General bridges
WBTC is 17.6%. Remove it and 82.4% remains.
The group does not depend on one leader for a majority. 147 of 169 records had a usable reported value.$52.6bnreported value in this grouptop three 46.4%
Concentration is visible. The chain reaction is not.
See where large amounts of crypto sit, how recorded losses happened and which missing links stop us from claiming that one failure would spread.
84.4% of tracked stablecoin stock sits on three networks. Restaking is the most leader-heavy of the four infrastructure groups, but shared operators, keys, custodians and price sources are not yet joined to those numbers.
Stablecoin stock on networks$305.0bn
Most leader-heavy groupRestaking
Where the stablecoins sit
This is stock sitting on a network. It is not payment volume, trading activity or money at a reserve bank.
48.3%
of tracked stablecoin stock sits on Ethereum. Remove it and the other networks still hold 51.7%.
Ethereum
48.3%
Tron
30.8%
Solana
5.3%
BSC
4.4%
Hyperliquid L1
2.3%
Base
1.6%
Arbitrum
1.2%
Polygon
1.0%
The useful warning: trouble on Ethereum could touch a large share of stablecoins. The figure does not tell us how likely trouble is or whether one company connects every affected service.
Where one system is large inside its own group
Each line starts again at 100%. The totals must not be added because categories can overlap and answer different questions.
Canonical bridges
Arbitrum Bridge is 33.6%. Remove it and 66.4% remains.
The group does not depend on one leader for a majority. 77 of 88 records had a usable reported value.$9.7bnreported value in this grouptop three 68.1%
Liquid staking
Lido is 46.3%. Remove it and 53.7% remains.
The group does not depend on one leader for a majority. 254 of 290 records had a usable reported value.$51.4bnreported value in this grouptop three 72.9%
Restaking
EigenCloud is 64.4%. Remove it and 35.6% remains.
The leader holds more than half. 13 of 14 records had a usable reported value.$10.0bnreported value in this grouptop three 99.6%
largest system
next two
rest of the group
EigenCloud accounts for 64.4% of reported value in Restaking. That is the strongest concentration warning here. It is not a loss forecast.
A few failure types caused most known loss
The last year contains 299 incident records. A loss amount is known for 292 of them.
$1.73bn
known recorded loss in the one-year sample. The three largest failure types account for 64.5% of it.
7 records have no loss amount. They remain unknown, not zero. Returned-funds data appears on only 5 records, so this page does not show a recovery rate.
Permission taken or misused
58 records, 19.4% of the sample
$389.2mn22.5% of known loss
Bridge or cross-chain failure
26 records, 8.7% of the sample
$373.1mn21.5% of known loss
Private key stolen
33 records, 11.0% of the sample
$355.4mn20.5% of known loss
Balance or share maths failed
49 records, 16.4% of the sample
$214.7mn12.4% of known loss
Bad or manipulated price
41 records, 13.7% of the sample
$150.5mn8.7% of known loss
Website or infrastructure attack
15 records, 5.0% of the sample
$105.3mn6.1% of known loss
Those three failure types were 117 of 299 records, or 39.1% of incidents, but 64.5% of known loss. The money was more concentrated than the event count.
If one part fails, what might stop?
Choose the failed part. The page separates what is visible, what may be affected, the first move and the dependency link we still lack.
Stablecoin network
84.4% of tracked stock sits on the top three networks.
Transfers and apps on the affected network may slow or stop.
Queue instructions. Check which transfers are final before using another network.
Issuer, custodian and service links are not mapped.
Bridge
General bridges report $52.6bn. Canonical bridges report $9.7bn. These totals stay separate.
New transfers, withdrawals or access to wrapped tokens may stop.
Stop new transfers. Match assets locked on one side with claims on the other.
Signers, admin keys and custodians are not joined to the reported value.
Staking and restaking
Liquid staking reports $51.4bn. Restaking reports $10.0bn. The groups may overlap.
Withdrawals, token pricing or service rewards may be affected.
Limit dependence on one service. Find who can pause it and who runs the underlying work.
Operator, price and penalty links are not mapped.
Custody or key
Permission and key failures account for $744.5mn of known one-year loss.
Someone may keep moving funds without approval.
Stop signing. Replace the exposed authority and check every wallet using the same path.
Current wallet, key and company ownership are not mapped.
Price feed
Bad-price incidents account for $150.5mn of known one-year loss.
Loans, forced sales and account values may use a bad price.
Pause price-sensitive actions. Compare with an independent price before reopening.
The systems sharing each price source are not mapped.
The open end matters. No line on this page proves that one failure will spread through another company or system. That claim needs sourced ownership, operator, key, custodian and price-source links.
What should an operator do first?
Concentration tells you where to look. These checks turn the warning into an operating answer.
Find the person who can stop and restore each critical system.
Names beat org charts during an incident. One owner should be able to pause the system, explain what is final and prove the restart is safe.
Set a limit for one-system dependence.
Decide how much value may sit with one network, bridge, key holder or price source before a crisis chooses the limit for you.
Test the stop and match the balances.
A pause should protect money without trapping every withdrawal. The main route and the backup must be reconciled before instructions move twice.
Does reported value equal the amount that could be lost?
No. It is a screening measure. Some value may be recoverable, counted elsewhere or exposed through more than one route.
Can bridge, liquid-staking and restaking totals be added?
No. They cover different jobs and may overlap. This page compares concentration inside each group and keeps the totals separate.
Does stablecoin stock show issuer or custodian risk?
No. It shows which network holds the tokens. Reserve banks, custodians and redemption arrangements need a separate sourced map.
Is the largest system automatically unsafe?
No. A larger share means disruption could matter more. It says nothing by itself about the chance of disruption.