Rank Ethereum L2s by TVL and classify each as expanding, stable, or contracting
Ranks three Ethereum Layer-2 networks by the value held in two protocols and its recent change. For Arbitrum, Base and Optimism it reads the value held in Aave V3 and Uniswap V3 on each chain - a top-protocols proxy for chain TVL, not a total - with 1-day and 7-day changes from our own accumulated history, plus daily transaction counts. Each chain is labeled expanding, stable, or contracting and the set rolls up into a 0-100 health score with a note on momentum leaders. Use it to see which L2s are gaining or losing traction within the rollup ecosystem.
Rollups, and why the headline metrics are less comparable than a ranking implies.
WHAT A LAYER 2 IS. A rollup executes transactions away from Ethereum's execution layer and posts compressed transaction data plus state commitments back to Ethereum. The two families differ in how correctness is enforced: ZK rollups submit validity proofs with the state update, while OPTIMISTIC rollups publish the update and rely on a challenge period during which a fraud proof can dispute it. How much security is genuinely inherited depends on the implementation - data availability, proof-system maturity, upgrade keys and whether users have an escape hatch - so 'inherits Ethereum security' is a claim to check per chain rather than a property of the category.
WHAT THIS ANALYSIS ACTUALLY READS. For Arbitrum, Base and Optimism, the value held in Aave V3 and Uniswap V3 on each chain, with 1-day and 7-day changes from our own accumulated history, plus daily transaction counts. That is a SELECTED-PROTOCOL PROXY for chain TVL, not each rollup's total, and not aggregate L2 TVL. A chain whose activity sits in protocols outside those two is undercounted here by construction.
TVL IS NOT DEPOSITS, and three things follow. It is dollar-denominated, so it rises with the price of assets already there - always read a change against the same window's price change. It can be bought with incentive programmes; incentive-driven TVL may partially or substantially unwind when rewards end, which is common enough to expect and variable enough that retention should be measured rather than assumed. And depending on methodology it can count overlapping exposure more than once.
TRANSACTION COUNTS ARE NOT COMPARABLE ACROSS ROLLUPS. What constitutes one transaction differs by chain design, and where fees are near zero the count is cheap to inflate. A rollup with ten times another's transactions may simply be a chain where transactions are cheaper or more granular.
WHAT WOULD BE BETTER EVIDENCE, and it is worth knowing what this does not read: fee revenue net of data-availability cost, which is the rollup's actual margin; the value bridged in rather than the mark-to-market of what sits there; and the share of activity that survives the end of an incentive programme.
The expanding/stable/contracting labels and the 0-100 health score are our own convention. Read this as a relative ranking across three chains on two protocols rather than an absolute health measure.
Published reports are readable without an account. The newest is Ether (ETH) and XRP extend a month-long slide as Bitcoin falls below $75,000: trend, momentum and news (Nov 9, 2026). Create an account to run research on the stocks and crypto you choose.