Inconsistent Chain Attribution
The same value or activity can be counted on more than one chain or assigned to the wrong one, inflating totals when figures from different sources are added.
How it happens
Assets move across chains as wrapped representations, so the original and its copies can both be counted, once on the source chain and again on the destination. Layered products compound this: a deposit counted in a yield vault is counted again in the lending market the vault deposits into, and again in whatever that market lends against. Staked assets represented by a liquid token can appear as both the stake and the token, and restaking arrangements can count the same security more than once. Protocols deployed on several chains may be reported as one figure or as several, and rollup activity is sometimes attributed to its settlement layer. Total value locked is also not assets under management: it measures the market value of tokens a contract can currently touch, including tokens that are themselves claims on other contracts.
What you can actually observe
Check whether the provider deduplicates double counting and whether it publishes the rule it applies, and compare a protocol's reported total against the underlying assets it actually custodies. Where wrapped versions exist, check whether chain-level totals exclude them. Reconciling a chain total against the sum of its top protocols usually surfaces the largest attribution differences quickly.
What makes it more or less material
Look at whether the metric deduplicates layered deposits, how much value arrives through bridges, whether the protocol is deployed on multiple chains, and whether liquid staking or restaking tokens are involved.
Related factors
Assets this applies to
The largest assets we classify in the categories this factor applies to. Presence here means the factor is relevant to that kind of asset, not that it has occurred.