Synapse vs Across: Liquidity Efficiency

Specialized AMM Pool Design: Uses canonical stable pools (e.g., nUSD) for low-slippage swaps between stablecoins and pegged assets. This matters for high-volume stable transfers where predictable pricing is critical.

Direct Validator Network: Operates its own set of relayers and validators on over 15 chains (Arbitrum, Base, Scroll). This matters for direct chain integrations and protocols building natively on Synapse's supported networks.

Optimistic Relayer Model: Uses a single, bonded relayer for instant fills, with fraud proofs settled later on Ethereum. This matters for user experience, providing near-instant confirmation and the lowest possible fees for the end-user.

UMA-powered Liquidity Pools: Aggregates liquidity into a single pool on Ethereum, dynamically allocated via an oracle. This matters for liquidity providers seeking higher capital efficiency and yield, as capital isn't fragmented across chains.

Capital efficiency through shared pools: Synapse aggregates liquidity into canonical pools (e.g., nUSD) on each chain, allowing a single pool to serve all token swaps and cross-chain transfers. This reduces fragmentation and idle capital. This matters for protocols needing multi-chain DEX functionality or frequent, small-to-medium volume transfers.

Liquidity Providers (LPs) bear opportunity cost: To facilitate transfers, LPs must lock assets in Synapse's pools, earning fees but missing out on other yield opportunities. This can lead to higher LP incentives (SYN emissions) to attract capital, which may not be sustainable long-term. This matters for ecosystems evaluating long-term liquidity subsidy costs.

Capital efficiency via insurance-backed bridging: Across uses a system of Relayers who front funds instantly, backed by a bonded insurance pool on Ethereum. This means the majority of capital remains productively deployed, only mobilized for dispute resolution. This matters for institutions and large traders prioritizing low-cost, high-speed transfers without massive locked TVL.

Speed depends on a small set of actors: While capital-efficient, the optimistic model relies on a limited number of professional Relayers to provide instant liquidity. This creates a potential centralization bottleneck and single points of failure for transaction flow. This matters for protocols requiring maximum censorship resistance and permissionless liquidity.

Single-Sided Liquidity Pools: Liquidity Providers (LPs) deposit a single asset (e.g., USDC) into a canonical pool, which is algorithmically rebalanced across chains via the Synapse AMM. This reduces capital fragmentation and idle liquidity, supporting a TVL of ~$150M. This matters for protocols seeking deep, stable liquidity for high-volume asset transfers.

LPs bear market and bridge risk: Liquidity providers are exposed to AMM impermanent loss and the security of the Synapse bridge contracts. The economic model relies on LP incentives (SYN emissions), which can be volatile. This matters for institutions requiring predictable, low-risk yield on deployed capital.

Bonded Relayer Network with Fraud Proofs: Relayers post bonds to facilitate transfers, which can be slashed if fraud is proven within a 30-minute challenge window. This creates a capital-efficient security layer where liquidity isn't locked, enabling high throughput with lower systemic capital requirements. This matters for users prioritizing security guarantees without massive locked TVL.

Dependent on External LPs (RFQ System): For each transfer, relayers source liquidity from professional market makers via a request-for-quote model. This can introduce variable latency (1-3 min) and slightly higher costs during volatile markets versus a constant-product pool. This matters for applications requiring sub-second, predictable finality.