JustLend: lending platforms rating breakdown
Tron
The fourth-largest lending market in the world by deposits — $3.72bn — and the clearest demonstration on this page that TVL is not a measure of a market working. It is the default lending venue on Tron, where a very large amount of stablecoin value sits.
The fourth-largest lending market in the world by deposits — $3.72bn — and the clearest demonstration on this page that TVL is not a measure of a market working. It is the default lending venue on Tron, where a very large amount of stablecoin value sits.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidents, bad debt, and who ate it | — | 32% | 4 | 6.5 | 9 of 10 | -0.80 |
| What the market actually earns | 0.56 gross yield per dollar deposited · computed · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 1 | 7.5 | 10 of 10 | -1.43 |
| Scale and the ability to exit | $3.72bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 8 | 7 | 4 of 10 | +0.22 |
| Risk architecture | — | 14% | 3 | 7 | 10 of 10 | -0.56 |
| Chains and assets | 1 chains with deposits · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 10% | 1 | 6 | 10 of 10 | -0.50 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by what the market actually earns, worth -1.43 points against the median
Incidents, bad debt, and who ate it: 4/10
Every exploit and every bad-debt event with dates and amounts, and then the question that decides whether it matters: were depositors made whole, and by whom. Euler lost $197m in March 2023 and returned 100% of it after negotiating with the attacker. Venus carried nine figures of bad debt from a single oracle manipulation in 2021. Those are opposite outcomes from superficially similar headlines, and a rating that treats "has been hacked" as one fact is useless.
Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 9th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 32% weight that is 0.80 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 3.
What the market actually earns: 1/10
Computed by us: thirty days of protocol fees, annualised, divided by total value locked. That is the gross interest the market genuinely generated per dollar deposited — before the protocol’s cut and before incentives. It is the honest version of the APY a front end shows you, and it separates a market where borrowers are really paying from one where the TVL headline is parked capital earning close to nothing.
Scored 1 of 10 against a category median of 7.5, which places it 10th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 1.43 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Scale and the ability to exit: 8/10
Total value locked at a stated timestamp, and whether the market is deep enough that a withdrawal at size does not itself move the utilisation rate. In lending, depth is not a convenience — a market that is 99% utilised cannot pay you out until somebody repays.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 4th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.22 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Risk architecture: 3/10
Sourced to documentation: are markets isolated or pooled, what oracle secures each collateral, who can change a listing or a loan-to-value ratio and how fast, and — for the newer curated-vault designs — who exactly is picking your risk and whether they carry any of it. A single shared pool means one bad listing can impair everyone.
Scored 3 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 10th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 14% weight that is 0.56 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 3.
Chains and assets: 1/10
Deployments with real deposits, not deployment count. A protocol on forty chains with liquidity on three is scored on the three.
Scored 1 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 10th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.50 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
Questions about this score
Why does JustLend pay so little?
+
Because comparatively little of the capital is actually borrowed. We computed 0.56% gross yield per dollar deposited from thirty days of protocol fees annualised over TVL — one eleventh of what Euler generates. A large deposit base with almost no borrowing demand is collateral parked for other purposes, and no TVL league table will show you the difference.
Is JustLend risky?
+
The protocol has a long operating history with no exploit on record, which counts for something. The concerns are structural: a single chain with concentrated governance and validation, thin public documentation of risk parameters compared with the rest of this category, and a yield that does not compensate for either. If a comparable market is available to you elsewhere, the case for this one is weak.