EVM is a performance ceiling. Its synchronous, single-threaded execution model forces every application to compete for the same limited compute and storage, creating a zero-sum game for block space.
prediction-markets-and-information-theory
Blog
The Future of On-Chain Markets: A World of Application-Specific Rollups
Generic EVM rollups are a bottleneck for high-performance markets. True scale requires custom execution environments optimized for market logic, settlement, and data availability. This is the architectural shift from general-purpose to application-specific.
introduction
THE MONOLITHIC CONSTRAINT
Introduction: The EVM Bottleneck
The EVM's one-size-fits-all architecture is the primary constraint on the next generation of on-chain markets.
General-purpose rollups inherit this flaw. Scaling solutions like Arbitrum and Optimism replicate the bottleneck at the L2 level, merely postponing the inevitable congestion for high-frequency applications.
The future is application-specific. Markets for derivatives, gaming, or social graphs require bespoke VMs and data availability layers that the EVM cannot provide, a trend proven by dYdX's migration to Cosmos.
Evidence: The 2024 Dencun upgrade reduced L2 fees by ~90%, but Ethereum's base layer throughput remains fixed at ~15-45 TPS, a hard limit for any EVM-compatible chain.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF ON-CHAIN MARKETS
The Great Unbundling: Three Market Trends
General-purpose L1s and L2s are being unbundled. The next wave of market structure will be defined by application-specific execution environments.
01
The Problem: The Shared Sequencer Bottleneck
General-purpose rollups force DeFi, gaming, and social apps to compete for the same block space, leading to unpredictable latency and cost spikes during congestion.\n- Latency Variance: Gaming txns can be delayed by a sudden DEX arbitrage war.\n- Cost Inefficiency: Apps pay for generic VM security they don't need.
~500ms
Target Latency
-90%
Cost Variance
02
The Solution: App-Specific Rollups (e.g., dYdX, Aevo)
Own your execution lane. An app-chain or rollup optimized for a single use-case can enforce custom fee markets, MEV strategies, and state models.\n- Tailored Economics: Subsidize user txns with protocol revenue.\n- Custom MEV Capture: Internalize arbitrage profits like dYdX's orderbook.\n- Deterministic Performance: Guarantee sub-second finality for users.
$1B+
TVL Proven
10x
TPS Gain
03
The Enabler: Modular Stack Providers (Celestia, EigenDA, Caldera)
The modular thesis commoditizes security and data availability, making bespoke chains viable. Teams can mix-and-match components like a tech stack.\n- Plug-and-Play DA: Rent security from Celestia or EigenDA for ~$0.001 per MB.\n- Rollup-As-A-Service: Caldera and Conduit deploy a dedicated chain in <1 hour.\n- Sovereignty: Upgrade without governance fights on L1.
~$0.001
Per MB DA Cost
<1 Hour
Deploy Time
deep-dive
THE PERFORMANCE GAP
Architectural Analysis: Why Generic Fails, Specific Succeeds
General-purpose rollups are constrained by their one-size-fits-all design, creating a market for application-specific chains that optimize for a single use case.
Generic rollups are consensus bottlenecks. They must serialize all transactions—DeFi, gaming, social—through a single state machine, forcing every app to compete for the same constrained compute and storage. This creates a noisy neighbor problem where a popular NFT mint congests a DEX.
Application-specific rollups enable vertical optimization. A rollup for a DEX like dYdX can hardcode its orderbook logic, use a custom data availability layer like Celestia, and implement a mempool designed for intent settlement, eliminating the overhead of a general-purpose EVM.
The evidence is in transaction cost. A specialized chain like dYdX v4 executes trades for a fraction of a cent, while the same trade on a general-purpose L2 like Arbitrum costs orders of magnitude more due to shared execution and expensive calldata.
This fragmentation demands new infrastructure. The future is a multi-chain ecosystem of app-chains, requiring intent-based bridges like Across and hyper-optimized interoperability stacks like LayerZero to function as a unified market.
ON-CHAIN MARKETS
Performance Matrix: Shared L2 vs. App-Specific Rollup
A quantitative comparison of infrastructure models for building high-performance financial applications, focusing on trade-offs between general-purpose and specialized execution environments.
| Feature / Metric | Shared L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | App-Specific Rollup (e.g., dYdX v4, Aevo) | Hybrid Settlement Layer (e.g., Eclipse, Caldera) |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to Finality | 12-20 seconds | < 1 second | 1-3 seconds |
Max Theoretical TPS | ~4,000 | ~10,000+ | Limited by underlying VM |
MEV Capture & Redistribution | VM-Dependent | ||
Custom Fee Token / Gas Model | |||
Protocol Revenue from Sequencer | ~10-20% of L1 gas saved | ~90-100% of L1 gas saved | ~50-70% of L1 gas saved |
Upgrade Control / Governance Lag | 7-14 days (DAO) | Instant (Protocol Team) | Instant (App Developer) |
Cross-Domain Composability | Via Native Bridge | ||
State Bloat / Unused Opcodes | High (General EVM) | None (Tailored VM) | Moderate (SVM, MoveVM) |
protocol-spotlight
THE FUTURE OF ON-CHAIN MARKETS
Builder's Playbook: Who's Doing It Right
Application-specific rollups are unbundling the monolithic exchange into hyper-optimized, sovereign execution layers.
01
dYdX v4: The Sovereign Exchange
The Problem: General-purpose L1s cannot scale high-frequency perpetual trading with zero gas fees for makers. The Solution: A Cosmos-based app-chain with a custom mempool and orderbook in state. Validators are the matching engine.
- Zero gas fees for limit orders, paid via trading fees.
- ~1000 TPS throughput, isolated from L1 congestion.
- Sovereign stack enables rapid iteration on core exchange logic.
1000 TPS
Throughput
$0 Gas
For Makers
02
Hyperliquid: The Purpose-Built L1
The Problem: EVM overhead and shared block space create unacceptable latency and cost for a professional orderbook. The Solution: A monolithic Rust-based L1 using Tendermint consensus, treating the chain itself as the matching engine.
- Sub-second block times with ~50ms latency for order placement.
- Native cross-margining across all perpetual markets.
- Full control over the fee model and transaction lifecycle.
~50ms
Order Latency
L1 Native
Matching
03
Aevo: The Rollup-as-a-Backend
The Problem: Launching a high-performance options exchange requires deep L2 expertise and capital. The Solution: An OP Stack rollup optimized for options and perpetuals, using a custom pre-confirmation system from a centralized sequencer.
- Leverages Ethereum security while offering ~500ms trade execution.
- Modular design allows swapping sequencers or DA layers in the future.
- Proves the model: $10B+ peak notional volume on a single-sequencer rollup.
OP Stack
Stack
$10B+
Peak Volume
04
Vertex: The Hybrid Architecture
The Problem: Traders demand a unified margin account across spot, perps, and money markets, but monolithic DEXs are slow. The Solution: An application-specific rollup on Arbitrum Orbit with a hybrid off-chain orderbook/on-chain AMM.
- Single cross-margin account aggregates all products.
- Off-chain matching provides low-latency, on-chain settlement guarantees finality.
- Shows the path for existing protocols to migrate to their own rollup.
Unified
Margin
Arbitrum Orbit
Stack
counter-argument
THE MISCONCEPTION
The Liquidity Fragmentation Counter-Argument (And Why It's Wrong)
The perceived threat of fragmented liquidity is a legacy mindset that ignores modern interoperability infrastructure.
Liquidity is already fragmented. It exists across Ethereum L1, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Solana. The question is not if it fragments, but how efficiently it can be unified. Application-specific rollups optimize for execution, not isolation.
Shared sequencing layers solve this. Networks like Espresso and Astria provide a canonical ordering layer across rollups. This enables atomic composability, turning fragmented liquidity into a unified execution layer for complex transactions.
Intent-based architectures abstract fragmentation. Protocols like UniswapX and Across use solvers to route orders across the best-priced liquidity pools, regardless of chain. The user sees one pool; the infrastructure manages the fragmentation.
Evidence: Ethereum's DEX volume is now a minority. Over 70% occurs on L2s and other L1s, yet cross-chain bridges like LayerZero and Stargate facilitate billions in weekly transfers. Liquidity moves to where execution is cheapest, not where it is centralized.
takeaways
THE APPLICATION-SPECIFIC FUTURE
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The monolithic, one-size-fits-all blockchain is dead. The future is a constellation of specialized execution layers.
01
The Problem: The DEX Bottleneck
General-purpose L1s and L2s force every dApp to compete for the same block space, leading to volatile fees and unpredictable execution for high-frequency traders.\n- Latency spikes during mempool congestion kill arbitrage opportunities.\n- Fee volatility makes cost prediction impossible for market makers.
~500ms
Target Latency
$10B+
TVL Opportunity
02
The Solution: Hyper-optimized DEX Rollups
A dedicated rollup for a single exchange (e.g., a UniswapX or dYdX v4 chain) can be optimized end-to-end for its specific state transitions.\n- Custom pre-confirmations for sub-second trade finality.\n- Native MEV capture & redistribution via a sovereign sequencer.\n- Predictable, near-zero fees for users and LPs.
10x
Throughput
-90%
User Cost
03
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity
Application-specific rollups create isolated liquidity pools. Moving assets between them via bridges introduces settlement risk, latency, and cost.\n- Security vs. Speed trade-off plagues general-purpose bridges.\n- Capital inefficiency as assets sit idle in bridge contracts.
~$2B
Bridge TVL Risk
2-20 min
Settlement Delay
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Shared Sequencing
Networks like Espresso and Astria enable a shared sequencer to coordinate cross-rollup transactions atomically, making bridges obsolete for many use cases.\n- Atomic composability across app-chains (e.g., trade on DEX rollup A, use NFT as collateral on lending rollup B).\n- Native cross-rollup liquidity without third-party bridges.
~1s
Cross-Rollup Finality
0
Bridge Risk
05
The Problem: Sovereign Security Overhead
Launching and securing an independent rollup requires bootstrapping a validator set and liquidity, a massive operational burden for application developers.\n- High fixed cost for fraud/validity proof systems.\n- Fragmented security budgets weaken the overall ecosystem.
$1M+/yr
Security Budget
Months
Time to Launch
06
The Solution: Modular Security & Shared DA
Leverage Ethereum for consensus and data availability via EigenLayer restaking and Celestia/ Avail. The app-chain provides only execution.\n- Ethereum-grade security without the operational hell.\n- Drastically lower costs by sharing DA layer security with thousands of other rollups.
-99%
DA Cost
Weeks
Launch Time
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall