AMMs fragment liquidity by design. Each chain requires its own isolated liquidity pool, creating capital inefficiency and widening spreads for cross-chain traders who rely on bridges like Across or LayerZero.
future-of-dexs-amms-orderbooks-and-aggregators
Blog
The Future of AMMs: Elastic Liquidity That Migrates Between Chains
Static liquidity is dead. We analyze the next evolution: AMMs that use intent-based solvers to dynamically rebalance capital across chains, turning fragmentation into a yield-generating feature.
introduction
THE LIQUIDITY PROBLEM
Introduction
Automated Market Makers are fundamentally broken because their liquidity is static, fragmented, and expensive to move.
Elastic liquidity is the paradigm shift. Instead of static pools, liquidity becomes a fungible resource that migrates to where demand is highest, mirroring the intent-based routing pioneered by UniswapX and CowSwap.
The future is cross-chain native. AMMs will evolve into liquidity routers that treat the multi-chain ecosystem as a single venue, eliminating the need for users to manually bridge assets via Stargate or Wormhole.
Evidence: Ethereum L2s now hold over $40B in TVL, yet moving liquidity between them via bridges incurs days of delay and millions in opportunity cost.
key-trends
THE LIQUIDITY FRONTIER
Executive Summary
Static, fragmented liquidity is the primary bottleneck for DeFi's next billion users. The future is elastic liquidity that migrates autonomously to where it's needed most.
01
The Problem: Billions in Idle Capital
Today's AMMs lock liquidity into single-chain pools, creating massive inefficiency. Over $30B in TVL sits stranded, unable to chase yield or arbitrage opportunities across chains. This fragmentation directly causes ~50-200 bps higher slippage for cross-chain swaps.
$30B+
Stranded TVL
50-200bps
Slippage Cost
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Liquidity Routing
Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract liquidity sourcing. Users express a desired outcome (an 'intent'), and a network of solvers competes to fulfill it using the best available liquidity across chains, DEXs, and private pools.
- Key Benefit: Liquidity becomes a fungible, competitive resource.
- Key Benefit: Users get optimal execution without managing complexity.
~20%
Better Fill Rates
0 Gas
For Users
03
The Enabler: Universal Settlement Layers
Networks like EigenLayer and Cosmos enable restaking and interchain security. This creates the trust layer for cross-chain liquidity managers. Validators can now securely attest to the state of remote liquidity pools, enabling sub-2-second finality for cross-chain settlements.
- Key Benefit: Solves the bridging oracle problem.
- Key Benefit: Enables atomic composability across ecosystems.
<2s
Settlement
1 Trust Layer
For N Chains
04
The Future: Autonomous Liquidity Vaults
Liquidity becomes an active agent. Vaults like those envisioned by MakerDAO's Endgame or Aave GHO will programmatically migrate between L2s, sidechains, and app-chains based on real-time yield signals and risk parameters.
- Key Benefit: Capital efficiency approaches theoretical maximum.
- Key Benefit: Creates a self-balancing, cross-chain monetary system.
10x
Capital Efficiency
Auto-Rebalancing
Liquidity
thesis-statement
THE INFRASTRUCTURE SHIFT
Thesis: From Static Pools to Elastic Networks
Automated Market Makers must evolve from isolated, capital-inefficient pools into dynamic liquidity networks that move across chains based on demand.
AMMs are currently static capital sinks. Liquidity is fragmented and stranded across hundreds of chains and layer-2s, creating massive inefficiency. A Uniswap v3 ETH/USDC pool on Arbitrum cannot natively serve a trade on Base without a slow, expensive bridging step.
Elastic liquidity treats TVL as a fungible resource. Protocols like Across and Circle's CCTP demonstrate that value can be permissionlessly routed. The next step is programmatic liquidity that migrates, using intents and shared sequencers to chase the highest yield across the modular stack.
This requires new settlement primitives. The UniswapX model abstracts routing, but the underlying liquidity remains fixed. True elasticity needs a cross-chain state layer, like what LayerZero or Hyperliquid's L1 aims for, where pool balances are global variables updated atomically.
Evidence: Wormhole's cross-chain Uniswap v3 governance proposal failed because it treated liquidity as static. The winning architecture will treat liquidity as a dynamic payload, reducing capital requirements by 50-80% for correlated assets.
market-context
THE LIQUIDITY DILEMMA
The Fragmentation Trap
Static AMM liquidity is a stranded asset, creating a multi-billion dollar opportunity cost across fragmented L2s and appchains.
Liquidity is a stranded asset. Every Uniswap v3 pool on Arbitrum and every Curve pool on Base is capital that cannot natively participate in opportunities on other chains without expensive bridging and re-deployment.
The cost is measurable inefficiency. This fragmentation creates persistent arbitrage windows and higher slippage for users, as seen in the stablecoin price deviations between Optimism and Polygon that MEV bots exploit daily.
Elastic liquidity redefines the primitive. Instead of pools, liquidity becomes a fungible resource that protocols like Maverick Protocol or an intent-based solver network can programmatically route to the chain with the highest yield or lowest slippage at any moment.
Evidence: The TVL in cross-chain bridges like LayerZero and Axelar exceeds $10B, proving the market's willingness to pay for liquidity movement—elastic AMMs automate and internalize this fee.
LIQUIDITY FRAGMENTATION TAX
The Cost of Fragmentation: AMM Inefficiency Snapshot
Quantifying the capital and user experience penalties of isolated liquidity pools across L1s and L2s, compared to a unified elastic liquidity layer.
| Inefficiency Metric | Traditional Multi-Chain AMM (e.g., Uniswap, PancakeSwap) | Bridged Liquidity Pool (e.g., Stargate, LayerZero) | Elastic Liquidity AMM (e.g., Catalyst, Maverick) |
|---|---|---|---|
Capital Efficiency (Utilization) | 15-30% | 40-60% | 70-90% |
Average Slippage for $100k Swap | 0.5-2.0% | 0.3-0.8% | < 0.15% |
Cross-Chain Swap Latency | 2-20 minutes | 1-3 minutes | < 30 seconds |
Protocol Fee Revenue Leakage | 30-50% to LPs on inactive chains | 15-25% to bridge/LP incentives |
|
Native Yield Aggregation | |||
Gas Cost for LP Position Management | $50-200 per chain | $20-80 + bridge fees | < $10 (single position) |
Impermanent Loss Hedge |
deep-dive
THE MECHANISM
Architecture of Elastic Liquidity
Elastic liquidity is a cross-chain AMM design where capital programmatically migrates to follow demand, eliminating static pools.
Capital follows yield via a global liquidity manager. This system treats liquidity as a fungible resource, moving it between chains like Uniswap v3 pools based on real-time arbitrage signals and fee generation.
The core is a cross-chain state machine coordinating vaults. Unlike static bridges like Stargate, this architecture uses a LayerZero-like messaging layer to synchronize pool balances and execute rebalancing swaps atomically.
Rebalancing triggers are algorithmic, not manual. The system monitors price divergence and fee accrual, moving liquidity before arbitrageurs can extract value, flipping the economic model of passive LPs.
Evidence: Early designs from protocols like Across Protocol and intent-based architectures show that moving value based on demand signals reduces capital lock-up by over 60%.
protocol-spotlight
THE FUTURE OF AMS: ELASTIC LIQUIDITY
Protocol Spotlight: Early Movers
Next-generation AMMs are evolving from static pools to dynamic liquidity networks that can be natively deployed and migrated across chains.
01
Uniswap v4: The Hooks-Based Liquidity Factory
Uniswap v4 introduces Hooks—smart contracts that execute at key pool lifecycle events—enabling dynamic, chain-aware liquidity strategies.\n- On-Chain Limit Orders & TWAPs: Hooks can move liquidity based on time or price, prefiguring cross-chain intent.\n- Singleton Architecture: Reduces deployment gas by ~99%, making multi-chain liquidity provisioning economically viable.\n- Customizable Fee Tiers & Oracles: Enables bespoke strategies for volatile or stable assets across different L2 environments.
99%
Gas Saved
Dynamic
Fee Tiers
02
The Problem: Liquidity Fragmentation is a $100B+ Drag
Liquidity is siloed across 50+ EVM chains and L2s, creating massive arbitrage opportunities and poor user experience.\n- Inefficient Capital: TVL is trapped, unable to chase higher yields or lower latency on other chains.\n- Slippage & MEV: Fragmentation increases price impact for large trades, with bots extracting ~$1B+ annually in cross-chain arbitrage.\n- Developer Friction: Protocols must manually deploy and bootstrap liquidity on each new chain, a slow and costly process.
50+
Siloed Chains
$1B+
Annual MEV
03
The Solution: Autonomous, Yield-Seeking Liquidity Pools
Future AMM liquidity will be a single, elastic resource that autonomously migrates to where it's needed most, enabled by shared sequencers and intent-based architectures.\n- Chain-Agnostic Pools: A single liquidity position can be natively active on Arbitrum, Base, and Solana simultaneously via LayerZero or CCIP.\n- Intent-Driven Flow: Users submit desired outcomes (e.g., "best price for 1000 ETH"), and solvers route through the most optimal chain's liquidity.\n- Real-Time Rebalancing: Pools automatically shift weight in response to fee yield, volatility, or latency, creating a global liquidity mesh.
0
Manual Deployments
Real-Time
Rebalancing
04
Trader Joe v2.1 & Liquidity Book: Concentrated, Portable Capital
Trader Joe's Liquidity Book AMM uses discrete price bins of concentrated liquidity, making capital efficiency and cross-chain portability first-class features.\n- Bin-Based Architecture: Liquidity is allocated to specific price ranges (bins), which are lightweight state objects easily mirrored across chains.\n- Native Multi-Chain Deployment: Actively deployed on Avalanche, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, with a unified governance and fee structure.\n- ~90% Capital Efficiency: Enables market makers to provide deep liquidity with less capital, a prerequisite for viable cross-chain migration.
90%
Capital Efficient
Multi-Chain
Native
05
Pendle Finance: Tokenizing & Distributing Future Yield
Pendle decouples asset ownership from its future yield, creating a primitive for trading and migrating yield streams across chains.\n- Yield Tokenization: Splits assets into Principal (PT) and Yield (YT) tokens, allowing yield to be traded as a separate, liquid asset.\n- Cross-Chain Yield Markets: Enables users on Chain A to buy yield generated by liquidity provisioning on Chain B, abstracting the underlying chain.\n- AMM Integration: Its AMM for PT/YT tokens demonstrates how future cash flows can be the atomic unit of cross-chain liquidity.
$1B+
TVL
Decoupled
Yield Asset
06
The Endgame: AMMs as Cross-Chain State Synchronization Layers
The final evolution is an AMM whose core state (pool balances, fees) is a canonical dataset synchronized across a rollup superchain or shared sequencer network.\n- Shared Sequencing: Networks like Espresso or Astria allow liquidity pools to have a unified state across L2s, with fast finality.\n- Universal Settlement Layer: A pool on OP Stack Chain A and Arbitrum Orbit Chain B behave as one, with atomic swaps across them.\n- Eliminates Bridging Delay: Users swap directly into the nearest liquidity pool, with the network handling the back-end rebalancing, rendering traditional bridges obsolete.
Atomic
Cross-Chain Swaps
Unified
Pool State
risk-analysis
ELASTIC LIQUIDITY PITFALLS
Risk Analysis: The Bear Case
The vision of liquidity seamlessly migrating between chains faces profound technical and economic hurdles that could stall adoption.
01
The Oracle Problem on Steroids
Elastic liquidity requires a canonical, real-time view of TVL and yields across all chains. This creates a single point of failure far more critical than price feeds.
- Attack Surface: Manipulating the liquidity state oracle could drain funds or freeze the entire system.
- Latency vs. Consistency: Achieving sub-second finality across 10+ chains is impossible without trade-offs in security or decentralization.
1
Critical Failure Point
>2s
Consensus Latency
02
Economic Abstraction Leaks
Abstracting liquidity location from the user reintroduces hidden costs and unpredictable slippage.
- Gas Arbitrage: MEV bots will front-run large liquidity migrations, extracting value from end-users.
- Slippage Obfuscation: Users won't know if their trade executed on a deep Ethereum pool or a shallow Arbitrum pool, losing price transparency.
15-30%
Potential MEV Tax
Unbounded
Slippage Risk
03
Liquidity Provider (LP) Exodus
Forcing LPs into a cross-chain pool destroys their agency and could trigger a TVL death spiral.
- Loss of Control: LPs cannot choose their preferred chain risk profile (e.g., avoiding new L2s).
- Yield Dilution: Aggregated yields will regress to the mean, driving away top-tier Curve/Uniswap V3 LPs seeking optimized returns.
-70%
LP Retention Risk
$B+ TVL
At Risk
04
The Interoperability Protocol Trap
Becoming dependent on a bridging layer like LayerZero or Axelar substitutes one bottleneck for another.
- Protocol Risk: A bug in the interoperability messaging layer bricks all cross-chain liquidity.
- Cost Inefficiency: Every migration pays messaging fees, making small rebalances economically non-viable.
100%
Systemic Dependency
$0.10+
Per Migration Cost
05
Regulatory Arbitrage Becomes Impossible
Liquidity that automatically seeks the highest yield will inevitably flow to the least regulated chains, attracting scrutiny.
- KYC/AML Nightmare: Tracking the provenance of funds moving across 10+ jurisdictions is a compliance quagmire.
- Sanctions Risk: Protocols could be forced to geofence liquidity, breaking the core "elastic" premise.
Global
Regulatory Surface
High
DeFi Ban Risk
06
It Solves a Non-Problem for Power Users
The target market—sophisticated DeFi users and protocols—already uses CowSwap, UniswapX, and Across for intent-based, cross-chain swaps. Elastic liquidity is a solution in search of a problem.
- Existing Infrastructure: LayerZero and CCIP already enable cross-chain smart contracts; liquidity doesn't need to move, messages do.
- User Preference: Traders optimize for cost and speed, not theoretical liquidity efficiency.
$10B+
Existing TVL in Bridges
<1%
Market Need
future-outlook
THE ELASTIC LIQUIDITY LAYER
Future Outlook: The Endgame
Automated Market Makers will evolve into a single, omnichain liquidity layer that dynamically migrates to meet demand.
AMMs become stateless execution clients. The core AMM logic (e.g., Uniswap v4 hooks) becomes a standardized, portable module. Liquidity is a separate, fungible asset managed by vaults like Maverick or Gamma, which programmatically allocate capital across chains based on real-time yield.
Intent-based solvers drive capital efficiency. Users express desired outcomes (e.g., 'swap X for Y on any chain'). Solvers like UniswapX and CowSwap compete to source the best price, pulling liquidity from the most efficient venue, whether it's on Arbitrum, Base, or Solana.
Universal liquidity is the moat. Protocols that fragment liquidity per chain (e.g., native deployments of SushiSwap) lose. The winner aggregates all liquidity into a cross-chain virtual order book, using shared security layers like EigenLayer and messaging like LayerZero for settlement.
Evidence: The 80/20 rule applies. 80% of TVL will concentrate on 2-3 chains, but 100% of that TVL will be programmatically accessible from any chain. This is the logical conclusion of the modular thesis separating execution, settlement, and data availability.
takeaways
THE LIQUIDITY FRONTIER
Key Takeaways
The next evolution of AMMs is not just about better curves, but liquidity that is a native, programmable asset.
01
The Problem: Fragmented, Stagnant Pools
Liquidity is trapped in isolated pools across chains, creating arbitrage opportunities and poor user execution. This is a $100B+ capital inefficiency.
- TVL is static and cannot chase yield or demand.
- Users pay for cross-chain slippage and bridging fees.
- Protocols compete for liquidity instead of sharing it.
$100B+
Inefficiency
5-30%
Slippage Cost
02
The Solution: Programmable Liquidity Vaults
Treat liquidity as a yield-seeking asset managed by smart contracts. Think Yearn Vaults for LP positions.
- Vaults auto-rebalance across chains and pools based on real-time yield signals.
- Enables intent-based routing for users (see: UniswapX, CowSwap).
- Creates a unified liquidity layer for protocols like Uniswap, Curve, and Pendle.
10x+
Capital Efficiency
~500ms
Rebalance Speed
03
The Enabler: Universal Settlement Layers
Elastic liquidity requires a secure, trust-minimized messaging layer to coordinate state. This is the role of LayerZero, Chainlink CCIP, and Wormhole.
- Acts as the nervous system for vault instructions and proofs.
- Shifts security model from individual bridge risks to a shared, audited standard.
- Enables atomic cross-chain composability.
<$0.01
Msg Cost
2-10s
Finality
04
The New Risk: Liquidity Oracle Attacks
Dynamic liquidity introduces a novel attack vector: manipulating the yield oracles that guide vault migrations.
- A malicious actor could spoof high yield on a vulnerable chain to drain a vault.
- Requires decentralized oracle networks (Chainlink) and circuit breakers.
- Security shifts from protecting a static pool to securing the decision logic.
Critical
Risk Vector
Multi-Sig
Mitigation
05
The Winner: Aggregators, Not Exchanges
The endgame is a single liquidity cloud. The interface that provides the best price by tapping this cloud wins. This favors aggregators (1inch, Jupiter) over individual DEX frontends.
- Aggregators become the liquidity routers for the vault network.
- DEXs become back-end liquidity providers in a commoditized market.
- User experience converges on 'get best price, anywhere'.
90%+
Price Improvement
1-Click
Execution
06
The Metric: Liquidity Velocity
Forget TVL. The new KPI is Liquidity Velocity: how quickly and efficiently capital moves to meet demand.
- Measures yield earned per dollar of capital deployed across the network.
- High velocity indicates a healthy, responsive system.
- Incentivizes vault managers and solvers (e.g., Across protocol) to optimize flow.
New KPI
TVL is Dead
APY Driven
Velocity
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