Fragmented liquidity is the primary barrier. Institutions require deep, stable pools for billion-dollar trades, which no single next-gen L1 provides. The DeFi liquidity landscape is a patchwork of isolated venues like Uniswap V3 and Aave, making large-scale execution impossible without catastrophic slippage.
crypto-marketing-and-narrative-economics
Blog
Why Institutional Liquidity Is Avoiding Next-Gen L1s
The capital is ready, but the rails aren't. A first-principles breakdown of the compliance and operational gaps keeping billions in institutional funds off chains like Solana, Avalanche, Sui, and Aptos.
introduction
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
The $100B On-Chain Mirage
Institutional capital remains trapped on legacy chains due to fragmented liquidity and unresolved settlement risks.
Cross-chain settlement remains a systemic risk. Bridges like LayerZero and Stargate introduce smart contract and validator trust assumptions that institutional risk models cannot price. The canonical settlement layer for a $100M trade is still Ethereum L1, not an L2 or Alt-L1.
The data proves capital is stationary. Over 90% of stablecoin supply and institutional DeFi TVL resides on Ethereum and its L2s. Chains like Solana and Avalanche host speculative retail activity, not the institutional-grade balance sheets required for real-world asset tokenization.
key-trends
WHY INSTITUTIONS ARE STAYING ON THE SIDELINES
The Three Immovable Roadblocks
Next-gen L1s tout superior tech, but three fundamental infrastructure gaps keep institutional capital locked on Ethereum and Solana.
01
The Custody Chasm
Institutions require qualified custodians (Fidelity, Anchorage, Coinbase Custody) with SOC 2 Type II compliance, insurance, and legal entity segregation. New L1s lack native support, forcing manual, insecure multi-sig setups.
- Zero major custodians support Aptos, Sui, or Berachain natively.
- Manual operations increase counterparty risk and operational overhead.
- Regulatory uncertainty around novel VMs (Move, Fuel) delays compliance.
0
Top-Tier Custodians
>90%
Institutional TVL on ETH/SOL
02
The Settlement Risk Premium
Institutions price risk based on finality time and fork probability. New L1s with novel consensus (Narwhal-Bullshark, Bullshark) lack the battle-tested Nakamoto Coefficient of Ethereum or Solana's validator decentralization.
- ~3-5 second finality vs. Ethereum's ~15 minutes (but with $50B+ at stake).
- Unproven economic security under extreme MEV or governance attacks.
- No established insurance or slashing coverage markets for these chains.
<$1B
Avg. Economic Security
10-100x
Higher Risk Premium
03
The Liquidity Fragmentation Trap
Institutions move in size. Next-gen L1s fragment liquidity across isolated venues, creating unsustainable slippage. Bridges like LayerZero and Wormhole introduce cross-chain settlement risk, while native DEXs lack the depth of Uniswap or Orca.
- A $10M swap can cause >5% slippage on nascent DEXs.
- No institutional-grade RFQ systems (like Hashflow) or OTC desks.
- Reliance on canonical bridges controlled by small multisigs.
>95%
Lower Liquidity Depth
5-20bps
ETH/SOL Spread vs. 50-200bps
WHY LIQUIDITY IS STAGNANT
Institutional On-Ramp Gap Analysis
A feature and compliance matrix comparing the on-ramp infrastructure for traditional finance (TradFi), established Layer 1s (L1s), and next-generation L1s.
| Critical Feature / Metric | TradFi / CeFi (e.g., Coinbase Prime, Fidelity) | Established L1s (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) | Next-Gen L1s (e.g., Monad, Berachain, Sei V2) |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct Fiat On/Off-Ramp Integration | |||
Regulatory Licenses (MSB, NYDFS BitLicense) |
| Native: 0 (relies on CeFi) | Native: 0 |
Institutional Custody Partner Integration (Fireblocks, Copper) | Limited (via wrapped assets) | ||
Insurance on Custodied Assets (Lloyd's of London) |
| Not applicable | Not applicable |
Atomic Settlement Finality | N/A (batch processing) | ~12 minutes (Ethereum) to < 1 sec (Solana) | < 2 seconds |
Audited Financial Statements (Big 4 Accountants) | |||
Legal Opinion on Asset Classification (Security vs. Commodity) | Per jurisdiction | Ethereum only (Hinman Memo) | None |
Minimum Viable Transaction Size | $10M+ | No limit, gas-bound | No limit, gas-bound |
Oracles for Real-World Assets (Chainlink, Pyth) | N/A (native) | Full suite | Limited deployment |
deep-dive
THE LIQUIDITY PARADOX
Deconstructing the Operational Deadlock
Institutional capital requires operational simplicity that next-generation L1s fail to provide, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of illiquidity.
Institutional-grade tooling is absent. Next-gen L1s lack the standardized, audited infrastructure for custody, risk management, and settlement that exists on Ethereum via Fireblocks, Copper, and Chainalysis. Deploying capital requires bespoke engineering, which destroys ROI.
Cross-chain execution is a compliance nightmare. Moving assets between chains via LayerZero or Wormhole creates un-auditable transaction trails. This violates the atomic settlement finality that institutions mandate, introducing counterparty and bridge risk they cannot underwrite.
The liquidity flywheel is broken. Without deep order books, market makers like Wintermute and Amber Group avoid these chains. Their absence guarantees high slippage, which further deters large trades, cementing the liquidity death spiral.
Evidence: The total value locked (TVL) in the top 5 non-EVM L1s outside of Solana is less than 2% of Ethereum's DeFi TVL. This metric quantifies the capital strike by sophisticated players.
counter-argument
THE INSTITUTIONAL BARRIER
The 'Just Use a Custodian' Fallacy
Institutional capital remains on the sidelines because next-gen L1s fail to meet the non-negotiable requirements of regulated entities.
Custody is not settlement. Institutions require a legal framework for asset ownership, not just private key management. Platforms like Fireblocks and Copper provide custody, but they do not solve the settlement finality and legal liability issues inherent to new, unproven chains.
Regulatory arbitrage creates risk. An institution using a custodian on a novel L1 like Aptos or Sui still assumes the chain's regulatory risk. The SEC's stance on Proof-of-Stake tokens as securities makes this a binary legal gamble, not a technical one.
Evidence: Ethereum's dominance in institutional TVL stems from its established legal precedents and regulatory clarity. Over 80% of institutional DeFi TVL is on Ethereum L2s, where the legal and technical stack is mature, not on newer, faster L1s.
takeaways
THE LIQUIDITY GAP
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Institutional capital is not a tech demo. Next-gen L1s fail on the core infrastructure required for professional market making.
01
The Fragmented Settlement Problem
Institutions need atomic composability across assets. A fragmented landscape of Solana, Avalanche, Sui, Aptos creates operational overhead and settlement risk that dwarfs any theoretical TPS gains.
- No native cross-chain atomic execution forces complex, risky workarounds.
- Settlement finality variance (e.g., probabilistic vs. instant) breaks risk models.
- Capital efficiency plummets when liquidity is siloed across 10+ chains.
10+
Chains to Manage
>2s
Finality Risk Window
02
The Oracle & Data Infrastructure Desert
Professional trading runs on sub-second price feeds, historical data, and reliable oracles. New L1s lack the mature data pipelines of Ethereum or even Solana.
- Chainlink/Pyth deployment lags or has low staking security on new chains.
- Block explorers and indexers (The Graph) are unreliable or non-existent.
- No institutional-grade MEV monitoring (e.g., Flashbots) or RPC provider SLAs.
<5
Reliable RPC Nodes
100ms+
Feed Latency
03
Regulatory & Custodial No-Man's Land
Institutions require clear regulatory treatment and insured custody. Next-gen L1s are unknowns, while Ethereum and Bitcoin have established precedents.
- No regulatory clarity on the chain's native token (is it a security?).
- Major custodians (Coinbase, Anchorage) delay support for new L1 assets.
- Lack of insured, multi-sig smart contract wallets (like Safe) with institutional features.
0
Top-Tier Custodians
High
Security Audit Gap
04
The Liquidity Flywheel Is Broken
Institutions follow deep, stable liquidity. New chains try to bootstrap with inflationary token incentives, attracting mercenary capital that flees at the first sign of trouble (see Avalanche Rush, Fantom incentives).
- TVL is ephemeral, built on promises, not sustainable yield.
- No native stablecoin depth (e.g., USDC/USDT native issuance lags).
- DEX liquidity is shallow, leading to high slippage on >$1M trades.
-90%
TVL Drop Post-Incentives
>5%
Slippage on $1M Swap
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