Native bridging is a tax on users. Every hop between chains via protocols like Stargate or LayerZero incurs fees and slippage, fragmenting capital and user experience across dozens of siloed venues.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why Cross-Chain Pools Will Become the Default Interchain Financial Layer
The appchain explosion fragments liquidity. Just as Uniswap became the default DEX, cross-chain AMMs like Osmosis will become the foundational layer for all interchain asset exchange, rendering traditional bridges obsolete.
introduction
THE INTERCHAIN COST
The Liquidity Fragmentation Trap
Native bridging and isolated pools create unsustainable capital inefficiency, making cross-chain liquidity pools the inevitable financial primitive.
Isolated pools are capital traps. Liquidity in a Uniswap V3 pool on Arbitrum is useless for a trade on Base, forcing protocols to bootstrap duplicate pools and split TVL, which increases systemic risk.
Cross-chain pools unify state. Protocols like Chainlink CCIP and Axelar enable smart contracts to read and write to a shared liquidity layer, turning fragmented capital into a single, composable asset.
The evidence is in the data. The 80%+ TVL dominance of Ethereum L1 is a historical artifact; the future is a unified liquidity graph where assets are fungible across chains by default.
key-trends
THE END OF THE BRIDGE-AND-SWAP ERA
Three Trends Making Cross-Chain Pools Inevitable
The current interchain model of bridging assets and swapping into liquidity is a UX and capital efficiency dead end. Cross-chain pools are the native solution.
01
The Liquidity Fragmentation Tax
Bridging assets creates a new derivative (e.g., USDC.e) that fragments liquidity from the canonical asset. This imposes a permanent 10-30 bps spread on every subsequent swap, draining value from users and LPs.\n- Problem: Bridged assets like USDC.e on Avalanche trade at a persistent discount to native USDC.\n- Solution: Cross-chain pools like Stargate and LayerZero's OFT standard enable direct swaps between canonical assets, eliminating the wrapped token discount.
10-30 bps
Spread Tax
$100B+
Fragmented TVL
02
Intent-Based Architectures Demand It
The rise of intent-based systems (UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) abstracts execution away from users. These solvers need to source liquidity from the best venue across any chain, not just the user's origin chain.\n- Problem: Solvers are forced to use slow, expensive bridges as a separate step, breaking atomic execution.\n- Solution: Native cross-chain pools become the liquidity substrate for intent solvers, enabling atomic cross-chain swaps as a single primitive.
<2s
Solver Deadline
Atomic
Execution
03
The Capital Efficiency Multiplier
Liquidity locked in single-chain AMMs is idle 90% of the time. Cross-chain pools turn this idle capital into a universal interchain mesh, allowing a single pool to service swaps across dozens of chains simultaneously.\n- Problem: $20B in DEX TVL is chain-siloed, earning fees only from local volume.\n- Solution: Protocols like Chainflip and Squid enable LPs to earn fees from cross-chain volume, multiplying yield on the same capital.
3-5x
Yield Potential
90%
Idle Capital
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
From Bridge to Pool: The Architectural Shift
Cross-chain liquidity pools are replacing message-passing bridges as the fundamental primitive for interchain value transfer.
Bridges are a dead-end architecture. They are custodial bottlenecks that fragment liquidity, create systemic risk, and fail to compose with DeFi. The canonical bridge model of Stargate or Synapse is inherently limited.
The pool is the new primitive. A cross-chain pool is a unified liquidity source deployed natively on multiple chains. Users swap directly into the destination chain's native asset, eliminating the need for a bridging step. This is the model pioneered by Chainflip and Squid.
This shift mirrors AMM evolution. Just as Uniswap pools replaced order books for long-tail assets, cross-chain pools will replace bridges for generalized value transfer. The intent-based routing of UniswapX and CowSwap proves the demand for this abstraction.
Evidence: Liquidity begets liquidity. A shared pool across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base creates a single deep market. This attracts arbitrageurs and LPs, creating a network effect that isolated bridge liquidity cannot match. The TVL migration from bridges to these pools is already measurable.
THE INTERCHAIN LAYER SHIFT
Bridge vs. Pool: A Performance & Security Matrix
A first-principles comparison of canonical bridges and cross-chain liquidity pools as the foundational settlement layer for interchain finance.
| Core Metric | Canonical Bridge (e.g., LayerZero, Axelar) | Cross-Chain Pool (e.g., Stargate, Chainflip) | Intent-Based Pool (e.g., UniswapX, Across) |
|---|---|---|---|
Settlement Finality | Dependent on source & dest. chain (~2 mins - 1 hr) | Native to pool chain (~12 secs - 5 mins) | Optimistic (instant UX, ~10-30 min dispute) |
Capital Efficiency | Locked in escrow (100% overcollateralized) | Shared liquidity (70-90% utilization) | Just-in-time liquidity (100% utilization) |
User Cost (Swap $10k ETH->USDC) | $10-50 (validator fees + markup) | $5-20 (LP fee + gas) | <$1 (solver competition) |
Security Surface | Validator/Oracle set (external trust) | Pool's native chain security (e.g., Ethereum L1) | Solver economic security + fallback bridge |
Composability | Messaging primitive (call any contract) | Limited to pool's AMM logic | Full contract interaction via solver |
Max Single-Tx Value | Protocol-defined caps ($1-10M) | Pool depth limits ($100k-5M) | Solver liquidity + bridge limits |
MEV Resistance | None (sequencer decides order) | Low (pool front-running possible) | High (batch auctions via CowSwap) |
Protocol Revenue Model | Message fee (gas + profit) | Swap fee (0.01%-0.3%) | Solver tip + bridge fee share |
protocol-spotlight
WHY CROSS-CHAIN POOLS DOMINATE
Protocols Building the New Standard
Bridging is a tax on the interchain future. Cross-chain liquidity pools are eliminating the middleman, turning fragmented chains into a single, composable financial system.
01
The Problem: The Bridge Tax
Traditional bridges are rent-seeking toll booths. Every hop incurs ~0.1-0.5% fees, ~2-10 minute latency, and introduces a new custodial or trust assumption. This fragments liquidity and kills UX.
- Cost: Billions in cumulative fees extracted annually.
- Risk: Centralized mints and wrapped assets create systemic points of failure.
- Friction: Breaks atomic composability, making DeFi protocols chain-locked.
0.1-0.5%
Fee Per Hop
2-10 min
Latency
02
The Solution: Shared Liquidity Pools
Protocols like Stargate and LayerZero enable direct asset swaps via canonical pools. Liquidity is pooled once and accessed from any chain, creating a unified balance sheet.
- Efficiency: Single-sided liquidity provision earns fees from all chains.
- Speed: ~10-30 second finality via optimistic confirmation.
- Composability: Enables native yield strategies that operate cross-chain atomically, a core primitive for intent-based architectures like UniswapX.
~30s
Swap Time
Single-Sided
Capital Efficiency
03
The Standard: Chain Abstraction
Users shouldn't know what chain they're on. Cross-chain pools, combined with intents and solvers, abstract away chain boundaries. This is the endgame for Across, CowSwap, and Circle's CCTP.
- UX: 'From any chain, to any chain' with one signature.
- Security: Relies on battle-tested underlying chains, not new bridge validators.
- Adoption: Becomes the default liquidity layer for all omnichain dApps and rollup ecosystems.
1-Click
User Action
Native Assets
No Wraps
04
The Flywheel: Protocol-Owned Liquidity
The real moat isn't the bridge tech—it's the liquidity. Successful cross-chain pools bootstrap protocol-owned liquidity through ve-tokenomics and direct incentives, creating a defensible network effect.
- Stickiness: TVL becomes a permanent feature, not mercenary capital.
- Revenue: Fees accrue to the protocol treasury and stakers.
- Scale: $10B+ TVL pools become the interchain financial plumbing, too critical to fail.
$10B+
Target TVL
Protocol-Owned
Liquidity
counter-argument
THE OBSTACLES
The Bear Case: Why This Might Not Work
Cross-chain pools face significant technical and economic hurdles that could prevent them from becoming the dominant interchain layer.
The security model fragments. Cross-chain pools require native verification on each chain, creating a fragmented security surface. This is more complex and risky than a single, battle-tested canonical bridge like Arbitrum's.
Liquidity is a prisoner. The capital efficiency argument fails if liquidity is siloed. A pool on Arbitrum cannot natively serve a user on Base without a bridging hop, negating the core value proposition.
Composability breaks. DeFi's power is money legos. A cross-chain pool's isolated liquidity and unique oracle/verification logic makes it a non-fungible brick that protocols like Aave or Compound cannot easily integrate.
Evidence: LayerZero and CCIP are betting on generalized messaging, not asset-specific pools, for a reason. They solve for universal state transfer, which is the harder but more foundational problem.
takeaways
THE LIQUIDITY FRONTIER
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The current interchain landscape is a fragmented mess of bridges and wrapped assets. Cross-chain pools are the inevitable, unified settlement layer.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity Silos
Every bridge mints its own wrapped asset, creating toxic liquidity fragmentation and systemic risk. Users face a choice between high slippage on DEXs or trusting bridge custodians.
- $20B+ in locked bridge value creates massive honeypots.
- LayerZero, Wormhole, Axelar compete on security, not composability.
- Native yields are lost to synthetic representations.
$20B+
At Risk
10+
Standards
02
The Solution: Canonical Liquidity Pools
Cross-chain pools like Stargate and Chainflip hold native assets on each chain, enabling atomic swaps without mint/burn cycles. This creates a single liquidity layer for all applications.
- UniswapX and CowSwap can source interchain liquidity directly.
- ~2-5s finality vs. 10+ minutes for optimistic bridges.
- Enables cross-chain money markets (Aave v4) and perpetuals.
~2-5s
Settlement
0
Wrapped Assets
03
The Killer App: Intents & Solvers
Cross-chain pools are the essential infrastructure for intent-based architectures. Solvers (like those in Across and UniswapX) compete to fulfill user intents by routing through the deepest pools.
- Shifts risk from user to solver network.
- MEV is converted into better execution for users.
- Creates a liquid market for cross-chain block space.
10x
Efficiency Gain
-90%
User Complexity
04
The Security Model: From Trust to Economics
Move from trusted multisigs to cryptoeconomic security. Protocols like Across use bonded relayers and Chainflip uses a Threshold Signature Scheme (TSS) validator set.
- Slashing penalizes malicious actors.
- Liveness is incentivized via fees, not altruism.
- Security scales with pool TVL, not bridge TVL.
>$1B
Slashing Pool
24/7
Liveness
05
The Protocol Design Imperative
Architects must design for liquidity agnosticism. Your protocol's liquidity layer should be a pluggable module, not a hardcoded bridge.
- Use generalized messaging (CCIP, IBC) for state updates, not asset transfers.
- Abstract gas payments across chains.
- Treat cross-chain pools as a primitive, not an integration.
1
Integration
All Chains
Access
06
The Endgame: Universal Liquidity Net
The destination is a mesh network where liquidity position is a unified, chain-agnostic state. This is the foundation for interchain DeFi that operates as a single system.
- Single-sided LPing across any chain.
- Cross-chain flash loans become trivial.
- Renders isolated chain TVL a legacy metric.
$100B+
Addressable TVL
∞
Composability
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