Interchain composability is broken. Today's dominant model, exemplified by token bridges like Stargate and LayerZero, creates isolated asset representations that fragment liquidity and break application logic across chains.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
The Future of Interchain Composability: Pooled, Not Ported
The appchain thesis demands a new composability model. We argue that the future lies not in porting monolithic contracts between silos, but in orchestrating state changes across shared, specialized liquidity and execution layers.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
The next evolution of blockchain interoperability moves from asset porting to state composability via shared liquidity pools.
The future is pooled, not ported. Instead of locking and minting tokens, protocols will compose by interacting with shared canonical liquidity pools that exist natively across multiple execution environments.
This is a state synchronization problem. True composability requires a shared state layer, not just message passing. Projects like Chainlink CCIP and Hyperlane are building the verifiable messaging infrastructure to make this possible.
Evidence: The rise of intent-based architectures in UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrates the market demand for abstracted, gas-optimal execution that treats liquidity as a unified network resource.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL MISMATCH
The Core Argument: Porting is a Dead End
Replicating application logic across chains creates unsustainable fragmentation and liquidity dilution.
Porting applications is a tax on composability. Teams deploy identical smart contracts on multiple chains, creating isolated state silos. This forces users and assets into walled gardens, breaking the network effects that define DeFi.
The liquidity problem is terminal. A ported Uniswap V3 on Arbitrum and Optimism splits TVL and volume. This fragmented liquidity increases slippage and reduces capital efficiency for the entire ecosystem, a problem protocols like LayerZero's Stargate attempt to bandage.
Composability becomes chain-specific. A yield strategy built on Avalanche cannot natively interact with its Polygon counterpart. This local composability defeats the purpose of a multi-chain world, forcing integrators to rebuild for each deployment.
Evidence: The top 10 DeFi protocols maintain an average of 5.4 chain deployments, yet cross-chain composability between these instances is near zero, creating billions in stranded, inefficient capital.
market-context
THE FRAGMENTATION
The Appchain Liquidity Crisis
Application-specific blockchains fragment liquidity, creating isolated pools that break DeFi's core composability.
Appchains fragment liquidity by design. Building a dedicated chain for an application isolates its native assets and state, creating a capital silo. This defeats the original promise of DeFi, where protocols like Aave and Uniswap composably shared a single liquidity pool on Ethereum.
Bridging assets is a capital inefficiency. The current solution of porting assets via bridges like Axelar or LayerZero locks liquidity in escrow contracts. This creates a liquidity sink where billions in TVL sit idle, generating zero yield and increasing systemic risk.
The future is pooled, not ported. The next evolution is shared security and liquidity layers. Networks like Celestia for data availability and EigenLayer for restaking enable appchains to exist as rollups while inheriting Ethereum's economic security and tapping into pooled capital without bridging.
Evidence: The total value locked in cross-chain bridges exceeds $20B. This capital is non-productive, highlighting the massive opportunity cost of the current fragmented model versus a natively composable one.
key-trends
FROM FRAGMENTATION TO FLUIDITY
Three Trends Enabling the Shift
The next wave of interchain composability moves beyond simple bridging to create a unified liquidity and execution layer.
01
The Problem: Liquidity Silos
Fragmented TVL across hundreds of chains kills capital efficiency and creates massive arbitrage opportunities. Bridging assets is a tax on every interaction.
- $100B+ in locked liquidity, but <5% is actively composable.
- Native yield and governance rights are lost in wrapped assets.
<5%
Composable TVL
$100B+
Siloed Assets
02
The Solution: Universal Settlement Layers
Networks like Celestia, EigenLayer, and Near DA provide a neutral, high-throughput data layer. This decouples execution from consensus, enabling verifiable state proofs.
- Enables light-client bridges with cryptographic security, not multisig trust.
- Reduces cross-chain latency from minutes to ~2-10 seconds for finality.
~2-10s
Finality
-99%
Trust Assumption
03
The Enabler: Intent-Based Architectures
Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across shift the paradigm from users specifying how (which chain, which pool) to specifying what (desired outcome).
- Solvers compete to fulfill the intent, routing across the optimal path of pools and chains.
- Users get MEV protection and better prices without managing complexity.
10-30%
Price Improvement
0
MEV Risk
INTERCHAIN COMPOSABILITY
Porting vs. Pooling: A Feature Matrix
A first-principles comparison of asset transfer paradigms, contrasting the legacy 'porting' model with the emerging 'pooling' model for cross-chain liquidity and execution.
| Core Feature / Metric | Porting (Legacy Bridge) | Pooling (Liquidity Network) | Intent-Based (Abstracted) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Mechanism | Lock-and-Mint / Burn-and-Unlock | Shared Liquidity Pools | Solver Competition (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) |
Capital Efficiency | 1:1 Vaulted (Inefficient) | Capital re-use across chains (High) | Extreme (Leverages existing DEX liquidity) |
Settlement Finality | Source Chain + Bridge Delay (~10-30 min) | Near-Instant (Pre-funded destination liquidity) | Optimistic (Contestation period for solvers) |
Composability | Wrapped Asset (e.g., USDC.e) | Native Asset (e.g., USDC) | Native Asset via Abstracted Intents |
Trust Assumption | Validator/Multisig (High) | Liquidity Provider (Medium) | Economic (Solver Bond) / Protocol (e.g., Across, LayerZero) |
User Experience | Multi-step, Manual | Single Swap | Gasless, Signature-Based |
Typical Fee | 0.1% - 0.5% + Gas | < 0.1% (Pool Spread) | Solver Bid (Often Subsidized) |
Protocol Examples | Multichain, Polygon PoS Bridge | Stargate, Chainflip | Across, UniswapX, Socket |
deep-dive
THE COMPOSABILITY ENGINE
Architecting the Pooled Future
The next evolution of interoperability shifts from moving assets to pooling liquidity and state, enabling native cross-chain applications.
Interchain composability is a liquidity problem. Current bridges like Stargate and Axelar port assets, creating isolated liquidity pools on each chain. This fragments capital and breaks application logic, forcing protocols like Uniswap to deploy separate, non-communicating instances.
The future is pooled, not ported. Systems like Chainlink CCIP and LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Tokens (OFT) standard abstract liquidity into a unified layer. Applications query a shared state, not a bridge's destination contract. This turns a bridge into a messaging primitive for a global state machine.
This enables native cross-chain applications. A single Uniswap v4 hook can now execute against a global liquidity pool spanning Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base. The user experience shifts from 'bridge then swap' to a single 'swap' transaction that routes natively. Intent-based architectures like UniswapX and Across are early signals of this abstraction.
Evidence: LayerZero messages increased 300% in Q1 2024, signaling developer demand for generalized messaging over simple asset transfers. Chainlink's CCIP is being integrated by Swift and major banks for cross-chain settlement, validating the pooled state model for institutional workflows.
protocol-spotlight
THE ARCHITECTS OF POOLED LIQUIDITY
Early Signals: Who's Building This?
A new stack is emerging to replace message-passing bridges with shared liquidity pools, enabling atomic cross-chain composability.
01
The Problem: Fragmented, Non-Composable Liquidity
Bridging via lock-and-mint or burn-and-mint creates isolated liquidity silos. This breaks DeFi's core promise of composability, as assets cannot be used across chains in a single transaction.\n- TVL is trapped in bridge-specific pools, not the wider ecosystem.\n- No atomic execution means multi-step flows are risky and slow.
$20B+
Locked in Bridges
~5-20 min
Settlement Latency
02
The Solution: Shared Liquidity Pools (LayerZero & Stargate)
A canonical Vault model where liquidity is pooled on a source chain and used to credit assets atomically on a destination chain via a unified messaging layer.\n- Atomic composability: Funds arrive ready for use in a single tx, enabling cross-chain swaps, loans, and leverage.\n- Capital efficiency: One pool serves all destination chains, versus one pool per bridge route.
30+
Chains Supported
<30 sec
Guaranteed Finality
03
The Enabler: Intent-Based Routing (Across, Socket)
Abstracts the user from the bridging mechanism. Users submit an intent ("I want X asset on Chain B"), and a solver network sources liquidity from the most efficient pooled venue.\n- Optimizes for cost & speed by routing across bridges, AMMs, and CEXs.\n- Unlocks cross-chain UX for applications like UniswapX and CowSwap.
-60%
Avg. Cost
~500ms
Quote Time
04
The Infrastructure: Universal Settlement Layers (Chainlink CCIP, Wormhole)
Provides the secure, programmable messaging layer that allows pooled liquidity systems to operate trust-minimized. This is the plumbing for cross-chain state.\n- Programmable token transfers enable complex logic (e.g., "swap and stake") on arrival.\n- Security via decentralization, moving beyond multi-sig bridges to networks of nodes.
$1T+
Value Secured
12+
Oracle Networks
05
The Application: Cross-Chain Money Markets (Compound III, Aave GHO)
Protocols are building native multi-chain architectures where collateral on one chain can borrow assets on another, using pooled liquidity bridges as the settlement rail.\n- Unified debt positions across ecosystems, maximizing capital utility.\n- Mitigates fragmentation of governance tokens and stablecoins like GHO.
5-10x
Capital Efficiency
0 Slippage
On Collateral Moves
06
The Endgame: Native Omnichain dApps
Applications that are deployed once but exist on all chains simultaneously, with state synchronized via pooled liquidity and cross-chain messaging. The user sees one app, not 10 deployments.\n- Single liquidity pool powers the entire multi-chain user base.\n- Eliminates chain selection as a user decision point.
1
Unified Frontend
100%
Chain Abstraction
risk-analysis
INTERCHAIN COMPOSABILITY
The Bear Case: Why This Might Fail
Pooled liquidity models face existential challenges from technical debt, economic misalignment, and the enduring power of incumbents.
01
The Liquidity Fragmentation Paradox
Pooled systems like IBC and LayerZero's OFT standard create new liquidity silos. A pool on Osmosis is useless for a swap on Arbitrum. The promise of a unified liquidity layer fragments into dozens of isolated, sub-critical pools, defeating the original purpose.\n- Capital Inefficiency: TVL is divided across chains, not aggregated.\n- Composability Gap: Smart contracts cannot natively interact with remote pools.
100+
Isolated Pools
<$50M
Avg. Pool TVL
02
The Validator Cartel Problem
Pool security depends on the underlying chain's validator set. For Cosmos app-chains or Avalanche subnets, this often means <20 validators controlling the pool. This creates a centralization vector and a single point of regulatory attack. Why would a TradFi institution trust a pool secured by 15 anonymous entities?\n- Security Assumption: Pool safety = Weakest chain's security.\n- Regulatory Risk: Targeted chain shutdowns can freeze cross-chain assets.
<20
Critical Validators
1
Attack Surface
03
Economic Misalignment & MEV Cannibalization
Pooled models rely on LPs earning fees from cross-chain swaps. However, intent-based solvers (like UniswapX and CowSwap) and fast messaging (like Wormhole and Axelar) enable direct, LP-free settlement. This routes volume away from pools, starving them of fees. The most valuable transactions will bypass the pool entirely.\n- Revenue Leakage: Solvers capture the profitable, MEV-rich flow.\n- Adverse Selection: Pools are left with toxic, unprofitable arbitrage.
-80%
Fee Capture
MEV
Drained by Solvers
04
The Legacy Bridge Moat
Established, custodial, or multi-sig bridges (e.g., Polygon PoS Bridge, Arbitrum Bridge) hold >$20B in TVL and deep integration with major dApps. They are 'good enough' for most users. Migrating this liquidity and trust to a new, complex pooled system requires a compelling cost/benefit that doesn't yet exist. Inertia is the most powerful force in finance.\n- Switching Cost: Re-auditing, re-integrating, and re-educating users is prohibitive.\n- Risk Asymmetry: New unproven risk vs. known, insured custodial risk.
$20B+
Incumbent TVL
0
Incentive to Migrate
05
The Complexity Death Spiral
A truly composable pooled system requires a universal asset ledger, a cross-chain state oracle, and atomic rollback guarantees. This introduces layers of complexity that increase latency, cost, and attack surface. Each new chain added multiplies the integration overhead. The system becomes so complex that only a handful of elite teams can build on it, killing the developer flywheel.\n- Latency Bloat: Finality delays cascade across chains.\n- DevEx Collapse: 90% of devs revert to simple, locked asset bridges.
~5s+
Worst-Case Latency
10x
Code Complexity
06
Regulatory Arbitrage Ends
The current cross-chain model thrives on regulatory fragmentation. A pooled system that creates a unified liquidity layer also creates a unified regulatory target. The SEC's case against Uniswap is a precursor. If pooled liquidity tokens are deemed securities, the entire model collapses overnight. Jurisdictional arbitrage is a feature, not a bug, of the current fragmented system.\n- Single Point of Failure: One ruling can blackhole $10B+ in pooled assets.\n- KYC/AML On-Ramp: Compliance requires breaking pseudonymity, killing DeFi's core value prop.
1
Global Regulator
$10B+
At Risk
future-outlook
THE NETWORK EFFECT
The 24-Month Outlook
Interchain composability will shift from asset porting to liquidity pooling, creating winner-take-most markets for cross-chain primitives.
The dominant model will be pooled liquidity, not ported assets. Today's bridges like Stargate and Across move tokens between siloed pools. The future is a unified liquidity layer where assets remain native and are composed via intents. This eliminates fragmentation and unlocks native yield.
Intent-based architectures will abstract chain boundaries. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate the power of declarative transactions. This model extends to cross-chain, where solvers on networks like EigenLayer compete to source liquidity from the optimal chain, making the execution layer irrelevant to users.
Standardized settlement layers will emerge as critical infrastructure. Just as TCP/IP underlies the internet, shared settlement (e.g., a shared sequencer or proof aggregation layer) will become the bedrock. This creates a winner-take-most market for a few providers that achieve sufficient decentralization and security.
Evidence: The 80/20 rule applies. Over 80% of cross-chain value will flow through fewer than five canonical liquidity pools and two or three intent solvers within 24 months, as network effects solidify.
takeaways
THE FUTURE OF INTERCHAIN COMPOSABILITY
TL;DR for Busy CTOs
The current model of porting assets and state is broken. The next paradigm is pooled liquidity and execution, enabling native cross-chain applications.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity Silos
Bridging locks capital in destination-chain wrappers, creating billions in idle, non-composable assets. This kills DeFi yields and fragments TVL.
- $30B+ is locked in bridge contracts, earning zero yield.
- Applications like Aave and Compound cannot use cross-chain collateral natively.
- Every new chain exacerbates the capital efficiency problem.
$30B+
Idle TVL
0%
Yield Earned
02
The Solution: Shared Security Pools
Protocols like Chainlink CCIP, Axelar, and LayerZero are evolving from message-passing to verifiable compute pools. They provide a unified security layer for cross-chain state.
- Enables native vaults that aggregate yield across chains.
- Allows Solana liquidity to back loans on Ethereum without wrapping.
- Shifts risk from individual bridge operators to a cryptoeconomic security pool.
1
Security Model
N Chains
Served
03
The Mechanism: Intent-Based Routing
Users express a desired outcome (e.g., 'best yield'), not a transaction path. Solvers like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across compete to fulfill it using the optimal liquidity pool across any chain.
- ~500ms for quote discovery across all major DEXs.
- 10-30% better execution via MEV capture and shared liquidity.
- Turns cross-chain swaps into a declarative, gas-abstracted operation.
~500ms
Quote Speed
10-30%
Better Execution
04
The Endgame: Sovereign App-Chains with Shared Liquidity
App-specific rollups (e.g., dYdX, Aevo) no longer need to bootstrap their own liquidity. They tap into a global interchain liquidity pool secured by shared verifier networks like EigenLayer and Babylon.
- Launch an L3 with instant TVL from day one.
- Zero liquidity fragmentation between execution layers.
- Composability is defined by shared state proofs, not token standards.
Day One
TVL Access
0
Fragmentation
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