OP Mainnet is not collapsing, but its resilience is uneven. Locked value fell less than ether in the past month, while spendable dollars left far faster, transactions slipped, and a surge in active addresses produced no rise in use.
DefiLlama put the figure at $400.4 million on 12 November 2026. Its series values assets held in the decentralised finance protocols it follows on OP Mainnet at market prices. Growthepie, working from its own on-chain data, put seven-day average daily transactions at 1,536,906 and daily active addresses at 230,112 to 11 November 2026. Together, the two records separate stored value from spendable money and from use.
Locked value fell less than ether
The headline figure looks steadier than ether until the direction is stated plainly. DefiLlama recorded $443.0 million on 13 October 2026, so the reading on 12 November 2026 was down 9.6%. Ether, as published by DefiLlama on the same days, fell 16.0%, from $2,446 to $2,055. Locked value therefore fell by less than the price of the network's main asset, a gap that matters because total value locked changes with market prices and with deposits and withdrawals. A fall driven only by price would have been expected to track ether more closely; this one did not.
The comparison over a longer stretch points the same way. On 14 August 2026 total value locked was $310.1 million, so the November figure was up 29.1%. Ether rose 9.1% over the same stretch, from $1,884 to $2,055. Against 12 November 2025, when total value locked was $317.8 million, the latest reading was up 26.0%. In each window the stored value moved further, or fell less, than ether alone.
That strength has a ceiling in the record. The highest value in the series was $1.15 billion on 11 August 2022, and the latest reading was 65.0% below it. The distance shows how far the present figure sits from the peak reached in 2022, even after the gains of the past three months. A recovery from August to November is real in the numbers, but it is a recovery inside a much lower range than the one set in 2022.
The most useful reading of that gap is narrow. It suggests withdrawals did not overwhelm the figure in the month to 12 November 2026, and that holdings in tokens other than ether, or fresh deposits, cushioned part of the price fall. The series by itself cannot say which of those cushions mattered most, because it reports a single dollar total for the protocols DefiLlama tracks. What it can say is that the network did not lose stored value at the pace ether lost price, and that distinction is the starting point for the rest of the evidence, not the end of the argument.
Stablecoins left faster than prices explain
Stablecoins tell the sharper story, because their value is designed to stay near one dollar. Growthepie put stablecoin market capitalisation on OP Mainnet at $393.6 million on 11 November 2026, down 40.0% from $655.6 million on 12 October 2026. Over the same broad period total value locked fell 9.6%. The two falls are not the same kind of movement: one is a dollar total that rises and falls with market prices, the other is a supply of tokens meant to hold a steady dollar value. When the second falls by 40.0% in a month, the cause is supply leaving the network, not a change in ether.
The fall was not a return to an August level. Stablecoin market capitalisation was $424.0 million on 14 August 2026, and the November figure was down 7.2% from that date. That means the supply had already slipped from August, then fell much more sharply into November. The October reading of $655.6 million now looks like a high point in the recent series, followed by a rapid reversal. For a reader who uses OP Mainnet to hold or move dollars, that reversal is more immediate than the slower movement in total value locked, because stablecoins are the part of the network most directly used as money.
The contrast also changes how the total value locked figure should be read. If stablecoin supply fell 40.0% while the total for tracked protocols fell only 9.6%, other assets in those protocols must have held up better in dollar terms, or new deposits must have offset part of the stablecoin exit. The published totals do not break down that offset, and the dates are not identical: stablecoin readings are for 11 November 2026 and 12 October 2026, while total value locked readings are for 12 November 2026 and 13 October 2026. The one-day difference does not explain a gap of this size, but it is a reminder that the two series are close in time rather than measured at the same moment.
A network can keep a high total value locked while the dollars available for everyday payments shrink, because locked assets are not the same as circulating money. The stablecoin figures show the circulating side shrinking fast in the month to 11 November 2026, even as the locked side fell more slowly. That split is the central tension in the current picture: value stored on OP Mainnet proved more resilient than value available to spend on it.
More addresses, fewer transactions
Activity on the network moved in the same direction as stablecoins, not in the direction of the address count. Growthepie reported seven-day average daily transactions of 1,536,906 to 11 November 2026, down 3.7% from 1,595,275 thirty days earlier. Against the week to 20 August 2026, when daily transactions were 2,055,587, the fall was 25.2%. Use therefore fell modestly over the past month and fell much more sharply against August, even though total value locked rose against August. The two measures are moving apart, and the transaction series is the one that describes what people actually did on the network.
Fees followed transactions over the past month, but not over the longer stretch. Daily fees paid by users were $2,208 to 11 November 2026, down 14.0% from $2,567 thirty days earlier. Against the week to 20 August 2026, when daily fees were $1,810, the latest figure was up 22.0%. Fees can rise while transactions fall if each transaction costs more, and they can fall while the network stays busy if each transaction costs less. The published averages do not explain the mix, and they should not be read as a simple measure of demand on their own. What they do show is that the cost paid by users in total fell in the recent month, in line with fewer transactions.
The address figure is the outlier, and it needs the most care. Daily active addresses were 230,112 to 11 November 2026, against 13,564 thirty days earlier, up 1596.5%, and against 14,833 in the week to 20 August 2026, up 1451.3%. A rise of that size would normally suggest a surge in users, but one address is not one person, and the same person can control many addresses. The transaction figures show that the flood of addresses did not bring a flood of transactions. Something changed in how addresses were created or used, but the published series does not say what it was. The safe conclusion is narrower: many more addresses were active, while the work those addresses did, measured in transactions, fell.
That pattern is the clearest challenge to a simple recovery story. If new users were arriving in large numbers and staying to transact, daily transactions would be expected to rise with daily active addresses. Instead transactions fell 3.7% over the past month and 25.2% against August, while addresses rose by 1596.5% and 1451.3% in the same comparisons. The gap does not prove that the new addresses are empty or artificial, because the evidence does not identify their owners or their purpose. It does show that address growth, on its own, is not evidence of growing use. A reader who takes the address figure as proof of adoption would be reading the wrong measure.
A volatile year, not a steady climb
The monthly record for total value locked shows why a single month should not be treated as a trend. On the first day of each month the figure was $285.3 million on 1 December 2025, $285.7 million on 1 January 2026, $248.3 million on 1 February 2026, $198.5 million on 1 March 2026, $190.7 million on 1 April 2026, $352.7 million on 1 May 2026, $321.5 million on 1 June 2026, $269.7 million on 1 July 2026, $298.9 million on 1 August 2026, $425.3 million on 1 September 2026, $483.4 million on 1 October 2026 and $414.1 million on 1 November 2026. The path fell through the early months of 2026, jumped in May, fell again in July, and then rose to a peak at the start of October before falling back in November. Volatility, not a steady climb, is the pattern in the series.
That volatility makes the November reading easier to place. At $400.4 million on 12 November 2026, total value locked was below the $483.4 million recorded on 1 October 2026 and below the $414.1 million recorded on 1 November 2026, but well above the $190.7 million low on 1 April 2026. It was also above the $310.1 million recorded on 14 August 2026. The network has been higher and lower within a few months, and the latest figure sits in the middle of that recent range. A single reading, taken alone, would say little about where the series is heading next.
The limits of the evidence are properties of the two sources. DefiLlama covers only the protocols it tracks, and its total value locked changes with prices and with money moving in and out, so a change in the dollar total is not a direct count of money entering or leaving. Growthepie counts activity and stablecoin supply on the network itself from its own on-chain data, and it publishes the last 90 days, which limits how far back its activity comparisons can reach in this series. One person can hold many addresses, so the address surge cannot be translated into a headcount. Together the sources support a comparison of stored value, circulating dollars and use, but they do not identify who moved money, why addresses multiplied, or what will happen next.
The judgment that follows from the figures is that OP Mainnet is holding stored value better than it is holding usable money and activity. Total value locked fell less than ether and rose against August and against 12 November 2025, which counts against a story of sudden collapse. Stablecoin supply fell 40.0% in a month, transactions fell 25.2% against August, and fees fell 14.0% over the past month, which counts against a story of broad recovery. The address surge, the most eye-catching figure in the set, is also the least informative about use, because it rose while transactions fell. The next test is whether stablecoin supply and transactions stabilise in the readings that follow, or whether the gap between stored value and everyday use widens further. Not investment advice.
Source: DefiLlama, growthepie, OP Mainnet fundamentals · Date: