Shared L1 Scaling (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, Solana) excels at providing immediate, secure throughput for applications by leveraging a robust, battle-tested base layer. This results in high capital efficiency from shared liquidity and security, with lower initial development overhead. For example, Arbitrum One consistently processes over 200,000 daily transactions with an average fee under $0.10, demonstrating the power of a shared, optimized execution environment.
LABS
Comparisons
Appchains vs Shared L1 Scaling
A technical analysis comparing dedicated application-specific blockchains (Appchains) against shared Layer 1 scaling solutions like rollups. This guide examines the trade-offs in sovereignty, performance, cost, and security for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Dilemma
Choosing between sovereign appchains and shared L1 scaling solutions defines your protocol's future in performance, cost, and governance.
Appchains (e.g., dYdX v4 on Cosmos, Axie Infinity on Ronin) take a different approach by offering sovereign, application-specific blockchains. This strategy grants teams full control over their stack—governance, fee markets, and virtual machine—enabling radical optimization for a single use case. The trade-off is the operational burden of bootstrapping a dedicated validator set and liquidity, which can be mitigated by frameworks like Polygon CDK or Arbitrum Orbit.
The key trade-off: If your priority is launch speed, shared security, and tapping into an existing user base, choose a shared L2 or high-performance L1. If you prioritize maximum performance customization, proprietary fee capture, and long-term sovereignty over your technical roadmap, an appchain is the strategic choice. The decision ultimately hinges on whether you value ecosystem network effects or application-specific autonomy.
tldr-summary
Appchains vs. Shared L1 Scaling
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of sovereignty versus shared security for CTOs and architects.
01
Appchains: Sovereign Performance
Full control over the stack: Customize VM (EVM, SVM, Move), gas token, and governance. This matters for highly specialized protocols (e.g., dYdX v4, Axie Infinity) needing deterministic performance.
10K+ TPS
Isolated Capacity
0
External MEV
03
Appchains: Development & Operational Overhead
You run the chain: Requires validator recruitment, bridge security, and dedicated RPC infrastructure. This is a major con for smaller teams without dedicated DevOps resources (e.g., using Cosmos SDK, Polygon CDK).
3-6 months
Avg. Time to Mainnet
04
Shared L1s: Instant Composability
Native access to ecosystem assets and users: Seamless integration with protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and LayerZero. This matters for DeFi primitives and social apps where network effects are paramount (e.g., Arbitrum, Base).
$5B+
Avg. Shared TVL
06
Shared L1s: Congestion & Cost Volatility
Competitive block space: Fees spike during network surges (e.g., NFT mints, airdrops). This is a major con for mass-adoption applications requiring consistent sub-cent fees.
$1 - $50+
Fee Range (Surge)
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Appchains vs. Shared L1 Scaling: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key architectural and operational metrics for infrastructure selection.
| Metric | Appchains (e.g., Polygon Supernets, Avalanche Subnets) | Shared L1 Scaling (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) |
|---|---|---|
Sovereignty & Customization | ||
Avg. Transaction Cost (Typical) | $0.01 - $0.10 | < $0.001 |
Time to Finality | ~2 sec (chain-dependent) | ~12 sec (L1-dependent) |
Sequencer/Validator Control | Project controls validator set | Relies on shared sequencer/network |
Native Token for Fees | ||
Cross-Chain Messaging Complexity | High (requires bridges) | Low (native L1/L2 bridges) |
Time to Production (from zero) | 3-6 months | < 1 week |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
Appchains vs. Shared L1 Scaling
Direct comparison of key infrastructure metrics for sovereignty versus composability.
| Metric | Appchain (e.g., Polygon Supernets, Avalanche Subnets) | Shared L1 Scaling (e.g., Solana, Base, Arbitrum) |
|---|---|---|
Sovereignty & Customization | ||
Avg. Transaction Cost (Simple Swap) | $0.001 - $0.05 | $0.0001 - $0.01 |
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | 1,000 - 10,000+ | 2,000 - 65,000+ |
Time to Finality | ~2 - 5 sec | ~0.4 - 12 sec |
Primary Cost Model | Sequencer/Validator OpEx | L1 Data & Execution Fees |
Native Composability | ||
Time to Production (New Chain) | 2 - 6 months | Instant Deployment |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
Appchains vs Shared L1 Scaling
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs deciding between sovereign infrastructure and shared execution environments.
02
Appchain: Performance Isolation
Guanteed throughput & predictable costs: No noisy neighbors. Your app's TPS (e.g., 10,000+ for a gaming chain) and fees are insulated from congestion on other chains. This is critical for consumer-scale applications like Web3 games or high-frequency DEXs that require consistent UX.
0 congestion risk
From other apps
04
Shared L1: Operational Simplicity
Zero infra overhead: No validator recruitment, bridge security, or cross-chain tooling. Developers deploy smart contracts and focus on product. Ideal for rapid prototyping, MVPs, and teams sub-$500K budget who cannot manage a full blockchain stack.
~$0 infra cost
Beyond gas
05
Appchain: Capital & Complexity Cost
High initial overhead: Requires significant capital to bootstrap validators (PoS security), build secure bridges (Axelar, LayerZero), and attract liquidity. Teams must become blockchain operators, not just developers. A major trade-off for speed and control.
06
Shared L1: Congestion & Contention
Limited, shared resources: Your app's performance is tied to the network's overall demand. During peaks (NFT mints, airdrops), fees spike and TPS drops, degrading UX. A fundamental constraint for performance-sensitive applications on chains like Ethereum Mainnet.
pros-cons-b
Appchains vs Shared L1s
Shared L1 Scaling: Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs for CTOs choosing between sovereign infrastructure and shared execution layers.
01
Appchains: Sovereignty & Customization
Full control over the stack: Customize gas tokens, governance (e.g., dYdX Chain), and virtual machines (EVM, SVM, Move). This matters for protocols like Avalanche Subnets or Polygon Supernets requiring specific fee models or privacy features not possible on a shared chain.
0.01¢
Predictable Fee
Custom
VM/Governance
02
Appchains: Performance Isolation
Guaranteed resources and no noisy neighbors: Your TPS and block space are not impacted by other applications. This is critical for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., Injective Protocol) or gaming worlds (Axie Infinity's Ronin) where consistent latency and throughput are non-negotiable.
10k+ TPS
Dedicated Capacity
< 1 sec
Finality
03
Appchains: Complexity & Cost
High operational overhead: You must bootstrap and secure your own validator set (Cosmos SDK) or pay for a shared security provider (EigenLayer, Polygon Avail). This adds significant devops burden and capital cost versus using a rollup SDK like Arbitrum Orbit or OP Stack.
$500K+
Annual Validator Cost
Months
Time to Launch
04
Shared L1s: Liquidity & Composability
Instant access to native liquidity and users: Deploy on Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Base) or Solana and tap into billions in TVL and millions of existing wallets. Seamless composability with protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Jupiter accelerates growth and reduces integration work.
$10B+
Native TVL
100+
Integrated DApps
05
Shared L1s: Developer Velocity
Mature tooling and shared security: Leverage battle-tested RPC providers (Alchemy, QuickNode), indexers (The Graph), and security audits from the base layer. This reduces time-to-market from months to weeks, as seen with rapid deployments on Optimism Superchain ecosystems.
Weeks
Time to Launch
100+
Ready Tools
06
Shared L1s: Congestion Risk
Subject to network-wide demand spikes: A popular NFT mint or meme coin on Solana or an Ethereum L2 can cause fee volatility and delayed transactions for your app. You cede control over the user experience and economic model during peak loads.
1000x
Fee Spikes
Shared
Block Space
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Appchains for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for sovereign, high-frequency, or complex financial products. Strengths: Full control over MEV policy, fee markets, and governance (e.g., dYdX v4). Customizable throughput (10K+ TPS) for order book exchanges. Isolated security for novel risk models. Enables proprietary fee capture and tokenomics. Trade-offs: Requires bootstrapping liquidity and validators. Higher initial capital and operational overhead.
Shared L1s (Rollups) for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for composability, liquidity access, and rapid deployment. Strengths: Immediate access to massive, established liquidity pools (e.g., Arbitrum's $2B+ DeFi TVL). Seamless composability with protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and GMX. Inherits Ethereum's battle-tested security. Lower bootstrapping cost. Trade-offs: Compete for block space; fees spike during congestion. Limited control over chain-level parameters.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between appchains and shared L1 scaling is a foundational architectural decision that dictates your project's sovereignty, performance, and long-term viability.
Appchains (e.g., Cosmos zones, Polygon Supernets, Avalanche Subnets) excel at sovereignty and customizability because they grant full control over the execution environment, consensus, and fee markets. For example, dYdX's migration to a Cosmos-based appchain enabled custom mempool ordering for its order book and zero gas fees for users, directly addressing the core needs of its high-frequency trading application. This model is ideal for protocols like Injective Protocol or dYdX that require deterministic performance, specialized VMs, or unique tokenomics that would be impossible on a shared chain.
Shared L1 Scaling solutions (e.g., Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync; Solana) take a different approach by maximizing shared security and network effects. This results in a trade-off: you inherit robust, battle-tested security (e.g., Ethereum's ~$50B in staked ETH) and instant composability with a massive ecosystem (DeFi protocols like Aave, Uniswap), but you must compete for block space and accept the chain's design constraints. While a rollup like Arbitrum One can process ~40,000 TPS in a burst, your application's performance can still be impacted by network-wide congestion from a popular NFT mint.
The key trade-off is sovereignty versus synergy. If your priority is uncompromising performance, specialized infrastructure, or unique economic models, choose an appchain. This path demands significant upfront capital for validator recruitment and ongoing operational overhead. If you prioritize rapid user acquisition, deep liquidity access, and leveraging an existing security budget, choose a leading shared L2 or high-performance L1. Your development will be faster, but your roadmap will be partially coupled to the underlying chain's evolution and community governance.
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