Total DeFi TVL stands at $93.36B as of March 31, 2026, with capital concentrated among five protocols holding $94.47B in combined TVL. Lido ($33.92B) and AAVE V3 ($33.31B) dominate the ecosystem, representing 72% of total value locked. Stablecoin issuers capture 77% of identifiable protocol fees,...
"Competition has intensified across every major DeFi vertical, with competitive pressure forcing protocols to optimize execution, reduce fees, and improve routing. The same dynamic is now unfolding across DEXs, lending and staking." — DL News, State of DeFi 2025
Total DeFi TVL stands at $93.36B as of March 31, 2026, with capital concentrated among five protocols holding $94.47B in combined TVL. Lido ($33.92B) and AAVE V3 ($33.31B) dominate the ecosystem, representing 72% of total value locked. Stablecoin issuers capture 77% of identifiable protocol fees, with Tether generating $16.4M and Circle producing $6.7M in 24-hour revenue despite holding no TVL in traditional DeFi metrics. DEX volume reached $7.35B across 24 hours, with Figure Markets Exchange recording an anomalous +12,366% spike to $939.7M. Meanwhile, lending protocols face margin compression—AAVE V3 converts just 0.0042% of TVL to daily fees (1.53% annually), while newer competitor Morpho Blue demonstrates 7x better capital efficiency despite capturing only 18% of AAVE's scale.
The data reveals a bifurcated market: infrastructure protocols (Lido, EigenLayer, bridges) accumulate TVL through structural positioning, while fee generation concentrates in stablecoin issuance and derivative trading. Restaking emerged as the fastest-growing category with EigenLayer holding $18.37B, up 47% quarter-over-quarter. Bridge protocols collectively warehouse $46.36B—exceeding all individual lending protocols except AAVE—signaling cross-chain capital movement as a primary TVL sink rather than pass-through infrastructure.
Fee compression threatens lending protocol profitability. USDC transaction volume surpassed USDT for the first time since 2019, capturing 64% of stablecoin transactions while Tether maintains 62% of circulating supply at $184.04B. The disparity between transaction dominance and supply dominance suggests institutional capital favors USDC for settlement despite USDT's retail entrenchment.
Total deduplicated DeFi TVL reached $93.36B according to DeFiLlama data captured March 31, 2026. The top 10 protocols control $111.81B in aggregated TVL, though this figure includes protocol overlaps where AAVE and AAVE V3 are counted separately.
| Rank | Protocol | TVL | Chain | Category | |------|----------|-----|-------|----------| | 1 | Lido | $33.92B | Multi | Liquid Staking | | 2 | AAVE | $33.66B | Multi | Multi-category | | 3 | AAVE V3 | $33.31B | Multi | Lending | | 4 | EigenLayer | $18.37B | Multi | Restaking | | 5 | WBTC | $15.21B | Multi | Bridge | | 6 | ether.fi | $11.29B | Multi | Liquid Restaking | | 7 | Binance staked ETH | $11.15B | Multi | Liquid Staking | | 8 | ether.fi Stake | $10.08B | Multi | Liquid Restaking | | 9 | Spark | $9.11B | Multi | Lending | | 10 | Ethena | $8.77B | Multi | Basis Trading |
Liquid staking and restaking protocols dominate with $84.81B in combined TVL across six major protocols. Lido alone represents 36.3% of total DeFi TVL—a concentration level that introduces systemic risk to Ethereum's validator set. According to Lido's February 2026 tokenholder update, the protocol maintains 23% of Ethereum staking market share with 8,721,598 ETH staked, though this represents a decrease driven by institutional entrants like BitMine and Grayscale entering the market.
EigenLayer's restaking category shows explosive growth at $18.37B TVL, up 47% quarter-over-quarter according to March 2026 data. The protocol commands 93.9% market share within restaking with 4,364,467 ETH committed. Combined with ether.fi's liquid restaking products ($21.37B total), the restaking vertical represents $39.74B—42.5% of total DeFi TVL.
Bridge protocols function as capital warehouses rather than pass-through infrastructure. WBTC ($15.21B), Binance Bitcoin ($8.05B), Coinbase Bridge ($6.26B), and Arbitrum Bridge ($5.55B) hold $35.07B collectively, exceeding the TVL of every lending protocol except AAVE. This TVL concentration suggests cross-chain capital remains sticky, locked in bridge contracts rather than flowing freely across chains.
Lending faces consolidation and competition. AAVE V3 ($33.31B) maintains dominance, but Morpho protocols (Morpho Blue $5.88B + Morpho $6.02B = $11.90B) represent an emerging competitive threat. While AAVE holds 3x more TVL, Morpho demonstrates superior capital efficiency at 1.33% daily efficiency versus AAVE's 0.19%, approximately 7x better capital utilization according to lending platform comparisons.
Total 24-hour DEX volume across tracked platforms reached $7.35B as of March 31, 2026. The top three DEXes processed $2.34B (31.8% of total volume), indicating significant concentration despite the proliferation of DEX platforms.
| DEX | 24h Volume | 1d Change | Market Share | |-----|-----------|----------|--------------| | Figure Markets Exchange | $939.7M | +12,366.5% | 12.8% | | Uniswap V3 | $735.6M | +76.9% | 10.0% | | PancakeSwap AMM V3 | $667.9M | +39.6% | 9.1% | | Uniswap V4 | $651.4M | +65.7% | 8.9% | | HumidiFi | $307.6M | +37.7% | 4.2% | | BisonFi | $300.4M | +73.1% | 4.1% | | Aerodrome Slipstream | $286.3M | +85.0% | 3.9% | | PancakeSwap Infinity | $277.2M | +52.6% | 3.8% | | Orca DEX | $242.8M | +91.5% | 3.3% | | AlphaQ | $186.4M | +35.1% | 2.5% |
Figure Markets Exchange recorded $939.7M in 24-hour volume with a +12,366.5% increase—the largest percentage move in the dataset by multiple orders of magnitude. This anomaly represents 12.8% of total DEX volume concentrated in a single venue. Figure Markets is a platform built on Provenance Blockchain offering trading, yield, and borrowing services, but has historically shown low trading volume and limited token listings according to 2026 platform reviews. The spike requires validation to distinguish between legitimate capital inflow, arbitrage activity, or data reporting anomaly.
Base chain momentum accelerates through Aerodrome. Aerodrome Slipstream processed $286.3M with +85% growth, positioning it as the seventh-largest DEX by volume. Base overtook Ethereum and BNB Chain in DEX volumes for the first time in early 2026, with Aerodrome leading as the dominant Base-native DEX at $2.94B in weekly volume. The protocol's planned Q2 2026 MetaDEX 03 upgrade projects 40% revenue increases and $34M cost reductions, potentially accelerating Base's DEX market share gains.
Uniswap maintains dominance across versions. Uniswap V3 ($735.6M) and Uniswap V4 ($651.4M) combine for $1.39B—18.9% of total DEX volume. The +76.9% and +65.7% daily growth rates suggest strong volume momentum, though without historical context these percentages may reflect normal volatility rather than sustained trends.
Prediction markets face contraction. Polymarket recorded -20.6% volume change to $122.8M, the largest negative mover among tracked DEXes. Kalshi showed -8% to $173.1M. Combined prediction market volume decreased despite the category reaching $5.89B across all platforms for the week of March 2-8, 2026, indicating volume concentration in non-DeFi prediction platforms.
Total identifiable protocol fees reached approximately $30.2M across 24 hours, with stablecoin issuers capturing $23.1M (76.5%) despite not appearing in traditional TVL rankings.
| Protocol | 24h Fees | Category | TVL | Daily Fee Yield | |----------|----------|----------|-----|-----------------| | Tether | $16.4M | Stablecoin | $184.04B supply | 0.0089% | | Circle | $6.7M | Stablecoin | $77.27B supply | 0.0087% | | Hyperliquid Perps | $1.8M | Derivatives | Not listed | N/A | | PumpSwap | $1.7M | DEX | Not listed | N/A | | Aave V3 | $1.4M | Lending | $33.31B | 0.0042% | | Lido | $1.4M | Liquid Staking | $33.92B | 0.0041% | | Sky Lending | $1.1M | CDP | $5.85B | 0.0188% |
Stablecoin protocols dominate revenue generation. Tether's $16.4M daily fees on $184.04B circulating supply translates to 3.25% annualized revenue, while Circle's $6.7M on $77.27B supply yields 3.17% annually. These figures represent issuance fees and treasury management revenue rather than trading-derived income, creating structural fee streams independent of market volatility.
Lending protocol margins face compression. AAVE V3 generates $1.4M daily on $33.31B TVL—just 0.0042% daily yield or 1.53% annually. This represents the interest rate spread captured by the protocol between borrowers and lenders. Morpho Blue demonstrates 7x better capital efficiency despite lower absolute scale, suggesting AAVE's dominance stems from network effects and trust rather than capital optimization. The State of DeFi 2025 report confirms competitive pressure has forced protocols to reduce fees and improve execution, compressing margins across lending, DEXes, and staking.
Derivatives outperform on capital efficiency. Hyperliquid Perps generates $1.8M daily—comparable to AAVE V3 and Lido despite holding negligible TVL. Perpetual futures trading generates higher fees per dollar at risk due to leverage and trading frequency. This margin advantage explains why derivatives protocols can compete with multi-billion dollar TVL protocols on revenue generation.
Sky Lending shows highest fee yield among listed protocols. At $1.1M daily on $5.85B TVL, Sky achieves 0.0188% daily yield (6.87% annually)—4.5x AAVE's efficiency. This suggests either higher borrowing rates, better capital utilization, or different fee structures in the CDP (collateralized debt position) model compared to pooled lending.
Revenue data remains incomplete. The revenue column shows N/A across all protocols in the DeFiLlama dataset, preventing analysis of protocol profitability after token incentives and operational costs. Fee generation does not equal revenue when protocols subsidize users through token emissions.
Total stablecoin market capitalization reached $296.04B as of March 31, 2026, representing nearly 3.2x the entire DeFi TVL. This disparity indicates stablecoins circulate primarily outside DeFi protocols—in centralized exchanges, payment rails, and treasuries.
| Stablecoin | Circulating Supply | Market Share | Issuer Type | |------------|-------------------|--------------|-------------| | Tether (USDT) | $184.04B | 62.1% | Private | | USD Coin (USDC) | $77.27B | 26.1% | Circle/Coinbase | | Sky Dollar (USDS) | $8.80B | 3.0% | DeFi Protocol | | Ethena USDe (USDe) | $5.88B | 2.0% | Basis Trading | | Dai (DAI) | $4.62B | 1.6% | DeFi Protocol | | World Liberty USD (USD1) | $4.39B | 1.5% | Private | | PayPal USD (PYUSD) | $3.89B | 1.3% | Corporate | | BlackRock USD (BUIDL) | $2.76B | 0.9% | Asset Manager |
USDC captured 64% of stablecoin transaction volume for the first time since 2019 as of March 15, 2026. USDC processed approximately $2.2 trillion versus USDT's $1.3 trillion in 2026 transaction volume, according to stablecoin analytics. However, USDT maintains 62.1% of circulating supply versus USDC's 26.1%—a 2.4x advantage.
This disparity reveals market segmentation. USDC dominates active transaction flows—settlement, DeFi operations, institutional treasury management—while USDT remains the preferred store of value for retail holders and exchange liquidity. USDC's market cap increased 73% to $75.12B in 2025 while USDT grew 36% to $186.6B, indicating USDC gains relative market share but from a smaller base.
Institutional stablecoins gain traction. PayPal USD reached $3.89B circulation while BlackRock's BUIDL token hit $2.76B—both launched within the past 18 months. Combined with Circle's USYC ($2.66B) and Ondo's USDY ($1.74B), yield-bearing institutional stablecoins represent $11.05B (3.7% of market). Industry forecasts project yield-bearing stablecoins will triple to over $50B in 2026, capturing share from non-yielding alternatives.
DeFi-native stablecoins face pressure. DAI declined to $4.62B while Sky Dollar (USDS), its successor, reached $8.80B—suggesting migration from legacy MakerDAO infrastructure to the rebranded Sky protocol. Ethena's USDe at $5.88B represents the largest basis-trading stablecoin, generating yield through perpetual futures funding rates.
Bridge TVL aggregates to $46.36B across five major protocols, though 24-hour volume data remains unavailable in the DeFiLlama snapshot. According to DefiLlama's bridge tracker, total bridge volume across all platforms reached approximately $18.8B over a 30-day window in early 2026, with deBridge processing $12.5B across 63 weeks.
Bitcoin bridge dominance. WBTC holds $15.21B TVL as the largest single bridge, representing Bitcoin locked on Ethereum for DeFi access. Binance Bitcoin contributes $8.05B, while Coinbase Bridge adds $6.26B. Combined Bitcoin-focused bridges hold $29.52B—63.7% of total bridge TVL—indicating Bitcoin capital migration to Ethereum remains the primary cross-chain flow.
Bridge TVL concentration creates systemic dependency. Bridges function as capital warehouses, with TVL locked in custody contracts rather than flowing freely. This sticky capital suggests users prefer wrapped assets for DeFi access over native chain operations, but concentrates risk in bridge security and redemption mechanisms.
DeFiLlama tracks 15 yield pools exceeding $1M TVL with APYs above 100%, though ultra-high yields typically signal unsustainable incentive programs rather than organic returns.
| Project | Chain | Pool | TVL | Total APY | Base APY | Reward APY | |---------|-------|------|-----|-----------|----------|------------| | Balancer V2 | Gnosis | WSTETH-GNO | $7.2M | 879.6% | 879.6% | N/A | | Aerodrome Slipstream | Base | USDC-CBBTC | $4.4M | 632.3% | 614.4% | 17.9% | | Zeebu | Ethereum | ZBU | $1.3M | 387.9% | N/A | 387.9% | | Etherex CL | Linea | USDC-WETH | $1.3M | 207.5% | 0.0% | 207.5% | | Curve DEX | Ethereum | IDAI-IUSDC-IUSDT | $1.6M | 185.4% | 185.4% | 0.0% |
Extreme APYs correlate with minimal TVL. The top-yielding pool (Balancer V2 at 879.6% APY) holds just $7.2M TVL, while the second-highest (Aerodrome at 632.3%) contains $4.4M. These figures indicate either: (1) recently launched incentive programs before TVL inflow, (2) high impermanent loss risk limiting capital deployment, or (3) illiquid asset pairs unable to absorb significant capital without slippage.
Base APY versus reward APY composition matters. Aerodrome's 632.3% total APY splits into 614.4% base (trading fees and organic yield) and 17.9% reward APY (token incentives). This suggests sustainable fee generation rather than pure incentive farming. Conversely, Zeebu's 387.9% comes entirely from reward APY with no base yield, indicating unsustainable token emissions.
Curve's 185.4% APY from base yield on a $1.6M stablecoin pool (IDAI-IUSDC-IUSDT) appears anomalous. Stablecoin pools typically yield 2-8% from trading fees alone. The 185.4% base rate suggests either: (1) temporary fee spike from high volume, (2) concentrated liquidity amplification, or (3) data reporting error.
Capital efficiency limits yield scalability. Even assuming these APYs were sustainable, total capital deployed across all 15 pools aggregates to just $48.7M. Institutional capital seeking $100M+ deployment cannot access these yields without driving APYs down through TVL dilution. The disparity between headline APYs and deployable capital explains why $93.36B sits in 1-3% yielding liquid staking rather than 100%+ yielding liquidity pools.
The DeFi market faces a structural tension: TVL growth does not translate proportionally to fee growth, compressing margins and threatening protocol sustainability.
Competition across DeFi verticals has intensified margin pressure. According to the State of DeFi 2025 report, competitive dynamics have forced protocols to optimize execution, reduce fees, and improve routing across perpetuals, DEXes, lending, and staking. This race-to-bottom pricing benefits users but erodes protocol revenue.
Lending protocols demonstrate the clearest compression. AAVE V3's $33.31B TVL generates just $1.4M daily ($511M annually)—a 1.53% revenue yield. For comparison, traditional finance intermediaries capture 2-5% spreads on lending operations. DeFi's transparency and composability enable competitors like Morpho to undercut incumbents by eliminating inefficiencies, with Morpho offering 0.5-2% higher supply rates than AAVE or Compound through peer-to-peer matching and leaner architecture.
This compression creates a profitability crisis. At 1.53% annual revenue on TVL, AAVE must maintain 100% protocol efficiency (zero operational costs beyond smart contracts) to achieve single-digit profit margins. Most protocols subsidize users through token emissions, creating negative real revenue. The DeFi Lending Protocols Statistics 2026 report confirms revenue growth has broadened across verticals, but value capture remains concentrated in a small set of fee-generating protocols.
Morpho's emergence illustrates the shift toward capital-efficient architectures. With $11.90B TVL (18% of AAVE's scale), Morpho achieves approximately $310K average daily fees—translating to a 1.33% efficiency index versus AAVE's 0.19%, according to lending platform comparisons. This 7x efficiency advantage stems from peer-to-peer matching that reduces the spread between borrowers and lenders.
Derivatives protocols demonstrate superior capital efficiency. Hyperliquid Perps generates $1.8M daily fees with negligible TVL compared to lending protocols. Leverage amplifies fee generation—a $100M perpetual futures position can generate 10-50x more fees than $100M in a lending pool due to trading frequency and leverage multipliers.
Stablecoin issuers operate different economics entirely. Tether and Circle capture 3.2% annual revenue on circulating supply through issuance fees and treasury management (investing reserves in T-bills and money market instruments). This structural revenue stream requires no user acquisition cost beyond initial issuance and exists independent of DeFi market cycles.
High TVL does not equal high revenue in current DeFi architecture. Lido's $33.92B TVL generates $1.4M daily ($511M annually)—identical to AAVE V3 despite similar scale. Both protocols achieve approximately 1.5% revenue yield, far below the 5-15% yields smaller, capital-efficient protocols achieve.
This dynamic creates strategic tension. Protocols optimize for TVL growth to signal market dominance and ecosystem importance, but TVL accumulation does not drive proportional fee growth. Liquid staking and restaking lock capital to provide services (validator delegation, shared security) rather than generate trading fees, creating large TVL bases with minimal revenue potential.
Bridge protocols exemplify this trap. WBTC's $15.21B TVL generates fees only on minting/redemption transactions, not on the locked capital itself. Unlike lending protocols where TVL actively generates interest spreads, bridge TVL sits idle except during cross-chain movement events.
Three revenue models demonstrate sustainability amid compression:
Stablecoin Issuance: Tether and Circle generate 3.2% annually through treasury operations independent of DeFi activity. Barriers to entry (regulatory compliance, reserve management, liquidity bootstrapping) protect margins.
Derivatives Trading: Hyperliquid, Ethena, and perpetual platforms capture high-margin fees through leverage and trading frequency. Capital efficiency exceeds lending by 5-10x.
Basis Trading and Yield: Ethena's USDe generates yield through perpetual futures funding rates, creating organic returns rather than token emissions. This model scales with derivatives market depth rather than TVL alone.
Traditional DeFi valuation metrics (TVL, token price) increasingly diverge from fundamental value drivers (fee generation, capital efficiency, sustainable yields). Protocols with $30B+ TVL generating $500M annual revenue trade at valuations implying 10-50x price-to-sales ratios, far exceeding traditional finance multiples.
The market appears to value optionality and ecosystem positioning over current profitability. Lido's dominance in liquid staking and EigenLayer's restaking monopoly create strategic moats through network effects and validator relationships, even if fee generation remains compressed. However, sustained margin compression threatens long-term protocol sustainability absent token price appreciation to subsidize operations.
The capital efficiency arbitrage will likely accelerate. Protocols demonstrating superior revenue-per-TVL will attract institutional capital seeking yield rather than speculation. Morpho's 7x efficiency advantage over AAVE suggests market share rotation toward architecturally superior systems, though incumbent network effects and liquidity moats slow this transition.
Total DeFi TVL stands at $93.36B with extreme concentration: Top 5 protocols control $94.47B in combined TVL, with Lido ($33.92B) and AAVE V3 ($33.31B) representing 72% of the total market.
Stablecoin issuers dominate fee generation despite zero DeFi TVL: Tether ($16.4M daily) and Circle ($6.7M daily) capture 77% of top protocol fees through issuance and treasury operations, outearning all DeFi protocols combined.
Restaking emerges as fastest-growing category with $39.74B TVL: EigenLayer alone holds $18.37B (up 47% QoQ) while liquid restaking protocols ether.fi and ether.fi Stake combine for $21.37B, representing 42.5% of total DeFi TVL.
Fee compression threatens lending protocol sustainability: AAVE V3 converts just 1.53% of TVL to annual revenue while Morpho demonstrates 7x better capital efficiency, suggesting competitive rotation toward optimized architectures.
USDC captures transaction dominance while USDT maintains supply leadership: USDC processed 64% of stablecoin transaction volume ($2.2T in 2026) despite USDT holding 62.1% of circulating supply ($184.04B), revealing institutional preference for USDC settlement versus retail USDT holdings.
Bridge protocols function as capital warehouses with $46.36B locked: WBTC ($15.21B) and four other major bridges exceed individual lending protocol TVL, with capital remaining sticky in cross-chain custody rather than flowing freely.
DEX volume anomaly requires validation: Figure Markets Exchange recorded $939.7M volume with +12,366% growth—representing 12.8% of total DEX volume in a single venue with historically low activity.
Validator concentration through Lido creates systemic risk: Lido's 23% Ethereum staking market share (8.7M ETH) combined with EigenLayer's restaking dominance concentrates validator power, threatening Ethereum's decentralization thesis if slashing events or governance attacks target these protocols.
Fee compression may render protocols unsustainable without token subsidies: AAVE V3 and Lido both achieve 1.5% annual revenue yields on TVL, requiring near-zero operational costs to maintain profitability. Prolonged compression could force protocols to increase fees (losing market share) or reduce security budgets.
Bridge TVL concentration creates cross-chain fragility: $46.36B locked in five bridge protocols introduces single points of failure. WBTC's $15.21B alone represents 16% of DeFi TVL vulnerable to custody risk, smart contract exploits, or redemption crises.
Extreme yield pools signal unsustainable incentive structures: 879% APY pools with $7.2M TVL indicate liquidity mining programs likely to collapse once token emissions decline. Capital rotation from these pools could trigger cascading liquidations if leveraged positions unwind.
Stablecoin transaction migration to USDC threatens USDT liquidity: If USDT's 62% supply dominance does not translate to transaction volume (USDC holds 64% of transactions), Tether faces potential redemption pressure if users rotate holdings to match transaction preferences, creating liquidity stress on $184B in reserves.
Figure Markets volume spike remains unexplained: +12,366% growth to $939.7M represents either legitimate market event, data anomaly, or wash trading. Without clarification, this volume distorts market analysis and could indicate broader data quality issues across DEX tracking.
DeFi's $93.36B TVL reflects capital consolidation into infrastructure protocols rather than distributed ecosystem growth. Lido and AAVE V3's combined $67.23B TVL (72% of market) demonstrates winner-take-most dynamics driven by network effects and trust rather than technological superiority. However, TVL concentration does not translate to fee dominance—stablecoin issuers capture 77% of protocol revenue despite holding zero DeFi TVL, revealing a structural disconnect between capital locked and value captured.
The market faces three divergent paths:
Fee compression threatens protocol sustainability. Lending protocols achieve 1.5% annual revenue yields while competitors like Morpho demonstrate 7x better capital efficiency through architectural optimization. This dynamic suggests either: (1) margin compression continues until only the most efficient protocols survive, or (2) protocols increase fees and lose market share to leaner competitors. Neither outcome sustains current valuations without token price appreciation to subsidize operations.
Restaking concentration introduces new systemic risk. EigenLayer's $18.37B TVL (20% of DeFi) and combined liquid restaking at $39.74B (42.5% of market) represent the fastest capital rotation in DeFi history. However, this growth concentrates Ethereum validator power and creates shared security dependencies that could amplify rather than diversify risk. The thesis that restaking enhances capital efficiency remains unproven at scale.
Stablecoin market bifurcation favors institutional infrastructure. USDC's transaction dominance (64% of volume) despite USDT's supply leadership (62% of circulation) signals institutional capital's preference for regulated, transparent issuers. Combined with BlackRock, PayPal, and Ondo's entry driving $11.05B in new institutional stablecoin supply, the market rotates toward compliance-first infrastructure. This shift threatens USDT's dominance if transaction patterns eventually drive supply rebalancing.
The data supports a position: capital efficiency will determine DeFi's next cycle winners. Protocols generating high fees per dollar of TVL—derivatives platforms, optimized lending, yield-bearing stablecoins—demonstrate sustainable economics. Legacy protocols with massive TVL but compressed margins face competitive displacement absent technological moats. Investors should weight capital efficiency over TVL growth when evaluating protocol fundamentals.
The anomalous Figure Markets Exchange volume spike and missing 1d/7d TVL change data limit confidence in trend analysis. Validation of the $939.7M volume figure and time-series TVL data would strengthen conclusions about capital rotation velocity and protocol momentum.