CDP / LSD · FRAX · $0.24B TVL. Screen grades as of November 12, 2026: Solvency BBB, Legitimacy BBB, Growth CCC. Pivot to frxUSD + Fraxtal L2; complexity risk across product surface.
| Input / Grade | July 27, 2026 | November 12, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| TVL | $0.6B | $0.24B |
| 12-month TVL change | -30% | -53% |
| Worst 90-day drawdown | 35% | 22% |
| Drawdown scored | 35% (90-day only, v1.0) | 53% (worse of 90-day and 12-month, v1.1) |
| Solvency (credit grade) | BBB · 68 | BBB · 61.8 |
| Growth | CCC · 28.8 | CCC · 23.5 |
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 BBB (61.8 / 100), unchanged from the July 27, 2026 screen. The worst 90-day TVL drawdown is 22% and 12-month TVL change is -53%. TVL stability is scored on the 12-month decline of 53%, because it is worse than the latest 90 days. Sustainability ratio (1.5x), unlock pressure (3%) and risk quality (7 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
Legitimacy screens at BBB (69 / 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 (23.5 / 100), unchanged from the July 27, 2026 screen. TVL is $0.24B, -53% over twelve months (it was -30% at the previous screen). Category share (4%) and momentum (4 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade is Solvency BBB. Legitimacy is BBB 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 Frax survive stress and pay its users back. Legitimacy (BBB) and the Growth outlook (CCC) are published beside it and are never averaged into it. Weakest axis: Growth.
Frax has reinvented itself more times than any protocol in the screen: fractional-algorithmic stablecoin, then fully-collateralized frxUSD, plus frxETH liquid staking, an AMO-driven lending arm, and now Fraxtal, its own L2. The screen's central observation is that this breadth is simultaneously its differentiation and its principal risk.
Solvency screens at BBB. Fee coverage (~1.5x) is adequate and collateralization was decisively de-risked when the protocol abandoned the algorithmic ratio for full backing — a genuinely well-executed retreat. The 7/10 risk score carries the complexity penalty: AMOs, a stablecoin, an LST, and an L2 create interlocking exposures that are hard to reason about as a single balance sheet.
Legitimacy screens at BBB. Audits are solid and the team is public and technically prolific. Delivery (7/10) reflects a roadmap that keeps widening faster than any single line matures, and governance (5/10) is heavily founder-influenced in practice.
Growth screens at CCC, the screen's harshest growth reading for a protocol of this pedigree: 4% share, -30% TVL, and momentum diffused across too many products for any one to compound.
Composite CCC. The screen's read: sound collateral, scattered strategy. A full rating would need to decompose Frax into its parts — the consolidated view obscures more than it reveals.
