Proprietary formats fragment liquidity. Each new protocol like Uniswap V3 or Aave creates a unique data schema, forcing indexers and analytics platforms to build custom parsers for identical financial events.
decentralized-science-desci-fixing-research
Blog
The Cost of Proprietary Data Formats in a Decentralized World
DeSci promises open, collaborative research, but proprietary data formats on public blockchains recreate the Web2 walled gardens they were meant to destroy. This is the technical debt that will kill protocols.
introduction
THE FRICTION
Introduction
Proprietary data formats create systemic inefficiency and risk, directly contradicting the composable ethos of decentralized systems.
The cost is developer time and capital. Engineers spend months, not days, integrating data feeds. This overhead stifles innovation and creates a moat for incumbents like The Graph, which must maintain countless subgraphs.
Evidence: The proliferation of subgraphs for a single protocol version demonstrates the redundancy. A single DeFi action generates events that require separate indexing by Dune Analytics, Covalent, and Flipside Crypto.
thesis-statement
THE DATA
The Core Contradiction
Proprietary data formats fragment liquidity and create systemic risk, undermining the core promise of decentralized composability.
Proprietary data silos are the primary bottleneck for cross-chain interoperability. Each major bridge—like LayerZero, Axelar, or Wormhole—uses a unique, non-standard message format, forcing applications to integrate each one individually.
This fragmentation destroys composability, the foundational value of DeFi. A protocol built on Across cannot natively trigger an action on a chain connected only by Stargate, creating isolated liquidity pools and broken user flows.
The systemic risk compounds with each new proprietary format. Security audits and economic guarantees are not portable, forcing developers and users to re-evaluate trust assumptions for every new bridge integration.
Evidence: The proliferation of these standards is measurable. Over 30 distinct cross-chain messaging protocols exist, yet less than 5% of DeFi TVL is natively composable across them without custom, fragile integration work.
key-trends
THE COST OF PROPRIETARY DATA FORMATS IN A DECENTRALIZED WORLD
The Three Faces of Data Lock-In
Proprietary data formats create systemic risk, stifling innovation and centralizing control in a space built on interoperability.
01
The Indexer Monopoly Problem
Protocols like The Graph and Covalent standardize querying, but their hosted service models and proprietary subgraphs create a new form of lock-in. Decentralization becomes a marketing term when data access is gated.
- Risk: Single point of failure for $2B+ DeFi TVL reliant on hosted services.
- Cost: Teams pay ~$50k/month for reliable indexing, a tax on innovation.
- Solution: P2P networks like Subsquid or verifiable compute for truly portable indexing.
$2B+
TVL at Risk
~$50k/mo
Indexing Tax
02
The Oracle Data Silo Problem
Chainlink dominates with its proprietary data feeds and node operator network. While reliable, it creates a moat where price data format and delivery are non-portable, making switching costs prohibitive.
- Consequence: >50% of DeFi relies on a single oracle's data format and governance.
- Lock-In: Building a custom feed requires replicating the entire $7B+ network from scratch.
- Solution: Pyth's pull-oracle model and API3's dAPIs demonstrate more composable, data-source-agnostic approaches.
>50%
DeFi Reliance
$7B+
Network to Replicate
03
The Rollup Execution Prison
Optimistic and ZK rollups publish data to L1, but their execution environments and state formats are proprietary. Moving an app from Arbitrum to zkSync requires a full rewrite, not a redeploy.
- Barrier: Application logic is locked to a single VM (EVM, SVM, Cairo VM).
- Scale: $20B+ in bridged assets is effectively stranded per rollup ecosystem.
- Solution: Shared settlement layers like EigenLayer and universal VMs (e.g., Fuel) aim to make execution environments commodities.
$20B+
Stranded Capital
Full Rewrite
Migration Cost
THE COST OF PROPRIETARY DATA FORMATS
The Interoperability Spectrum: Protocols & Their Data Models
Comparing how leading interoperability protocols structure data, revealing the hidden costs of proprietary formats versus open standards.
| Data Model Feature / Metric | LayerZero (V1/V2) | Axelar | Wormhole | IBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Core Data Format | Proprietary Packet | Proprietary GMP Payload | Proprietary VAA | Open IBC Packet |
Standard for State Proofs | Proprietary TSS (Type 3) | Proprietary TSS (Type 4) | Open Guardian Network Sig | Open Light Client Proof |
Relayer Incentive Model | Permissioned Executor Bidding | Permissioned Executor Staking | Permissionless Guardian Staking | Permissionless Relayer Fees |
Avg. Developer Integration Time | 2-4 weeks | 3-5 weeks | 2-4 weeks | 6-12 weeks |
Protocol-Level Fee (Est.) | 0.1% + gas | 0.05% + gas | 0.02% + gas | ~0% (gas only) |
Native Multi-Chain App Support | ||||
Auditability by 3rd Parties | ||||
Data Format Lock-in Risk | High | High | Medium | Low |
deep-dive
THE INTEROPERABILITY TAX
The Cost of Proprietary Data Formats in a Decentralized World
Proprietary data structures create systemic friction, forcing developers to pay a hidden tax in integration complexity and fragmented liquidity.
Proprietary formats fragment composability. Every protocol that invents its own data schema, like a custom AMM curve or NFT metadata standard, builds a walled garden. This forces downstream integrators like indexers (The Graph), wallets (MetaMask), and aggregators (1inch) to write custom parsers for each one, a direct operational cost.
The cost manifests as integration latency. A new DeFi primitive on Avalanche takes weeks to appear on Zapper or DeFi Llama because their teams must reverse-engineer the data feed. This delay kills the network effects that make DeFi valuable, creating a winner-takes-most dynamic for early, well-documented standards like ERC-20.
Evidence: The proliferation of bridging standards illustrates the tax. Projects like LayerZero and Axelar use different message formats, forcing applications to choose a vendor or maintain multiple integrations, directly increasing gas costs and audit surface area for cross-chain functions.
counter-argument
THE PROPRIETARY DATA TRAP
The Builder's Defense (And Why It's Wrong)
Protocols defend proprietary data formats for short-term performance, creating systemic fragility that undermines decentralization.
Proprietary formats create lock-in. Builders argue custom data structures optimize for their specific use case, like a rollup's compressed state proofs or a bridge's merkle tree format. This creates a vendor-specific integration burden for every downstream application, indexer, or wallet.
The 'efficiency' argument is a red herring. Standardized formats like Nakamoto Coefficients and EVM bytecode prove interoperability does not preclude optimization. The real cost is composability fragmentation, as seen when dApps struggle to aggregate data from Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync simultaneously.
Evidence: The Oracle Extractable Value (OEV) market emerged precisely because proprietary data feeds from Chainlink, Pyth, and API3 create arbitrage opportunities between siloed systems. A common standard would eliminate this rent-seeking layer.
takeaways
THE COST OF PROPRIETARY DATA FORMATS
The Builder's Checklist for Data Sovereignty
Proprietary data silos create systemic risk and extract value; true decentralization requires open, portable data standards.
01
The Problem: Vendor Lock-In is a Systemic Risk
Relying on a single provider's API or data format creates a single point of failure. When The Graph's hosted service faced issues, hundreds of dApps went dark. This centralization defeats the purpose of building on decentralized infrastructure.
- Single Point of Failure: One API outage can cripple your entire application.
- Extractive Economics: You pay recurring fees for access to data you helped create.
- Innovation Ceiling: Your app's capabilities are limited by the provider's roadmap.
100s
DApps Affected
$0
Data Portability
02
The Solution: Standardize on Portable Schemas (e.g., EIP-7212, Tableland)
Adopt open, chain-native data standards that ensure interoperability and user ownership. EIP-7212 for secure off-chain computation or Tableland's SQL-based tables turn application data into a portable asset, not a locked resource.
- True Interoperability: Data can be queried by any indexer, client, or competing service.
- User-Custodied Assets: Users own their social graphs, achievements, and reputation.
- Composable Innovation: New apps can build atop existing datasets without permission.
100%
Data Portability
0
Vendor Dependencies
03
The Problem: Opaque Indexing Creates Trust Assumptions
Black-box indexers force you to trust their correctness. You cannot audit how data is transformed from on-chain logs into your API response. This is a critical vulnerability for DeFi protocols managing $10B+ TVL or prediction markets.
- Unverifiable Logic: Bugs or manipulation in the indexing layer propagate to your app.
- Latency Obfuscation: You don't know if ~500ms latency is due to the chain or the indexer.
- Regulatory Hazard: You cannot prove the provenance of your application's core data.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
~500ms
Blind Latency
04
The Solution: Verifiable Indexing with WASM & Light Clients
Use verifiable computation (WASM) and light client proofs to cryptographically guarantee data integrity. Projects like Brevis and Succinct enable trust-minimized data access, moving from "trust me" to "verify it."
- Cryptographic Proofs: Every data point comes with a verifiable proof of its on-chain origin.
- Client-Side Verification: Your dApp can independently verify data without a trusted RPC.
- Future-Proof: Aligns with the Ethereum roadmap's focus on light clients and statelessness.
100%
Verifiable
0
Trust Assumptions
05
The Problem: Data Silos Fragment Liquidity & UX
Each app's isolated data warehouse creates a fragmented user experience. A user's reputation in Lens Protocol doesn't carry over to Aave. This siloing stifles network effects and forces users to rebuild identity and liquidity everywhere.
- Fractured Liquidity: Capital is trapped in application-specific silos.
- Poor UX: Users repeat onboarding and verification processes.
- Weak Composability: Apps cannot seamlessly integrate social, financial, and identity data.
10x
Onboarding Friction
-90%
Composability
06
The Solution: Build on Open Data Networks, Not Warehouses
Architect your application as a client of an open data network, not a tenant in a data warehouse. Leverage decentralized storage like IPFS/Filecoin for raw data and Ceramic for mutable streams. This mirrors how Uniswap uses open liquidity pools versus a centralized order book.
- Permissionless Participation: Anyone can index, serve, or extend the data network.
- Unified User Graph: Identity and activity become cross-application assets.
- Aligned Incentives: Data providers are rewarded for service, not rent-seeking.
1
Universal Graph
∞
Network Participants
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