sink exists in code and is unused. Node staking appeared in the Overledger documentation on Aug 26 2026, still marked under construction, with no contract deployed and no launch date — a watch line, not a ledger row.
Foundation and overhang
Three team-controlled overhangs are tracked for QNT, and the largest of them cannot be located. Quant's own published figures imply roughly 68,317 QNT of company reserve — the difference between a stated total supply of 14,612,493 QNT and a circulating count of 14,544,176 QNT — but Quant has never published a wallet address for it, and the one address the chain can attribute to the company, the recipient of its 14,467,000 QNT allocation, held 1 QNTat both ends of the window. The reserve is real by disclosure and opaque on chain, so it is carried as an unenumerated bucket refreshed by walking Quant's public statements, not as a located balance.
The second overhang is the four Overledger treasury contracts described above, refreshed directly from the chain and empty at both ends. The third is the one most readers will not expect. QNT's mint function still exists in the deployed token, gated to a single sale contract that was written into the constructor with no setter — authority was parked, not renounced. That sale contract is still live on chain, still owned by its original address, and although its sale switches read closed at both ends of the window, it retains 21,035,741 QNT of unspent regular mint headroom plus 6,466,887 QNTof presale headroom behind an owner-only call. Nothing suggests Quant intends to use it, and nothing has been minted in seven years — but “has not been called” is not “cannot be called,” which is exactly why this page tags protocol inflation as a chain-refreshed row rather than a permanently settled one. If any of these three balances falls between refreshes, the outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh.
One further discrepancy belongs here because it sizes the uncertainty. Summing every mint the chain ever recorded gives 24,431,259 QNT issued; subtracting the 9,550,882 QNT sitting permanently stuck in the token's own address leaves a live float of 14,880,377 QNT — 267,884 QNTmore than the supply figure Quant publishes. Those tokens were minted and never destroyed. The residual is static, unchanged at both ends of the window, so it changes no row here; but it is roughly four times the size of the entire disclosed company reserve, and any reader treating QNT's published cap as exact should know the chain does not agree with it.
How QNT compares to other fixed-supply utility tokens
The instinctive comparison is Bitcoin, and it is the wrong one. Bitcoin has a hard cap enforced by consensus rules every node validates, and it is still issuing — its halving schedule means new supply arrives on a published, unstoppable curve. QNT is the opposite shape: it issues nothing at all, but its cap is a company's published number rather than a protocol constraint, and the chain shows 267,884 QNT more in existence than that number states. A cap you cannot verify against the chain is a weaker guarantee than a curve you can.
The comparison that actually fits is the exchange-token class — BNB, OKB, and their peers — because those are also ERC-20-style tokens whose issuer runs a real revenue business. The difference is what the business does with the revenue. Those tokens route a share of trading fees into a periodic buyback-and-burn, so the issuer's commercial success mechanically shrinks the float, and the Pressure Framework reads them as genuinely deflationary. Quant sells Overledger licences to banks and central banks, invoices them in pounds, and keeps the proceeds in the company. Quant's own documentation is explicit that tokenholders hold no claim on that revenue. So QNT can win every enterprise contract it pitches for and the token ledger will not move by a single unit. The Overledger treasury was the designed bridge between the two — licence payments locking QNT out of circulation for the licence term — and on chain that bridge is empty.
Against fee-burning smart-contract platforms the gap is structural rather than commercial. Chains with an EIP-1559-style base-fee burn destroy supply in proportion to how much they are used, so usage and scarcity are wired together. QNT has no such wiring, and cannot acquire it: the token contract has no burn function, is not upgradeable, and is byte-identical at both ends of this window. That is genuinely permanent in a way that Quant's supply cap is not — the absence of a burn is protocol-encoded, while the cap is a corporate statement. It is the reason this page scores QNT flat rather than scarce, and why a capped supply on its own does not earn a deflationary reading.
What to watch in the next 90 days
The Trusted Node Program is the single thing that could change this reading. Overledger documentation dated Aug 26 2026 describes staked QNT influencing how requests are routed between nodes, but marks the chapter under construction with no contract deployed — a deployed staking contract with a published minimum stake would create the first genuine Buy #4 this token has ever had.
Watch the four Overledger treasury contracts for a first non-zero balance; they are read from the chain at every refresh, and any QNT arriving in them is licence-driven supply leaving the float. Watch for Quant publishing a company wallet address, which would turn the opaque 68,317 QNT reserve into a trackable balance. Watch the parked 2018 sale contract's sale switches, which read closed today and would take one owner transaction to reopen. And watch whether the Fusion Rollup, live on mainnet since Jun 2 2026, ever acquires a fee or collateral mechanism denominated in QNT rather than in the stablecoins it unifies — as of today it does not, and that is why a headline product launch left this ledger completely unchanged.
Summary
The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads QNT at 0.00% net supply change over the last 90 days and 0.00% projected forward, from 0 QNT of sell pressure against 0 QNT of buy pressure on 14.54Mcirculating. The structural mechanism is that Quant Network created all 608 batches of QNT in a single afternoon on Jun 25 2018 and has created none since, while Overledger licence revenue arrives in pounds and never touches the token — so nothing adds supply and nothing removes it. The key risk is that this stillness is not guaranteed: the mint function was parked rather than renounced behind a live sale contract holding over 27M QNT of unspent headroom, and the chain records 267,884 QNT more issued than Quant's published total supply admits. The ceiling is therefore softer than the fixed-supply story implies — QNT is flat, which is a good deal better than inflating, but it is flat by dormancy rather than by a mechanism that would keep it that way.
MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of QNT, Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Sep 5, 2026.