One of the biggest lending markets isn’t necessarily where the lending activity is most profitable. @eulerfinance is a pretty good example of that right now. The protocol has around $291M in TVL, but the distribution of capital looks nothing like the distribution of fees. Here’s the breakdown: Monad > $208M TVL > $482.8K in 30-day fees > 71.4% of total TVL Ethereum > $52.7M TVL > $488.9K in 30-day fees Avalanche > $4.48M TVL > $635.1K in 30-day fees > Just 1.5% of TVL, but roughly 37% of fees Avalanche is generating more lending fees than Monad despite holding around 46x less capital. That’s a pretty significant difference, and it tells you something about how lending protocols actually work. Deposits alone don’t generate lending income. Borrowers do. A market with hundreds of millions in collateral can generate relatively little interest if borrowing demand is weak. Meanwhile, a much smaller market with expensive or heavily utilized debt can produce considerably more fees. Euler’s earlier market-level research helps explain the difference. Monad had accumulated substantial collateral without corresponding borrowing activity, while some of the smaller deployments were generating much higher interest from concentrated lending positions. There’s another distinction worth making here: gross lending fees aren’t the same as revenue retained by Euler. Interest can flow to lenders and curators, while the protocol itself captures only a portion, depending on its fee configuration. So I wouldn’t interpret Avalanche’s fee lead as proof that it’s the strongest lending market. A small number of expensive borrowing positions can inflate that figure, and those rates may not persist. But the broader comparison is revealing. Monad holds most of Euler’s capital. Avalanche generates the largest share of its reported lending fees. In DeFi lending, where the deposits sit and where the economic activity happens can be two very different things.