feat: enabled the token id page redesign

[nick-stacks]

What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)

• [ ] Refactor
• [X] Feature
• [ ] Bug Fix
• [ ] Optimization
• [ ] Documentation Update

Description

enabled the token id page redesign

Issue ticket number and link

Checklist:

• [X] I have performed a self-review of my code.
• [X] I have tested the change on desktop and mobile.
• [ ] I have added thorough tests where applicable.
• [ ] I've added analytics and error logging where applicable.

Screenshots (if appropriate):

[vercel[bot]]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
stacks-labs-explorer	Ready	Preview	Comment	Nov 10, 2025 7:58pm

[ginny-stacks]

Thanks Nick, here are my comments:

• [x] 1) Suspicious token mark inconsistency A token is marked as suspicious in the table, but this mark is missing on the ID page.

Expected:

---

• [x] 2) Missing the SIP-10 data callout:

---

• [x] 3) Token image styling The token image should be larger (40x40px) and round.

### Expected:

---

• [x] 4) Different underline styling in these rows:

---

• [x] 5) "No data available" should be text-secondary color

Expected:

---

• [x] 6) Missing copy functionality on market data:

Expected:

---

• [x] 7) Holders table numbering logic If we can’t sort holders by the largest holdings, we should remove the first column with numbers as they don’t currently follow any logic.

---

• [x] 8) Source code tab is duplicated

---

• [x] 9) On mobile, Market Data should appear as the second section, right after the token name data. (Apologies — this was not included in the original design spec.)

---

• [x] 10) The sticky header is showing incorrect data and icon:

Expected:

---

• [ ] 11) Is it possible to add this notice when a token name is repeated a lot?

[nick-stacks]

@ginny-stacks Regarding 11, this UX warrants more discussion imo. A few points:

1. This warning may not be as useful as it would seem. Take USDC for example. There are multiple, legitamate wrapped versions of USDC. This would flag all of the USDC tokens and raise suspicion and worry, despite all of the tokens being legitamate.
2. If coming from the tokens list page and searching the user would see all the similar tokens.
3. There needs to be a criteria set for what is considered similar? If I am looking at USDC, am I searching for tokens with USDC in the name? USD? What about SBTC? Am I looking for SBTC, BTC, SBTD, etc.?
4. Performance. This adds a pretty heavy query - searching for a list of tokens that match a string. If this were to add any amount of significant lag to the first contentful paint, then I wouldn't be in favor of adding it to the SSR code. We could add it client side but the alert would pop-in.

[ginny-stacks]

Thanks for addressing the feedback @nick-stacks ! There are just some standing fixes:

• [x] 1) Link styling and wrapping
• The link styling is not visible in its normal state. Please make it underlined by default.
• Also, the link text is not wrapping correctly on mobile.

---

• [x] 2) Spacing between the two tables
• On desktop, the space between the two tables is too large. Please adjust to match the design reference.
• On mobile, the spacing is too tight, it needs a bit more breathing room.

---

• [x] 3) Table responsiveness
• The tables are not adjusting properly on mobile and appear cropped.

---

• [x] 4) Banner icon alignment
• The banner icon should align to the top (as shown in the reference design), rather than being vertically centered.

---

• [x] 5) Outstanding issue
• This issue still needs resolution (see previous notes for details).

---

As for your comment on item 11, I understand - let’s revisit that discussion later if it becomes a real issue for users.

[nick-stacks]

@ginny-stacks Regarding #5, You can see that the API returns the holders in desc order of holding percentage. So the numbering still makes sense. The API just doesn't allow was to sort in reverse

[ginny-stacks]

Thanks @nick-stacks , looking good! My only last comment is that this column should hug contents in height, as it used to do before:

Other than that, it's approved 👍