CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, and DeFiLlama Earned Zero AI Citations in ICODA’s 100+ Query Study
New research from Web3 growth agency ICODA, conducted in partnership with Semrush, has found that major crypto data aggregators CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, and DeFiLlama received zero citations across more than 100 controlled queries on ChatGPT and Perplexity. The study, which ran in August 2026, tested how the two leading AI engines cite sources across four query categories: recommendation-style prompts, breaking news, safety and legitimacy checks, and community-framed questions.
The findings challenge a common assumption in crypto marketing: that getting listed on aggregator platforms like CoinGecko or CoinMarketCap will automatically make a project visible in AI-generated answers. ICODA’s audit suggests that AI engines do not treat these data aggregators as default verification layers, despite their popularity among human researchers.
Also read: Crypto Investor Pardoned by Trump Now Funds 75% of Reform UK’s Donations
Why the study was designed
ICODA and Semrush, using the Semrush One platform, designed the research to test what the agency calls “the most repeated recommendation in crypto AI visibility strategy.” Many marketers believe that securing a listing on CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, and DeFiLlama will lead AI engines to cite them as verified sources, similar to how these platforms serve as quick-reference tools for humans checking price, market cap, and contract addresses.
The study ran clean query sessions across both ChatGPT and Perplexity, capturing full answers and every citation. The four query categories were designed to reflect real user behavior: recommendation-style queries like “best DeFi protocol in 2026,” breaking-news queries about recent events, safety and legitimacy checks, and community-framed prompts asking what people are saying about a project.
Also read: Uber Cuts 3,300 Jobs in Largest Workforce Reduction Since 2020
The top-line result was consistent: across every category and both engines, the three major data aggregators did not appear once — no citation, no passing mention.
What AI engines actually cite
Instead of data aggregators, the study found four distinct source types that consistently earned citations, each tied to specific query intents:
- Purpose-built SEO roundups — Sites like Coin Bureau, Strategy Arena, and Datawallet dominated recommendation-style queries. Coin Bureau was independently cited by both ChatGPT and Perplexity for the same query, the only source type to achieve cross-engine overlap without coordination. These sites win not on authority but on structural match: a page designed to answer “best DeFi protocols in 2026” outperforms a price feed for that query.
- Financial media and trade press — Safety queries surfaced Investopedia, Reuters, Yahoo Finance, and Business Insider. Regulatory-depth queries pulled The Block, paulhastings, and Investors.com — a separate outlet set with zero overlap. Notably, paulhastings is a law firm publishing legal analysis, indicating that when a query requires regulatory depth, the engine reaches for a source built to provide it.
- The company itself — Circle and Tether were cited directly on a stablecoin safety query, named as primary sources rather than summarized by a third party. The specific condition appeared to be a standing record of recurring, audited reserve disclosures — not size or brand recognition, but the audit record.
- Community platforms — Reddit surfaced in one query that explicitly named it, and even then appeared alongside a blog that had already summarized the same sentiment secondhand. The study notes that community reach is secondhand by default.
Every citation in the dataset followed the same sequence: query intent, then source structure, then relevance, then citation. The engines are not looking for the most authoritative site in a category; they are matching content structure to query intent.
Cross-engine overlap is not uniform
Citation overlap between ChatGPT and Perplexity varied significantly by query type. On roundup queries, overlap was high — both engines independently cited Coin Bureau. On breaking-news queries, overlap dropped to zero, with the same event surfacing entirely different outlets in each engine. On the stablecoin safety query, overlap was zero again, but for a different reason: ChatGPT went to primary sources, while Perplexity chose comparison blogs.
Semrush’s own AI Visibility Index, measured across 126 million prompts, found a similar structural pattern at industry scale. The index showed that source overlap between which brands get mentioned and which sources actually get cited can drop to 30% on a single platform like Gemini. Averaging citation data across query types into one aggregate score, the research argues, hides exactly the structural differences that determine what gets cited.
What this means for crypto marketers
The research suggests that crypto marketing strategies focused solely on aggregator listings may be missing the mark in an AI-driven discovery environment. For projects seeking visibility in AI answers, the study points toward a more nuanced approach: understanding the query types that matter for their audience and creating content structured to answer those queries directly.
ICODA published nine representative query runs as walkthroughs in its full report, providing a transparent look at the methodology. The agency, which specializes in full-cycle digital marketing for Web3, DeFi, and crypto exchange clients, positions the research as a starting point for rethinking GEO — generative engine optimization — strategies in the crypto sector.
As AI engines continue to shape how users discover information, the gap between traditional SEO assumptions and AI citation behavior is likely to narrow only through more empirical research like this. For now, the data suggests that crypto projects should look beyond the aggregator listing checklist and consider how their content aligns with the specific queries their target audience is asking AI engines.
This article is based on a press release and does not constitute financial advice. The cryptocurrency market is volatile and uncertain; readers should conduct their own research before making any investment decisions.
