Derivatives · DYDX · $0.08B TVL. Screen grades as of November 12, 2026: Solvency BB, Legitimacy A, Growth CCC. App-chain migration complete; volume share lost to Hyperliquid.
| Input / Grade | July 27, 2026 | November 12, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| TVL | $0.35B | $0.08B |
| 12-month TVL change | -50% | -62% |
| Worst 90-day drawdown | 45% | 34% |
| Drawdown scored | 45% (90-day only, v1.0) | 62% (worse of 90-day and 12-month, v1.1) |
| Solvency (credit grade) | BBB · 64.8 | BB · 58.5 |
| Growth | B · 31.3 | CCC · 26 |
TVL figures: DefiLlama, parent-level listing. The July 27, 2026 TVL was an analyst estimate and may have used a narrower definition, so part of the TVL difference can be definitional. Only these three inputs were refreshed in the re-screen; sustainability, unlocks, risk, audits, team, delivery, governance, category share and momentum were left as the July 27, 2026 estimates.
Solvency screens at BB (58.5 / 100), previously BBB in the July 27, 2026 screen. The worst 90-day TVL drawdown is 34% and 12-month TVL change is -62%. TVL stability is scored on the 12-month decline of 62%, because it is worse than the latest 90 days. Sustainability ratio (2x), unlock pressure (5%) and risk quality (7 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
Legitimacy screens at A (72 / 100). No Legitimacy input was refreshed in the November 12, 2026 re-screen, so the grade is unchanged from July 27, 2026.
Growth screens at CCC (26 / 100), previously B in the July 27, 2026 screen. TVL is $0.08B, -62% over twelve months (it was -50% at the previous screen). Category share (5%) and momentum (3 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade is Solvency BB. Legitimacy is A and the Growth outlook is CCC; the weakest axis is Growth. These grades use TVL data as of November 12, 2026 and qualitative inputs from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade answers one question: can dYdX survive stress and pay its users back. Legitimacy (A) and the Growth outlook (CCC) are published beside it and are never averaged into it. Weakest axis: Growth.
| Protocol | Solvency | Legitimacy | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| dYdX (this page) | BB | A | CCC |
| Hyperliquid | A | A | AAA |
| Drift | BB | BBB | B |
| GMX | BBB | BBB | B |
dYdX made the boldest infrastructure bet in DeFi derivatives — abandoning Ethereum for its own Cosmos app-chain to run a fully on-chain order book — and completed the migration successfully. Then Hyperliquid did the same thing faster and took the market. The screen scores a well-executed strategy overtaken by a better-executed one.
Solvency screens at BBB. Fee coverage (~2x) persists on residual volume, unlocks are moderate, and the risk posture is solid — the v4 chain has run without a major incident. The 50% TVL decline is the dominant negative input.
Legitimacy screens at A, among the better readings in the small-cap cohort: strong audits, a long-tenured public team, real delivery of an extremely hard technical migration, and 6/10 governance with genuine validator and token-holder participation.
Growth screens at B and it is the entire problem: 5% share, 3/10 momentum, halved TVL. Liquidity migrated to the venue with better execution and a stronger fee-to-holder flywheel, and derivatives liquidity is famously non-returning.
Composite B. High-quality protocol, losing category. A full rating would ask the uncomfortable question directly: is there a durable second place in on-chain perpetuals, or does the category consolidate to one venue?
