Appchain liquidity is a zero-sum game. Every new chain like Arbitrum Nova or Base must bootstrap its own liquidity pools, pulling capital from established ecosystems like Ethereum and Solana. This capital cannibalization creates systemic inefficiency.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
The Cost of Competing for Liquidity in a Zero-Sum Appchain Game
Appchains that treat liquidity as a finite resource to be won from rivals are destined for high costs and failure. This analysis argues that ecosystems like Cosmos and Polkadot must shift from competitive extraction to cooperative liquidity growth to succeed.
introduction
THE ZERO-SUM GAME
Introduction: The Appchain Liquidity Trap
Appchain fragmentation creates a winner-take-all competition for liquidity that drains resources and stifles innovation.
The primary cost is opportunity cost. Teams spend 40-60% of their runway on liquidity mining programs instead of core development. This misallocation of capital is the hidden tax of sovereignty.
Fragmented liquidity degrades user experience. A user swapping on dYdX cannot access liquidity on Avalanche without a complex bridge hop via LayerZero or Wormhole. This friction kills composability.
Evidence: The top 10 EVM chains hold over $50B in TVL, but less than 5% is natively bridged between them. This creates isolated liquidity silos that protocols must pay to fill.
key-trends
THE COST OF COMPETING FOR LIQUIDITY
Executive Summary: The Three Fatal Flaws
Appchains fragment capital and user bases, creating a zero-sum game where protocols bleed value to middlemen instead of accruing it to users.
01
The Problem: Fragmentation is a Tax on Users
Every new appchain creates a new liquidity silo. Bridging assets between them incurs ~$100M+ in annual fees paid to bridge operators and LPs, a direct tax on user capital. This fragments composability, forcing protocols like Aave and Uniswap to bootstrap from zero on each chain.
$100M+
Annual Bridge Tax
0
Native Composability
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Shared Liquidity
Networks like Across and UniswapX abstract the chain away. Users express an intent ("swap X for Y"), and a solver network competes to fulfill it across any liquidity source. This aggregates fragmented liquidity into a single virtual pool, slashing costs.
- Key Benefit: Eliminates perpetual liquidity bootstrapping.
- Key Benefit: Redirects MEV from searchers back to users via competition.
-90%
Bridge Cost
1-2s
Settlement Time
03
The Problem: Security is an Opex, Not a Capex
Rollups and appchains rent security from an L1 (e.g., Ethereum) via data availability and proof posting fees. This creates a permanent, variable opex that scales with usage, unlike the fixed capex of a monolithic chain's native security. Celestia and EigenDA commoditize this, but the cost remains a tax.
Variable Opex
Security Model
$0.01-$0.10
Cost per Tx (DA)
04
The Solution: Sovereign Shared Security Pools
Networks like EigenLayer and Babylon allow protocols to pool security capital (restaked ETH/staked BTC) instead of each chain sourcing its own validators. This turns security into a liquid, shared resource.
- Key Benefit: Drastically reduces validator set bootstrap cost.
- Key Benefit: Creates a unified cryptoeconomic security layer across appchains.
$15B+
Pooled Security TVL
10-100x
Capital Efficiency
05
The Problem: The Interoperability Trilemma
You can only optimize for two: Trustlessness, Generalizability, or Capital Efficiency. LayerZero and Wormhole use light clients for trustlessness but are capital-inefficient. Circle's CCTP is capital-efficient but not generalizable. Most bridges sacrifice trustlessness, creating systemic risk.
Pick 2
Trilemma Constraint
$2B+
Bridge Hack Volume
06
The Solution: Unified Settlement & Proving
A shared settlement layer with a universal proof system (e.g., zk-proofs via Polygon zkEVM, Nil Foundation) enables trust-minimized, generalizable state transitions. This is the endgame: a single verifiable compute layer where appchains are just execution shards.
- Key Benefit: Removes trusted intermediaries from cross-chain logic.
- Key Benefit: Enables atomic cross-chain composability.
~1-5s
Proof Time
Trust-Minimized
Interop Model
thesis-statement
THE ZERO-SUM GAME
Core Thesis: Cooperation Beats Extraction
Appchains competing for liquidity creates a negative-sum environment that destroys value for all participants.
Appchains are liquidity sinks. Every new chain must bootstrap its own fragmented liquidity pools, forcing protocols like Uniswap and Aave to deploy duplicate capital. This capital inefficiency directly reduces yields for LPs and increases costs for users.
The zero-sum game is unsustainable. Chains like Avalanche and Polygon spend millions on incentive programs to attract TVL, but this liquidity is mercenary and flees to the next subsidy. The result is a race to the bottom in token emissions.
Cooperative infrastructure is the exit. Shared security models, like EigenLayer and Babylon, and universal liquidity layers, like LayerZero and Chainlink CCIP, allow chains to specialize without replicating core security and liquidity. This shifts the competition from resource extraction to execution quality.
LIQUIDITY ACQUISITION COSTS
The Zero-Sum Reality: Appchain Liquidity Metrics
Comparing the capital efficiency and operational overhead for an appchain to bootstrap and maintain a $100M TVL.
| Metric / Mechanism | Native Appchain (e.g., dYdX v4, Sei) | Shared Sequencer Settlement (e.g., Eclipse, Saga) | Superchain Shared Liquidity (e.g., OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit) |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to $100M TVL (Est.) | 6-18 months | 3-9 months | 1-3 months |
Initial Liquidity Incentive Cost | $15M - $40M+ | $5M - $15M | $1M - $5M |
Ongoing Emission Cost / Year | 5% - 15% of TVL | 2% - 7% of TVL | 0.5% - 2% of TVL |
Native Cross-Chain Swap Support | |||
MEV Revenue Recapture | Full control, high complexity | Shared pool, medium complexity | Base layer dictates, low complexity |
Primary Liquidity Competitors | Every other chain (Ethereum, Solana) | Other chains in the sequencer set | Other chains in the superchain (e.g., Base, Mode) |
Exit Liquidity Risk | High (isolated chain) | Medium (bridged assets) | Low (native cross-rollup comms) |
Dominant Bridge Used | Custom, insecure bridge | Shared Sequencer Bridge | Canonical Native Bridge (e.g., OP Standard Bridge) |
deep-dive
THE ZERO-SUM GAME
Deep Dive: The Mechanics of Liquidity Suicide
Appchains compete for a finite pool of capital, turning liquidity fragmentation into a systemic cost.
Appchains fragment liquidity by design. Every new chain (e.g., Arbitrum Nova, Base, zkSync) must bootstrap its own liquidity pools, pulling assets from the same aggregate pool on Ethereum L1 or other major chains. This creates a zero-sum competition for capital where one chain's gain is another's drain.
Liquidity bootstrapping is a capital sink. Protocols spend millions on incentive emissions and bribes to attract TVL, a cost ultimately passed to users via inflation or fees. This is a direct transfer of value from protocol treasuries to mercenary capital, as seen in the Avalanche Rush and Arbitrum Odyssey programs.
Cross-chain bridging amplifies the problem. Users fragment their assets across chains using bridges like LayerZero and Axelar, but liquidity remains siloed. The interoperability tax of bridging fees and slippage is a recurring cost of this fragmented state, making simple asset movement a complex, expensive operation.
Evidence: The total value locked (TVL) in DeFi has remained relatively flat while the number of chains has exploded. This indicates capital dilution, not growth. A user providing liquidity on ten chains with $10k each is less capital-efficient than providing $100k on one chain, reducing overall system leverage and yield.
counter-argument
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
Counter-Argument: Sovereignty Has a Price (And Maybe It's Worth It?)
Appchains trade shared network effects for a perpetual, expensive battle to bootstrap and retain capital.
Appchains fragment liquidity by design. Each new chain must independently attract TVL, creating a zero-sum competition against established L1s and other appchains. This liquidity bootstrapping cost is a recurring operational expense, not a one-time setup fee.
The cost manifests as unsustainable incentives. Protocols like dYdX and Aave deploy massive token emissions to lure capital, creating mercenary liquidity that chases the highest yield. This inflates token supply without guaranteeing long-term user retention.
Shared security L1s avoid this trap. Applications on Ethereum or Solano inherit a pre-bootstrapped liquidity pool. The network effect of a dominant L1 acts as a permanent subsidy, allowing developers to focus on product-market fit instead of capital acquisition.
Evidence: The Total Value Locked (TVL) migration from dYdX v3 (StarkEx) to v4 (Cosmos appchain) required a multi-million dollar incentive program, demonstrating the explicit price of sovereignty.
case-study
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
Case Studies: The Paths Forward
Appchains fragment capital, creating a zero-sum game where protocols bleed millions to attract and retain users.
01
The Problem: The $100M+ Incentive Sinkhole
Bootstrapping liquidity is a capital incinerator. New chains must outbid established L1s and L2s, paying $50M-$200M+ in token incentives for temporary TVL that flees post-program. This is a non-recurring revenue model that destroys token value.
- Example: A new gaming chain needs ~$100M in token grants to attract ~$1B TVL.
- Result: >90% of this capital is mercenary and exits within 6 months.
$100M+
Avg. Cost
>90%
Churn Rate
02
The Solution: Shared Security & Liquidity Layers
Stop competing; start pooling. Protocols like Celestia, EigenLayer, and Cosmos with Interchain Security allow appchains to inherit security and tap into shared liquidity pools. This shifts the cost from a capital expense to an operational expense.
- Benefit: Launch with $0 upfront security cost.
- Benefit: Access to a $10B+ cross-chain liquidity pool via IBC or LayerZero.
$0
Upfront Security
$10B+
Shared Pool
03
The Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction (UniswapX, Across)
Decouple execution from settlement. Let users express what they want, not how to do it. UniswapX and Across use solvers to route intents across the cheapest liquidity sources, making the underlying chain irrelevant to the user.
- Benefit: Appchains become execution venues, not liquidity silos.
- Benefit: Users get best price across all chains without managing bridges or gas.
20-30%
Better Pricing
0
User Slippage
04
The Problem: The Fragmented User Experience Tax
Every new appchain forces users to acquire a new gas token, bridge assets, and manage separate wallets. This friction tax reduces addressable market by ~80%, limiting growth to degens and whales.
- Consequence: Mainstream adoption is impossible with 10+ steps to onboard.
- Metric: Each additional chain reduces active users by a factor of 10.
80%
Market Loss
10x
User Drop-off
05
The Solution: Universal Accounts & Gas Abstraction
Make the chain invisible. ERC-4337 account abstraction and chains like NEAR allow users to pay gas in any token (e.g., USDC) via sponsored transactions. Polygon AggLayer aims to unify liquidity and state across chains.
- Benefit: User sees one balance, one transaction.
- Benefit: Developer can subsidize gas, removing the final UX hurdle.
1
Balance Sheet
$0
User Gas Cost
06
The Meta-Solution: Hyper-Specialized Vertical Integration
If you must own the chain, own the entire vertical. dYdX v4 and Aevo show that for high-frequency, complex apps (perps DEX), a dedicated appchain capturing 100% of fees can justify the liquidity cost. The business model must support $50M+ annual revenue to be sustainable.
- Requirement: Must be a category-defining app with non-commoditized logic.
- Warning: Only works for <1% of protocols; for the rest, it's suicide.
100%
Fee Capture
<1%
Viable Protocols
future-outlook
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
Future Outlook: The Cooperative Stack Wins
The current appchain model is a zero-sum game where liquidity fragmentation destroys more value than modularity creates.
Appchains compete for liquidity. Every new rollup or L2 must bootstrap its own TVL, forcing protocols to pay unsustainable incentives. This liquidity fragmentation creates a capital efficiency tax that undermines the value proposition of specialization.
The cooperative stack consolidates liquidity. Shared sequencing layers like Espresso and shared settlement layers like Celestia/EigenLayer create a unified liquidity pool. This eliminates the bridging tax and allows value to flow frictionlessly between specialized execution environments.
Intent-based architectures win. Protocols like UniswapX and Across abstract away the chain, letting users express a desired outcome. The system's solver network finds the optimal path across the cooperative stack, making the underlying chain irrelevant to the end-user.
Evidence: The modular thesis fails without cooperation. A Cosmos appchain with $10M TVL cannot compete with an Ethereum L2 rollup pooling from a $50B ecosystem. The future belongs to stacks that share, not silo, their most critical resource: capital.
takeaways
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
Key Takeaways for Builders & Investors
Appchain proliferation has turned liquidity into a zero-sum game, where the primary cost is not compute but capital.
01
The Problem: Fragmented, Expensive Capital
Every new chain must bootstrap its own liquidity pools, competing for the same finite capital. This creates massive inefficiency and a winner-take-most dynamic for established ecosystems like Ethereum and Solana.
- Sunk Cost: $50M+ in token incentives often required for initial TVL.
- Ongoing Drain: ~20-30% APY emissions needed to retain liquidity, bleeding protocol treasury.
$50M+
Bootstrap Cost
20-30% APY
Retention Cost
02
The Solution: Shared Security & Liquidity Layers
Architectures that pool security and liquidity across chains turn a cost center into a network effect. This is the core thesis behind EigenLayer, Babylon, and Celestia's shared sequencers.
- Capital Efficiency: A single staked asset (e.g., ETH) can secure multiple chains.
- Flywheel Effect: Liquidity becomes a reusable primitive, not a siloed expense.
10x+
Capital Efficiency
0 Bootstrap
New Chain TVL
03
The Problem: Intents & UX Friction
Users don't want to manage assets across 10 chains. The current multi-chain UX is a conversion killer. Projects like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract this via intents, but the underlying liquidity fragmentation remains.
- User Drop-off: Each new chain/rollup adds ~40% UX friction.
- Slippage Hell: Thin, isolated pools lead to worse prices versus aggregated venues.
40%+
UX Friction
2-5x
Higher Slippage
04
The Solution: Universal Liquidity Networks
Infrastructure that treats all chains as endpoints in a single liquidity mesh. This is the playbook for LayerZero, Axelar, and intent-based solvers like Across.
- Abstracted Execution: Users express intent ("swap X for Y"), solvers find best path across fragmented liquidity.
- Aggregated Depth: Solvers tap into $10B+ of aggregated liquidity, improving fill rates and price.
$10B+
Aggregated Liquidity
~1s
Cross-Chain Settle
05
The Problem: The Validator Extractable Value (VEV) Tax
In a fragmented landscape, validators/sequencers on smaller chains capture excessive MEV because they control the only viable liquidity pool. This is a direct tax on users and apps.
- Extracted Value: 5-15% of swap volume can be captured as MEV/VEV on thin markets.
- Centralization Pressure: To mitigate this, teams often resort to centralized sequencers, compromising decentralization.
5-15%
VEV Tax
High
Centralization Risk
06
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups & Shared Sequencing
Decouple execution from consensus and sequencing. Use a shared sequencing layer (e.g., Espresso, Astria) or a settlement layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) to provide neutral, competitive block building.
- MEV Resistance: Proposer-Builder-Separation (PBS) models can be enforced at the sequencing layer.
- Sovereignty: Apps retain execution sovereignty while outsourcing costly security and liquidity coordination.
-90%
VEV Reduction
Full
Execution Sovereignty
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