Lending · WELL · $0.01B TVL. Screen grades as of November 12, 2026: Solvency BB, Legitimacy BBB, Growth CCC. Base/Optimism lender; consumer-app angle.
| Input / Grade | July 27, 2026 | November 12, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| TVL | $0.3B | $0.01B |
| 12-month TVL change | -25% | -92% |
| Worst 90-day drawdown | 40% | 80% |
| Drawdown scored | 40% (90-day only, v1.0) | 92% (worse of 90-day and 12-month, v1.1) |
| Solvency (credit grade) | BB · 58.8 | BB · 52.5 |
| 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 BB (52.5 / 100), unchanged from the July 27, 2026 screen. The worst 90-day TVL drawdown is 80% and 12-month TVL change is -92%. TVL stability is scored on the 12-month decline of 92%, because it is worse than the latest 90 days. Sustainability ratio (1.5x), unlock pressure (5%) and risk quality (7 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
Legitimacy screens at BBB (66.5 / 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 $0.01B, -92% over twelve months (it was -25% at the previous screen). Category share (1.2%) and momentum (4 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade is Solvency BB. 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 Moonwell 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.
| Protocol | Solvency | Legitimacy | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moonwell (this page) | BB | BBB | CCC |
| Aave | A | AA | BB |
| Morpho | A | AA | A |
| JustLend | A | BB | BBB |
| Spark | A | A | BB |
| Kamino | BBB | BBB | B |
| Compound | BBB | A | B |
| Venus | A | BB | CCC |
| Suilend | BB | BB | CCC |
| Euler | BB | A | B |
| Benqi | BB | BBB | CCC |
| NAVI | B | BB | CCC |
Moonwell is a Compound-lineage lending protocol on Base and Optimism that has staked its differentiation on consumer accessibility — clean app design, fiat on-ramps, and mobile-first distribution aimed at users who would never navigate a raw money market.
Solvency screens at BB. Fee coverage (~1.5x) from a small base, a 40% drawdown, and moderate unlocks. The 7/10 risk score benefits from a conservative forked codebase with a long audit lineage — inheriting Compound's architecture is a genuine safety advantage at this size.
Legitimacy screens at BBB: a public, communicative team, adequate audits, steady delivery of the consumer product roadmap. Governance (5/10) functions but with limited participation.
Growth screens at CCC on the screen's inputs — 1.2% category share is the smallest in the universe — against a relatively contained -25% TVL and 4/10 momentum. The consumer thesis targets a market the screen's metrics cannot see.
Composite CCC. The screen measures DeFi-native share, which is precisely the wrong lens for a protocol trying to reach non-DeFi users. A full rating would need user-cohort data — retention and fiat-funded deposits — to judge whether the consumer angle is working.
