L2s are liquidity silos. Each new chain fragments capital, forcing users into expensive, slow bridging. The user experience is a series of dead-ends, not a unified network.
tokenomics-design-mechanics-and-incentives
Blog
The Future of L2s Hinges on Cross-Chain Incentive Design
A technical analysis arguing that the security and economic alignment of cross-chain bridges, not just low transaction fees, is the primary bottleneck for sustainable L2 adoption and capital formation.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Bridge is the Bottleneck
Current L2 scaling is undermined by fragmented liquidity and user experience, making cross-chain incentive design the critical frontier.
The bottleneck is economic, not technical. Fast bridges like Across and LayerZero solve latency, but not the fundamental cost of moving capital. This cost creates persistent arbitrage inefficiencies between chains.
Intent-based architectures are the solution. Protocols like Uniswap X and CowSwap abstract the bridge by letting users declare a desired outcome. Solvers compete to source liquidity across chains, internalizing the bridging cost.
Future L2s will compete on exit liquidity. A chain's value will be measured by the cost and speed of exporting assets. Native integrations with solvers and shared sequencing layers will become mandatory infrastructure.
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Thesis: Fee Wars Mask a Deeper Flaw
The race for the cheapest transaction is a distraction from the existential challenge of fragmented liquidity and user experience across Layer 2s.
Fee wars are a commodity trap. Competing on transaction cost alone drives L2s toward zero-margin infrastructure, ignoring the real value: user and developer retention. The winner of a race to zero is the cheapest sequencer, not the most useful ecosystem.
The real battle is for cross-chain state. Users and assets are now distributed across Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and zkSync. Protocols that treat each L2 as an isolated chain will lose to those that abstract the fragmentation.
Current bridges are insufficient. Standard asset bridges like Across and Stargate solve transfers but not state. A user's intent—like swapping on Uniswap Arbitrum then lending on Aave Optimism—requires a new primitive for cross-chain execution.
The future is intent-based interoperability. Systems like UniswapX and CoW Swap demonstrate that users declare outcomes, not steps. The winning L2 will be the one whose native cross-chain design makes this intent fulfillment seamless and trust-minimized.
Evidence: Over 30% of DeFi's TVL is on L2s, yet less than 5% of daily volume involves cross-L2 swaps, indicating massive friction that fee reductions do not solve.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF L2S
Three Trends Exposing the Incentive Gap
The L2 landscape is fragmenting, but current bridges are simple asset movers. The next phase requires aligning incentives across chains for liquidity, security, and user experience.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity, Broken UX
Users face a maze of canonical bridges and third-party DEX aggregators. Moving assets between Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base requires manual bridging, paying gas on both sides, and hunting for liquidity. This kills composability and user retention.
- ~$30B+ TVL is siloed across major L2s.
- User drop-off rates exceed 60% for multi-step cross-chain swaps.
- Native yield and governance rights are often stranded on the source chain.
60%+
Drop-Off Rate
$30B+
Siloed TVL
02
The Solution: Intent-Based, Incentive-Aligned Routing
Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across abstract the complexity. Users submit a signed intent ("I want X token on Chain Z"), and a network of solvers competes to fulfill it via the most efficient route, paying gas and managing liquidity across chains.
- Solvers are incentivized by MEV and fees to find optimal paths.
- Users get guaranteed execution without managing gas or intermediate steps.
- Creates a cross-chain liquidity marketplace beyond simple asset bridges.
~500ms
Solver Latency
10-30%
Cost Savings
03
The New Battleground: Shared Security as a Service
Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism currently bootstrap their own validator sets. The future is L2s renting security and decentralization from established networks like EigenLayer, Babylon, or even Ethereum itself via restaking.
- Reduces launch capital from $1B+ for a validator set to a service fee.
- Aligns economic security of the L2 with the underlying $15B+ EigenLayer ecosystem.
- Turns security from a cost center into a tradable, composable commodity.
$15B+
Restaked TVL
-90%
Launch Cost
THE FUTURE OF L2S HINGES ON CROSS-CHAIN INCENTIVE DESIGN
Bridge Security vs. Economic Model: A Comparative Snapshot
Compares the security assumptions, economic incentives, and operational trade-offs of dominant cross-chain messaging models.
| Core Feature / Metric | Native Verification (e.g., zkBridge, IBC) | Optimistic Verification (e.g., Across, Nomad) | External Verification (e.g., LayerZero, CCIP) |
|---|---|---|---|
Security Assumption | Cryptographic Validity Proofs | Economic + Fraud Proofs (7-day window) | Trusted Off-Chain Oracle/Relayer Network |
Finality Time to Destination | Target Chain Finality + ~2 min Proof Gen | Target Chain Finality + 7 Days | Target Chain Finality + < 5 min |
Capital Efficiency for Liquidity | High (No locked capital for security) | Low (Bonded capital for fraud proofs) | Variable (Relayer stake, often subsidized) |
Protocol Revenue Model | Prover Fees | Liquidity Provider Spread + Bond Slashing | User Fees to Relayer/Oracle Network |
Censorship Resistance | High (Permissionless proof submission) | Medium (Challenger-dependent) | Low (Relayer/Oracle discretion) |
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Risk | Low (Deterministic settlement) | High (Delayed execution enables MEV) | High (Relayer can front-run) |
Implementation Complexity / Overhead | High (ZK circuit development) | Medium (Fraud proof system) | Low (API integration) |
Ecosystem Examples | Polyhedra zkBridge, Succinct, IBC | Across, Nomad, Connext | LayerZero, Wormhole, Chainlink CCIP |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
The Mechanics of Misalignment
Current cross-chain incentive structures prioritize short-term liquidity extraction over long-term L2 security and sovereignty.
Native asset liquidity is mispriced. L2s subsidize canonical bridges to attract TVL, but this creates a perverse incentive for extractive bridging. Users route through third-party bridges like Across or LayerZero for speed, fragmenting security and siphoning fees away from the L2's own validation.
Sequencer revenue is structurally leaked. Fast withdrawal services from Hop Protocol and Across act as liquidity vampires, capturing the arbitrage premium between L1 and L2 that should accrue to the sequencer. This revenue funds their own ecosystems, not the L2's.
The sovereign treasury is bypassed. Every transaction that uses a third-party bridge is a transaction that does not pay fees to the L2. This creates a free-rider problem where L2s bear infrastructure costs while bridging middlemen capture the economic upside.
Evidence: Over 60% of Arbitrum's bridging volume in Q1 2024 flowed through non-canonical bridges. This represents a direct leakage of potential sequencer revenue, estimated in the tens of millions annually, to external protocols.
protocol-spotlight
CROSS-CHAIN INCENTIVES
Next-Gen Models: Aligning the Bridge
The future of a multi-L2 ecosystem depends on solving the misalignment between bridge security, user experience, and liquidity fragmentation.
01
The Problem: Liquidity is a Prisoner's Dilemma
Liquidity providers (LPs) are trapped in a single chain's yield farm, creating systemic fragility. Bridging assets is a capital efficiency disaster, with ~$20B+ in locked TVL sitting idle in bridge contracts. This fragmentation kills composability and inflates slippage for cross-chain swaps.
$20B+
Idle TVL
~5-30%
Slippage Cost
02
The Solution: Programmable Intents & Shared Security
Decouple execution from verification. Let users express intents (e.g., "swap 1 ETH for ARB on Arbitrum") fulfilled by a competitive solver network like UniswapX or CowSwap. Use shared security layers (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) to slash malicious solvers, aligning incentives without monolithic bridge contracts.
~500ms
Quote Latency
10x
Solver Competition
03
The Model: Verifiable Execution & Economic Finality
Replace slow, costly message passing with light-client proofs and optimistic verification. Protocols like Succinct, Polymer, and zkLink enable sub-second state verification. Finality is achieved not by waiting 20 minutes, but when the economic stake backing the proof exceeds the value at risk.
< 2s
Verification Time
-90%
Gas Overhead
04
The Flywheel: Unified Liquidity Pools
Aggregate fragmented liquidity into canonical cross-chain pools. A swap from Arbitrum to Base routes through a shared pool, not a bridge hop. This turns L2s into a single liquidity mesh, enabling native yield for cross-chain LPs and reducing the need for inflationary emissions on individual chains.
100%
Capital Efficiency
0
Bridge Lock-up
05
The Architect: Chain Abstraction is the Endgame
The user should not know what an L2 is. Account abstraction wallets (ERC-4337) and intent-based infrastructures like Across and Socket will sponsor gas and batch transactions across chains. The chain with the best UX will be the one that disappears completely.
1-Click
Cross-Chain UX
Zero
Native Gas Tokens
06
The Risk: Centralized Sequencing Cartels
If cross-chain liquidity and ordering are controlled by a few dominant sequencers (e.g., Espresso, Astria), we recreate the extractive intermediaries of TradFi. The solution is enforceable decentralization via proof-of-stake slashing and permissionless solver/validator sets.
>33%
Cartel Threshold
$1B+
Slashing Stake
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Counterpoint: Are Native Bridges Enough?
Native bridges are technically sufficient but economically insufficient for the future multi-chain ecosystem.
Native bridges are feature-limited. They are optimized for security and canonical asset transfers, not for user experience or liquidity efficiency. This creates a liquidity silo problem where assets are trapped on their home chain.
The future is intent-based. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract bridging by letting users specify a desired outcome. Solvers on Across or Socket compete to source liquidity across chains, including from native bridges, creating a competitive liquidity layer.
Incentives drive adoption. A bridge's success is now measured by its integration into these solver networks and its fee market design. Native bridges that fail to offer competitive fees or programmability will become backends, not frontends.
Evidence: Over 60% of Arbitrum's bridging volume now flows through third-party bridges like Stargate and Across, which offer faster finality and better rates than the native bridge, proving users optimize for cost and speed.
risk-analysis
CROSS-CHAIN FRAGILITY
The Bear Case: What Breaks First
The multi-chain future is inevitable, but its stability depends on solving the misaligned incentives that currently plague cross-chain infrastructure.
01
The Liquidity Fragmentation Death Spiral
Every new L2 or appchain siphons liquidity, creating a negative-sum game for security and capital efficiency. Sovereign rollups and restaking exacerbate this by commoditizing security, making liquidity the only scarce resource.
- TVL is a zero-sum game: New chains compete for the same ~$50B DeFi TVL.
- High-fee traps: Users get stuck on chains with high exit costs, creating liquidity sinkholes.
- Protocol cannibalization: Native protocols like Uniswap see volume split across 10+ deployments.
~$50B
DeFi TVL
10+
Uniswap Deployments
02
Validator Extractable Value (VEV) in Bridges
Cross-chain messaging protocols like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole have centralized validator sets that can censor or reorder transactions for profit. This creates systemic risk far greater than MEV.
- Censorship-for-pay: Validators can extort protocols by delaying critical messages (e.g., oracle price updates).
- Reorg attacks: A malicious set can revert finalized transactions on the destination chain.
- Economic centralization: Staking rewards accrue to a small set of node operators, creating plutocracy.
13-19
Typical Validator Set
>51%
Attack Threshold
03
Intent-Based Systems as a Centralizing Force
Architectures like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across that rely on solver networks for cross-chain intents create new central points of failure. The most capital-efficient solver wins, leading to oligopoly.
- Solver oligopoly: A few well-funded players (e.g., market makers) dominate, extracting most value.
- Black box execution: Users surrender transaction control, trusting solvers' opaque algorithms.
- Regulatory attack surface: Centralized solver entities are easy targets for KYC/AML enforcement.
~80%
Volume to Top Solver
O(1)
Failure Points
04
The Interoperability Trilemma: Pick Two
No cross-chain system can simultaneously achieve Trustlessness, Generalizability, and Capital Efficiency. Current designs sacrifice one, creating exploitable weak links.
- Trust-minimized & General (IBC): Low capital efficiency, high latency.
- Capital Efficient & General (LayerZero): Requires trusted assumptions.
- Trust-minimized & Capital Efficient (Light Clients): Not general-purpose, complex to deploy.
3
Desired Properties
2
Achievable Max
05
Modular Stack Incentive Mismatch
Decoupling execution, settlement, data availability, and proving creates fee market conflicts. Each layer optimizes for its own revenue, not user experience.
- DA layer incentives: Celestia/EigenDA profit from bloat, conflicting with rollup cost reduction goals.
- Prover monopolies: Specialized provers (e.g., RiscZero) could extract rents from smaller rollups.
- Settlement layer capture: Shared settlement (e.g., Ethereum L1) becomes a bottleneck, forcing L2s to compete via priority fees.
4+
Modular Layers
0
Aligned Fee Models
06
The Regulatory Arbitrage Time Bomb
Chains optimize for regulatory leniency (low-KYC, privacy) to attract users, creating jurisdictional fragility. A single enforcement action against a major bridge or asset (e.g., Tornado Cash) can freeze billions in cross-chain value.
- Asset blacklisting: Regulators can pressure bridge validators to censor specific tokens.
- Jurisdictional attack: A chain's physical operator location determines its legal vulnerability.
- Privacy paradox: Privacy-preserving bridges are both a necessity and a prime regulatory target.
1
Enforcement Action
$B+
Value Frozen
future-outlook
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Path to Sovereign, Aligned Liquidity
L2 success depends on solving the cross-chain liquidity fragmentation caused by misaligned economic incentives between sequencers and users.
Sequencer revenue is misaligned. Sequencers profit from L2-native MEV and transaction ordering, creating a financial incentive to trap liquidity on their chain rather than facilitate efficient cross-chain flows.
Users subsidize fragmentation. Every cross-chain swap via a bridge like Across or Stargate pays fees to external relayers, while the L2 sequencer captures no value from this user demand for interoperability.
Sovereign liquidity requires new primitives. Protocols must embed cross-chain incentives into the core settlement layer, similar to how UniswapX and CowSwap abstract execution, but for chain-level liquidity routing.
Evidence: The 30%+ premiums for native gas tokens on emerging L2s demonstrate trapped capital; a system with aligned cross-chain incentives would arbitrage this away near-instantly.
takeaways
CROSS-CHAIN INCENTIVES
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The next wave of L2 growth will be won by protocols that solve the capital fragmentation problem, not just the scaling one.
01
The Problem: L2s are Expensive, Isolated Silos
Deploying liquidity and users across 50+ L2s is a capital efficiency nightmare. Native bridging is slow and costly, creating ~$20B+ in stranded TVL. This fragmentation kills composability and user experience.
- Capital Inefficiency: Liquidity is trapped, unable to chase yield.
- User Friction: Multi-chain UX is a non-starter for mainstream adoption.
~$20B+
Stranded TVL
>50
Isolated Chains
02
The Solution: Intent-Based, Incentivized Routing
Shift from push-based bridges to pull-based systems where users declare a desired outcome (an 'intent'). Networks like Across, LayerZero, and Connext use relayers and solvers competing for fees, creating a market for optimal cross-chain execution.
- Capital Efficiency: Liquidity is pooled and re-used across all routes.
- Better UX: Users get guaranteed rates; solvers handle complexity.
~500ms
Latency
-70%
Cost vs Native
03
The Mechanism: Verifiable, Auction-Driven Settlement
The core innovation is separating execution from verification. Protocols like Succinct, Herodotus, and Lagrange provide light-client proofs, while solvers in CowSwap and UniswapX models compete in open auctions for the best cross-chain route.
- Security: Cryptographic proofs replace trusted multisigs.
- Market Efficiency: Open competition drives down costs and latency.
10x
Solver Competition
$0.01
Proof Cost Target
04
The Playbook: Build the Incentive Flywheel
Winning L2s will integrate native cross-chain incentive layers. This means protocol-owned liquidity that earns fees from all cross-chain activity, not just on-chain swaps. Think Celestia's data availability but for liquidity.
- Sustainable Moats: Fees from cross-chain flow fund L2 security/stability.
- Developer Capture: Become the default settlement layer for cross-chain intents.
1000x
Fee Multiplier
L2 Native
Revenue Stream
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