Appchains (e.g., built with Cosmos SDK, Polygon CDK, or Arbitrum Orbit) excel at liquidity sovereignty because they grant full control over the chain's economic policy and MEV capture. For example, a DEX like dYdX v4, which migrated to its own Cosmos appchain, can implement custom fee structures, native token incentives, and tightly integrated sequencer revenue models that are impossible on a shared L2. This sovereignty allows for deep, protocol-owned liquidity pools, but requires bootstrapping a new ecosystem from scratch.
LABS
Comparisons
Appchain vs Starknet: AMM Liquidity
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating liquidity strategies. Analyzes the trade-offs between isolated appchain liquidity and shared L2 liquidity pools on Starknet, focusing on capital efficiency, composability, and operational control.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Liquidity Sovereignty Dilemma
Choosing between an appchain and Starknet for AMM deployment forces a fundamental choice: control over your liquidity versus access to a shared pool.
Starknet takes a different approach by being a general-purpose validity rollup. This results in instant composability with a massive, pre-existing liquidity pool from protocols like Ekubo, JediSwap, and Nostra. Developers inherit Starknet's security and the network effects of its ~$1.3B TVL, avoiding the cold-start problem. The trade-off is competing for block space and user attention within a shared environment, with less granular control over the chain's economic parameters and fee markets.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing capital efficiency and owning your chain's economic flywheel for a specialized DeFi product, choose an Appchain. If you prioritize rapid deployment, seamless composability with other apps, and leveraging an established user base, choose Starknet.
tldr-summary
Appchain vs Starknet: AMM Liquidity
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
Direct comparison of liquidity models, capital efficiency, and developer control for AMM deployment.
01
Appchain: Sovereign Liquidity
Full control over liquidity parameters: You can design custom fee structures, tokenomics, and MEV policies (e.g., dYdX's order book). This matters for protocols needing a bespoke economic model that diverges from L2 norms.
02
Appchain: Isolated Performance
No shared state contention: Your AMM's throughput (TPS) and latency are not impacted by other protocols' traffic. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) applications or order-book DEXs requiring deterministic performance.
03
Starknet: Shared Liquidity Pool
Native access to a unified liquidity layer: AMMs like Ekubo and JediSwap tap into Starknet's ~$1.3B TVL. This matters for bootstrapping initial volume and enabling seamless composability with protocols like Nostra (lending) and zkLend.
04
Starknet: Developer Velocity
Leverage existing Cairo tooling & security: Build using audited, open-source AMM templates (Starknet Foundry) and inherit L2 security from Ethereum. This matters for teams prioritizing rapid iteration and minimizing custom validator/sequencer overhead.
LIQUIDITY INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON
Head-to-Head: Appchain vs Starknet AMM Liquidity
Direct comparison of technical and economic factors for AMM liquidity deployment.
| Key Metric / Feature | Appchain (e.g., dYdX, Injective) | Starknet (e.g., Ekubo, JediSwap) |
|---|---|---|
Execution Cost per Swap | $0.01 - $0.10+ | < $0.001 |
Sovereign MEV Control | ||
Native Token for Gas & Fees | ||
Shared Liquidity Pool | ||
Time to Finality | ~2-6 sec (on L1) | ~15-30 min (to L1) |
Development Overhead | High (full stack) | Low (Cairo smart contract) |
Proven TVL (Example) | $1B+ (dYdX v3) | $150M+ (Ekubo) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Appchain vs Starknet: AMM Liquidity
Key strengths and trade-offs for AMM liquidity deployment at a glance. Starknet offers a unified, deep pool, while Appchains provide isolated, customizable capital.
01
Appchain Pro: Sovereign Liquidity Design
Full control over tokenomics and incentives: Appchains like dYdX v4 or Sei can implement custom fee structures, MEV capture, and governance for their native AMM. This allows for tailored liquidity mining programs and protocol-owned liquidity (POL) strategies that are impossible on a shared L2. This matters for protocols where liquidity is the core product.
02
Appchain Pro: Isolated Performance & Cost
Guaranteed low, predictable fees and no congestion from external dApps. An AMM on a dedicated chain (e.g., using Cosmos SDK or Polygon CDK) avoids competing for block space with NFTs or social apps. This results in sub-second finality and sub-cent swap fees, critical for high-frequency trading and arbitrage bots.
03
Appchain Con: Fragmented Capital & Bootstrapping
Cold-start liquidity problem: You must bootstrap TVL from zero without access to Starknet's existing $1B+ DeFi ecosystem. This requires significant upfront capital for liquidity incentives and complex bridging solutions (e.g., Axelar, LayerZero). This matters for new protocols without an existing community or treasury.
04
Appchain Con: Operational & Security Overhead
You become your own infrastructure provider: Responsible for validator set management, bridge security, and RPC node uptime. This adds significant devops complexity and cost compared to deploying a smart contract on Starknet. This matters for teams wanting to focus on product, not chain consensus.
05
Starknet Pro: Network Effect & Composability
Instant access to deep, established liquidity pools like Ekubo, 10kswap, and Nostra. Your AMM can be composed with lending protocols (zkLend), derivatives, and NFT markets in a single atomic transaction. This reduces bootstrap time and leverages Starknet's ~$1.3B TVL. This matters for protocols seeking rapid integration.
06
Starknet Pro: Shared Security & Developer Tooling
Leverage Ethereum's security via validity proofs and benefit from a mature toolchain (Scarb, Starknet.js, Voyager). No need to audit a novel consensus mechanism. The Cairo VM offers native account abstraction, enabling gasless transactions and batch operations for users. This matters for teams prioritizing security and UX.
pros-cons-b
Appchain vs Starknet
Starknet AMM Liquidity: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for AMM liquidity deployment at a glance.
01
Appchain Pro: Tailored Tokenomics & MEV Capture
Full control over economic policy: Design custom fee structures, sequencer revenue models, and native token utility (e.g., dYdX's fee capture). This matters for protocols where maximizing protocol-owned liquidity and revenue is the primary goal.
02
Appchain Pro: Sovereign Liquidity Silos
Isolated liquidity pools prevent fragmentation and vampire attacks from other protocols. This matters for high-value, niche markets (e.g., perpetuals, RWA) where deep, dedicated liquidity is more critical than composability.
03
Appchain Con: Cold-Start & Bridging Friction
High initial bootstrap cost: Must attract liquidity from scratch or via complex incentive programs. Cross-chain bridging adds user friction and security risk (e.g., LayerZero, Axelar dependencies). This matters for new entrants or applications requiring rapid user adoption.
04
Appchain Con: Shared Security Overhead
Operational burden of validating a standalone chain (or securing a rollup) versus leveraging an existing L2. This matters for teams with sub-$1M annual infra budgets where developer resources are better spent on core product, not validator coordination.
05
Starknet Pro: Instant Composability & Shared Liquidity
Native access to a unified liquidity layer: AMMs like Ekubo and JediSwap tap into Starknet's $1.3B+ DeFi TVL. This matters for money legos (e.g., lending/borrowing with zkLend) that require atomic composability with other protocols.
06
Starknet Pro: Cairo VM & STARK Proof Efficiency
High-throughput, low-cost settlements: Starknet's zk-rollup architecture enables ~100 TPS with sub-$0.01 swap fees post-dencun. This matters for high-frequency, micro-transaction AMMs where cost predictability is key.
07
Starknet Con: Protocol-Level Competition
Fragmented liquidity across multiple AMMs (Ekubo, 10kswap, JediSwap) dilutes pool depths. This matters for large institutional trades where single-pool slippage can exceed the cost savings of an appchain.
08
Starknet Con: Constrained Economic Design
Limited fee model flexibility: Must use STRK/ETH for gas and adhere to L2's upgrade path. This matters for protocols seeking to innovate with novel validator/staking incentives or transaction ordering (e.g., CowSwap-style batch auctions).
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Appchain for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for sovereign liquidity and fee capture. Strengths: Full control over MEV, transaction ordering, and fee markets. You can design a custom AMM (e.g., a concentrated liquidity DEX like Uniswap v3) and keep all fees and incentives on-chain. This is ideal for protocols like dYdX v4 or Injective, where the economic model is the product. Use frameworks like Cosmos SDK or Polygon CDK. Trade-offs: You must bootstrap your own validator set and liquidity from scratch. Cross-chain liquidity bridges (like Axelar, LayerZero) add complexity and latency.
Starknet for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for deep, shared liquidity and Ethereum security. Strengths: Immediate access to Starknet's native TVL (~$1.3B) and composability with major protocols like Ekubo (Uniswap v3 fork) and Nostra (money market). Your AMM benefits from Starknet's growing user base and seamless, low-cost swaps within the L2 ecosystem. Security is inherited from Ethereum L1. Trade-offs: You compete for block space and user attention on a shared network. Protocol-specific fee models and MEV strategies are constrained by the sequencer.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between an Appchain and Starknet for AMM liquidity is a strategic decision between sovereignty and network effects.
Appchains (built with frameworks like Cosmos SDK, Polygon CDK, or Arbitrum Orbit) excel at sovereign liquidity design because they grant full control over the economic and technical stack. You can implement custom MEV strategies, tailor fee structures, and create native incentives for LPs without external competition. For example, dYdX's migration to a Cosmos-based appchain allowed it to design a fully on-chain order book with a fee structure impossible on a shared L2, capturing and directing its entire liquidity flow.
Starknet takes a different approach by leveraging shared security and composability within a high-throughput ZK-Rollup. This results in immediate access to a pooled liquidity environment and seamless interoperability with other DeFi primitives like lending (zkLend), derivatives (ZKX), and NFTs. The trade-off is competing for liquidity within a shared fee market and adhering to the L2's core protocol rules, which can limit bespoke economic models.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty and tailored economics—where you need to own the entire liquidity flywheel and are willing to bootstrap it—choose an Appchain. If you prioritize immediate composability and network effects—where accessing an existing DeFi ecosystem (e.g., via StarkGate bridges) outweighs the need for custom fee/MEV rules—choose Starknet. The decision hinges on whether you value design freedom over integrated liquidity.
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