Batch Settlement, as pioneered by protocols like dYdX v3 and Loopring, excels at achieving high throughput and minimizing gas costs per trade by aggregating transactions into periodic blocks. For example, dYdX v3 on StarkEx processes trades in batches, enabling over 2,000 TPS with near-zero fees for users. This model leverages validity proofs (ZK-Rollups) to compress state transitions, making it ideal for high-frequency, low-value transactions common in retail trading and market making.
LABS
Comparisons
Batch Settlement vs Continuous Settlement: Speed
A technical analysis comparing the speed, latency, and throughput characteristics of batch and continuous settlement models, focusing on their application in DEX AMMs and orderbook systems.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Latency Battle in DEX Settlement
A foundational look at how batch and continuous settlement models define the speed and cost of decentralized trading.
Continuous Settlement, the model used by Uniswap v3 and most AMMs on L1s like Ethereum, takes a different approach by finalizing each swap immediately upon inclusion in a block. This results in lower latency for individual trades—often sub-2 seconds on L2s like Arbitrum—but incurs higher, variable gas fees per transaction. The trade-off is real-time execution versus per-trade cost efficiency, which is critical for arbitrage bots and large, time-sensitive institutional trades where slippage is a primary concern.
The key trade-off: If your priority is aggregate throughput and predictable, low fees for a high-volume application, choose a batch-settled DEX like dYdX or a ZK-Rollup. If you prioritize minimal single-trade latency and immediate finality for arbitrage or large orders, choose a continuously-settled DEX on a high-performance L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism.
tldr-summary
Batch Settlement vs Continuous Settlement
TL;DR: Key Speed Differentiators
A direct comparison of latency and throughput trade-offs for high-value transaction processing.
01
Batch Settlement: Peak Throughput
Aggregates transactions into blocks: Enables massive economies of scale, achieving 10,000+ TPS on networks like Solana or Polygon zkEVM. This matters for high-volume DEXs (e.g., Uniswap) and NFT minting events where cost-per-transaction is critical.
02
Batch Settlement: Predictable Latency
Fixed block times (e.g., Ethereum's 12s, Arbitrum's ~0.26s) create a known maximum confirmation window. This matters for scheduled operations and batch auctions where execution timing can be coordinated, not minimized.
03
Continuous Settlement: Sub-Second Finality
Settles transactions individually as they arrive, like on Avalanche or Sei. Achieves 400-600ms time-to-finality. This matters for perpetual futures trading and high-frequency DeFi arbitrage where latency is a direct competitive edge.
04
Continuous Settlement: No Block Re-org Risk
Immediate finality eliminates the risk of transaction reordering or exclusion from a proposed block. This matters for OTC trades and large liquidations where certainty of execution is more valuable than marginal fee savings.
PERFORMANCE & LATENCY SPECIFICATIONS
Batch Settlement vs Continuous Settlement: Speed
Direct comparison of key throughput, latency, and cost metrics for settlement models.
| Metric | Batch Settlement (e.g., Ethereum L2s, Solana) | Continuous Settlement (e.g., Sui, Aptos, Sei) |
|---|---|---|
Time to Finality (Avg.) | ~12 min (Ethereum L1) / ~2 sec (Solana) | < 1 sec |
Peak Theoretical TPS | 65,000 (Solana) / 4,000 (Optimism) | 297,000 (Sui) / 30,000 (Aptos V2) |
Settlement Latency | ~20 min (to L1) / Instant (intra-batch) | Instant (per transaction) |
Avg. Transaction Cost at Scale | $0.001 - $0.25 | $0.001 - $0.01 |
Consensus Mechanism | Nakamoto / BFT (batched) | Parallel BFT (continuous) |
Ideal Use Case | High-value DeFi, Batched payments | High-frequency trading, Gaming, Social |
pros-cons-a
PROS & CONS
Batch Settlement vs Continuous Settlement: Speed
A data-driven comparison of throughput and latency trade-offs for CTOs and architects.
01
Batch Settlement: Peak Throughput
Aggregates transactions into a single L1 proof, enabling high TPS for cost-sensitive applications. Protocols like Arbitrum Nova and zkSync Era use this to achieve 10,000+ TPS during peak loads. This matters for high-volume DEXs (e.g., Uniswap) and social/gaming apps where micro-fees are critical.
10,000+
Peak TPS
< $0.01
Avg. User Fee
02
Batch Settlement: Latency Trade-off
Inherent finality delay due to proof generation and L1 confirmation. Users experience minutes of latency between transaction submission and full settlement, creating a multi-block reorg risk window. This is a poor fit for high-frequency trading (HFT) or real-time payment systems that require sub-second finality.
2-10 min
Settlement Latency
03
Continuous Settlement: Instant Finality
Settles each transaction individually on the base layer (e.g., Solana, Monad) or via fast consensus (Avalanche). Provides sub-second finality (< 400ms on Solana). This matters for perps DEXs (e.g., Drift Protocol) and NFT marketplaces where front-running protection and instant ownership transfer are non-negotiable.
< 400ms
Time to Finality
99.9%
Uptime SLA
04
Continuous Settlement: Throughput Ceiling
Limited by base layer consensus speed. Achieving high TPS requires extreme hardware requirements (e.g., Solana validators) or novel parallel execution (Monad). Under network congestion, fees spike and performance degrades. This creates challenges for mass-adoption consumer apps needing predictable, ultra-low costs.
~3,000
Sustained TPS
Variable
Fee Pressure
pros-cons-b
Batch vs Continuous: Speed
Continuous Settlement: Advantages & Limitations
A technical breakdown of finality models, comparing the aggregated efficiency of batching against the real-time immediacy of continuous settlement.
01
Batch Settlement: Lower Cost & Higher Throughput
Aggregates transactions into a single on-chain proof, reducing per-transaction gas costs by 10-100x. This enables high-throughput scaling (e.g., 10,000+ TPS on StarkNet, 2,000+ TPS on Arbitrum Nova). Ideal for high-volume, cost-sensitive applications like DEX aggregators (1inch), NFT mints, and social/gaming micro-transactions.
10-100x
Cost Reduction
10,000+
Peak TPS
02
Batch Settlement: Latency & Composability Trade-off
Introduces proving and sequencing delays (minutes to hours). This creates a composability gap where assets in a pending batch are locked, breaking atomic interactions with other protocols like Aave or Uniswap. Not suitable for high-frequency trading (HFT), real-time payments, or applications requiring instant on-chain state updates.
~20 min
Avg. Finality Delay
03
Continuous Settlement: Sub-Second Finality
Settles each transaction individually with immediate on-chain confirmation (e.g., Solana's 400ms slots, Sui's 2-3s finality). Enables true real-time composability, allowing protocols like Jupiter Swap and Drift Protocol to interact atomically. Critical for perpetual futures, payment rails, and any application where latency is a competitive edge.
< 1 sec
Ideal Finality
04
Continuous Settlement: Throughput & Cost Constraints
Each transaction pays full L1 gas, creating cost volatility and limiting economic throughput. Under peak demand, networks like Solana experience congestion and failed transactions. Less efficient for bulk operations (e.g., processing 10,000 NFT transfers) which become prohibitively expensive compared to a single batch proof.
~5,000
Peak TPS (Sui)
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Continuous Settlement for Speed
Verdict: The clear winner for latency-sensitive applications. Strengths: Provides near-instant, per-transaction finality. This is critical for high-frequency trading (HFT) on DEXs like dYdX, real-time gaming actions, and NFT minting where user experience is paramount. Protocols like Solana and Sui exemplify this model, achieving sub-second confirmation times. Trade-off: This speed often comes at the cost of decentralization or requires sophisticated hardware for validators, increasing centralization risk.
Batch Settlement for Speed
Verdict: Not ideal for real-time needs, but optimized for throughput. Strengths: Maximizes raw TPS by amortizing proof costs. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism post state roots in large batches, making them excellent for scaling high-volume DeFi ecosystems where a 10-20 minute finality delay is acceptable. The speed is in aggregate throughput, not individual transaction latency. Key Metric: Look at batch submission intervals (e.g., Ethereum L1 block time) as the primary latency bottleneck.
BATCH VS CONTINUOUS
Technical Deep Dive: How Settlement Models Impact Latency
The choice between batch and continuous settlement is a fundamental architectural decision that directly defines a blockchain's performance profile. This section breaks down the latency, throughput, and trade-offs for CTOs and architects.
Yes, continuous settlement provides faster single-transaction finality. Systems like Solana (continuous) achieve sub-second finality, while batch-based chains like Arbitrum One have a 1-2 minute delay for L1 confirmation. However, batch settlement often aggregates thousands of transactions, making its effective throughput per batch extremely high. The trade-off is between immediate, individual finality and high-volume, batched efficiency.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict & Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between batch and continuous settlement is a fundamental trade-off between finality speed and operational efficiency.
Continuous Settlement excels at providing near-instant finality for individual transactions because it processes and finalizes each one sequentially as it arrives. For example, Solana's Sealevel runtime and Aptos' Block-STM enable sub-second finality, making them ideal for high-frequency trading (HFT) and real-time consumer applications where user experience is paramount. This approach minimizes latency but requires highly optimized, low-latency consensus mechanisms.
Batch Settlement takes a different approach by aggregating multiple transactions into a single block for periodic processing. This results in higher throughput and cost efficiency at the expense of per-transaction latency. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism batch thousands of transactions on L2 before settling to Ethereum L1, achieving effective TPS in the thousands while inheriting Ethereum's security. The trade-off is a delay (ranging from minutes to hours) for full economic finality.
The key trade-off: If your priority is lowest possible latency and instant user feedback (e.g., gaming, payments, HFT), choose a Continuous Settlement chain like Solana or Sui. If you prioritize maximizing throughput, minimizing cost, and leveraging a secure base layer (e.g., DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces, enterprise logistics), choose a Batch Settlement system like an Ethereum L2 rollup or Avalanche subnet. Your choice dictates your architecture's performance ceiling and economic model.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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