Charlie Quant Lab

Institutional map · L0 to L4

Crypto Infrastructure Map

The layer number is the easy part. Shared control is the part that breaks things.

The top three networks hold 84.2% of tracked stablecoin stock, while keys and permissions account for 42.4% of known one-year incident loss.

Stablecoin stock$300.3bnsitting across tracked networks
Top network47.7%Ethereum
Top three networks84.2%share of tracked stock
Next after leader59.9%Tron share after removing Ethereum
General bridges142$62.7bn reported value
Official bridges75$10.8bn reported value
Liquid staking250$55.5bn reported value
Reused-security leader63.1%EigenCloud
One-year incidents33511 have no loss figure
Known loss$2.6bnunknown amounts remain unknown
Keys and permissions42.4%share of known loss
Largest three failures70.2%share of known loss

Five labels. One real question.

Where can one failure stop money, pricing, withdrawals or settlement? The stack below translates the labels without pretending that L3 and L4 have one industry-wide meaning.

L0 · Connection and coordination

Moves messages or security between networks. If the same group of computers approves several networks, one failure can reach all of them.

L1 · Base settlement

The network that records the final state. Stablecoins and apps can cluster here even when users enter elsewhere.

L2 · Cheaper execution

Bundles activity and settles back to a base chain. The official transfer route and the operator that orders transactions can matter more than the layer number.

L3 · Application chains

A network built for one product or group. This label is not used consistently, so compare the actual control path.

L4 · Apps, wallets and access

Where users trade, borrow and sign. It is not a formal blockchain layer, but failures here can still block access.

The contrarian read · Layer labels are not risk scores

Two products on different layers may share the same custodian, bridge, key holder or price source.

The layer number tells you where something sits. It does not tell you who can pause it, upgrade it or restore it.

Capital can gather at different points

Each bar shows the largest provider inside its own group. The groups overlap, so their dollar totals are not added together.

ChainPolygon Bridge · 87.2%
RestakingEigenCloud · 63.1%
CEXBinance CEX · 55.8%
Liquid StakingLido · 42.6%
Canonical BridgeArbitrum Bridge · 31.8%
BridgeLayerZero V2 · 25.4%

Polygon Bridge · 87.2% is the highest leader share on this screen. It tells us where a failure could have a large reach. It does not say that a failure is likely.

Where the digital dollars sit

This is the stock of tracked stablecoins on each network. It is not daily trading and it is not money owned by the chain.

Ethereum$143.1bn
Tron$94.1bn
Solana$15.7bn
BSC$13.1bn
Hyperliquid L1$7.0bn
Base$5.1bn
Arbitrum$3.5bn
Polygon$2.8bn
X Layer$1.5bn
Avalanche$1.3bn

Remove Ethereum, and Tron holds 59.9% of what remains. Concentration does not disappear; it changes address.

The failure record points sideways

Known losses do not line up neatly by layer. Keys, permissions, bridges, prices and websites can cut across the full stack.

Known loss · one year

$2.6bn across 324 records with a loss amount.

Keys and permissions

42.4% of known loss came from access-control or private-key failures.

Bridge losses

29.9% of known loss was marked as bridge or cross-chain.

The deepest risk often runs across the diagram, not down one numbered layer.

What actually broke?

These are known loss amounts grouped by the failure named in the incident record. Missing amounts remain missing.

Key Compromise$709.1mn
Bridge & Cross-Chain$700.1mn
Token & Share Accounting$388.3mn
Access Control$376.7mn
Frontend & Infrastructure$161.1mn
Oracle Manipulation$75.9mn
Social Engineering$43.8mn
Governance$43.1mn

The three largest failure types account for 70.2% of known loss. A long list of smaller categories should not hide where most of the money went.

Losses arrive in lumps

Monthly known loss over the last year. A quiet month does not mean the system became safe; one large event can redraw the year.

Nov 25$179.7mn
Dec 25$24.9mn
Jan 26$104.1mn
Feb 26$21.5mn
Mar 26$42.7mn
Apr 26$648.1mn
May 26$83.1mn
Jun 26$86.9mn
Jul 26$254.7mn
Aug 26$255.5mn
Sep 26$742.5mn
Oct 26$105.9mn

The latest quarter contains 48.5% of the one-year known loss. Timing changes the story, so the page keeps the full twelve-month strip visible.

The latest recorded breaks

Recent events are shown with the stated loss. “Not reported” is kept separate from zero.

Swipe the table, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

DateProjectWhat brokeNetworkKnown loss
19 Oct 2026AlpsCon AI Trade HubToken & Share AccountingBSC$152,809
18 Oct 2026CofferToken & Share AccountingSolana$1
17 Oct 2026QubicKey CompromiseQubic$1.3mn
16 Oct 2026Pirate ChainToken & Share AccountingPirate ChainNot reported
16 Oct 2026AffluentToken & Share AccountingTON$1.1mn
14 Oct 2026UNCX Network V2Token & Share AccountingEthereum, Base, BSC, Robinhood Chain$86,000
13 Oct 2026GamdomFrontend & InfrastructureEthereum, BSC, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Solana, TRON, Bitcoin$4.2mn
10 Oct 2026PapertradeOracle ManipulationHyperliquid L1$1.3mn
09 Oct 2026Ledger (Supply Chain)Frontend & InfrastructureNot stated$93.0mn
08 Oct 2026BitBayProtocol LogicPolygon$14,838

Only 8 records in the one-year window state returned funds. The known returned amount is $5.7mn, or 0.2% of known loss. That is incomplete reporting, not a recovery rate for the whole market.

Research by for Charlie Quant Lab · Updated