Appchains lack demand density. A monolithic chain like Ethereum aggregates demand from thousands of apps, creating a deep, liquid fee market. An appchain's fee market relies solely on its own user activity, which is inherently spiky and thin.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why Fee Markets on Appchains Are Inherently Unstable
The appchain thesis promises sovereignty but delivers broken user experience. We analyze the structural instability of fee markets on low-volume, single-token chains like those built with Cosmos SDK and Polkadot's Substrate.
introduction
THE FEE VOLATILITY PROBLEM
The Silent Killer of the Appchain Thesis
Appchain fee markets are structurally unstable due to low demand density, creating unpredictable costs that break user experience.
This creates extreme fee volatility. During low activity, fees are negligible, but a single popular NFT mint or token launch causes congestion fees to spike 1000x. This unpredictability destroys any stable economic model for the application.
Compare to shared sequencers. Networks like Arbitrum Nova using Ethereum for data availability or shared sequencer solutions from Espresso Systems pool transaction ordering, creating a more stable baseline demand. An isolated appchain has no such buffer.
Evidence: Analyze the transaction fee history of any Cosmos SDK chain versus Ethereum L2s. The appchain chart shows violent, isolated peaks while the L2 chart is a smoother continuum, proving the instability of fragmented liquidity.
key-trends
WHY APPCHAIN FEE MARKETS FAIL
The Core Instability Triad
Appchains sacrifice shared security for sovereignty, creating a predictable cycle of boom-bust fee volatility that undermines user experience.
01
The Problem: Demand Volatility Without a Buffer
Appchains lack the diversified transaction demand of a general-purpose L1. A single popular NFT mint or DeFi launch can instantly saturate the block space, causing fees to spike 1000x+ in seconds. The subsequent lull creates a ghost chain with near-zero revenue for validators.\n- No Demand Smoothing: Single-application focus means no uncorrelated traffic to absorb shocks.\n- Predictable Spikes: Activity is binary—either a coordinated event or radio silence.
1000x+
Fee Spike
~0%
Base Load
02
The Problem: Validator Economics Collapse
With no consistent fee revenue, validators face negative real yields during bear markets or low-activity periods. This forces them to exit, centralizing the chain and compromising its security assumptions. The security budget becomes purely speculative.\n- Revenue Instability: Fees can drop from $1M/day to $1k/day between protocol cycles.\n- Centralization Pressure: Only well-capitalized teams can afford to run loss-leading validators.
-90%
Revenue Drop
<10
Active Validators
03
The Problem: The Sovereign Security Trap
Appchains bootstrap security via their own token, whose value is tied to the app's success. This creates a circular dependency: the token needs fees to be valuable, but fees need a valuable token to secure the chain. A downturn triggers a death spiral.\n- Circular Economics: Token price ↓ → Security ↓ → User trust ↓ → Fees ↓.\n- No Shared Risk: Unlike rollups on Ethereum or Celestia, the app bears 100% of the security cost.
1:1
Token/App Risk
100%
Sovereign Cost
04
The Solution: Shared Sequencer Pools
Projects like Astria and Espresso are creating shared sequencing layers that batch transactions from multiple rollups. This aggregates demand, creating a more stable fee market and providing cross-domain MEV opportunities to subsidize security.\n- Demand Aggregation: Smooths volatility by pooling transactions from many appchains.\n- Revenue Diversification: Validators earn from a basket of apps, not a single point of failure.
10-100x
More Tx Volume
+70%
Uptime
05
The Solution: Hybrid Security Models
Adopt a restaked security model like EigenLayer or a sovereign rollup model with a shared data availability layer like Celestia or EigenDA. This decouples execution security from the app's token, providing a cryptoeconomic safety net.\n- Reduced Bootstrap Cost: Rent security from Ethereum's $50B+ staked ETH.\n- Stable Security Budget: Security costs are predictable, not tied to app token volatility.
$50B+
Security Pool
-95%
Token Risk
06
The Solution: Intent-Based Fee Abstraction
Shift from gas auctions to intent-based architectures where users specify outcomes, not transactions. Systems like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across use solvers who compete on price, abstracting gas volatility from the end-user and creating a more efficient market.\n- User Experience Stability: Users see a fixed cost; solvers absorb volatility.\n- Solver Competition: Creates a liquid market for block space execution, improving efficiency.
Fixed
User Cost
~500ms
Solver Latency
deep-dive
THE CORE DYSFUNCTION
Anatomy of a Broken Market: Low Volume, Inelastic Supply
Appchain fee markets fail because they lack the critical mass of users and independent block producers needed for price discovery.
Appchains are isolated economies. They lack the organic, cross-application transaction volume of a general-purpose L1 like Ethereum or Solana.
Supply is controlled by a single entity. The validator set is often permissioned or token-gated, creating an inelastic supply of block space. There is no competitive block-building market.
This creates a pricing vacuum. Without a liquid market of users bidding and validators competing, the fee mechanism is a theoretical model, not a real auction.
Evidence: A dYdX v3 sequencer generated $50M+ in 2023 profits from a fixed fee schedule, not a dynamic market. This is rent extraction, not price discovery.
ECONOMIC DESIGN
Fee Market Stability: Appchains vs. Shared Sequencers
A comparison of the fundamental economic drivers that determine fee market predictability and stability for application-specific blockchains versus those using a shared sequencing layer.
| Stability Factor | Sovereign Appchain (e.g., dYdX, Arbitrum Nova) | Shared Sequencer w/ Centralized Ordering (e.g., Espresso, Astria) | Shared Sequencer w/ Decentralized Ordering (e.g., Espresso, Radius) |
|---|---|---|---|
Fee Market Liquidity Depth | Low (Single App) | High (Multi-App Pool) | High (Multi-App Pool) |
Demand Shock Absorption | None (Full Volatility) | Partial (Sequencer Queue) | Partial (Sequencer Queue + MEV Auction) |
Cross-App MEV Subsidy | |||
Base Fee Volatility (30d Avg.) |
| 50-100% | 30-70% |
Sequencer Revenue Predictability | Unpredictable (On-Chain Auctions) | Predictable (Fixed/Pro-Rata Pricing) | Semi-Predictable (Auction-Based) |
Protocol's Ability to Cap User Fees | |||
Requires Native Token for Security | |||
Primary Fee Market Failure Mode | Idle Validators / Empty Blocks | Censorship / Centralization Risk | Consensus Latency / Reorgs |
counter-argument
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
The Sovereign's Rebuttal (And Why It Fails)
Appchain fee markets are structurally unstable due to fragmented liquidity and misaligned validator incentives.
Appchain sovereignty fragments liquidity. Each independent chain creates its own isolated fee market, preventing the formation of a global, deep liquidity pool like Ethereum's. This fragmentation leads to volatile, unpredictable gas prices for users.
Validators prioritize security, not UX. An appchain's validator set is economically incentivized to secure the chain, not optimize for user transaction costs. This misalignment means fee market efficiency is a secondary concern, unlike on general-purpose L1s where it is core.
The 'sovereign stack' argument ignores composability costs. Proponents claim chains like Celestia or EigenDA provide sufficient data availability, but they ignore the bridging latency and cost overhead for moving assets and state, which directly impacts fee predictability. Users face hidden taxes from protocols like Axelar or LayerZero.
Evidence: Examine daily gas price volatility on Cosmos appchains versus Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum. The sovereign chain's fee spikes are orders of magnitude higher during congestion because its smaller, dedicated validator set lacks the economic pressure to optimize block space.
takeaways
THE VOLATILITY TRAP
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Appchain fee markets are not just volatile; they are structurally unstable, creating unpredictable costs and security risks.
01
The Problem: Demand Spikes Kill Predictability
Appchains lack the aggregated demand of a general-purpose L1 like Ethereum. A single popular NFT mint or token launch can consume >80% of block space, causing fees to spike 100-1000x in seconds. This makes gas estimation impossible and user experience chaotic.
100-1000x
Fee Spike
>80%
Block Saturation
02
The Problem: Validator Security Becomes Fee-Dependent
In a low-activity period, fees can drop to near-zero. This directly threatens validator revenue and, by extension, chain security. The security budget becomes a direct function of your app's momentary popularity, not a stable subsidy like Ethereum's base issuance.
~$0
Base Fee Floor
Variable
Security Budget
03
The Solution: Anchor to a Base Layer Fee Market
The only stable fee market is a large, aggregated one. Architectures like Ethereum L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum) or Celestia rollups outsource fee market stability. Users pay fees in the native asset, but the sequencer/validator's real revenue is anchored to the base chain's predictable, high-volume auction.
L2 / Rollup
Architecture
Base Chain
Fee Anchor
04
The Solution: Subsidize and Smooth with a Treasury
For sovereign appchains, you must actively manage the fee market. Implement a protocol treasury to: \n- Subsidize base fees during low activity \n- Burn excess fees during spikes \n- This creates a synthetic stability floor, similar to a central bank managing currency volatility.
Treasury
Buffer
Synthetic
Stability
05
The Solution: Adopt Intent-Based Architecture
Decouple execution from settlement. Let users express intents (e.g., "swap X for Y") fulfilled by off-chain solvers, as seen in UniswapX and CowSwap. Batch settlements onto the appchain. This transforms volatile per-transaction auctions into predictable, periodic settlement costs.
Intent-Based
Model
Batch
Settlement
06
The Reality: Most Appchains Are Doomed to Fail This Test
Building a stable, secure fee market from scratch is a monetary policy challenge, not just a technical one. Most teams underestimate it. The winning design pattern is clear: either be a rollup on a major base layer or have a war chest and mechanism design prowess rivaling a nation-state.
Monetary Policy
Core Challenge
Rollup or Bust
Likely Outcome
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