Evening question, and honestly, I haven't settled it myself. If you could keep only one lens on a stablecoin chain distribution, holder concentration, or lending penetration, which would you keep? I keep going back and forth, because each lens answers a real question and each has a blind spot. Reading ethereum:0x84ca8bc7997272c7cfb4d0cd3d55cd942b3c9419 's Chapter 1 this week (snapshot 20 Oct 2026): Chain distribution tells you where minted supply sits. USDT: $94.2B on Tron, $88.3B on Ethereum. USDC: spread from Ethereum ($47.7B) across 47 chains. But location is not used. A balance sitting on a chain tells you nothing about what its holders do with it. Holder concentration tells you how supply is held and how fragile that picture is. USDT on Tron spans about 78 million addresses, top ten around 3%. USDC on Ethereum: top ten at 27.2% on Sept 22, measured from transfers, versus 17.4% on Oct 20 via Ethplorer. Same coin, same chain, two methods, two answers. A concentration claim without a date and a method is noise. Lending penetration tells you what is actually deployed. $6.21B of USDT supplied across 27 protocols, $10.67B of USDC across 34. Between 85% and 91% of supplied capital is borrowed. DeFi uses what it gets, yet lending absorbs only 3.4% of USDT's supply and 14.8% of USDC's. And the remainder is not automatically idle: settlement, transfers, and savings all leave balances outside DeFi. @DIAdata_org My tentative pick: holder data. Concentration shapes liquidity and governance downstream, and it is the lens most likely to change between two readings of the same chain. But I can argue the other side too, which is exactly why I'm asking. Which lens does your work actually rely on, and what do you pair it with to cover the blind spot?