Cosmos Appchains excel at providing dedicated, predictable throughput by design. Each chain, built with the Cosmos SDK and connected via IBC, has its own validator set and block space, eliminating competition. For example, dYdX's v4 migration to a Cosmos-based chain demonstrates this, achieving over 2,000 TPS for its orderbook while maintaining sub-second block times. This architecture is ideal for high-frequency applications like orderbook DEXs or gaming that require performance guarantees.
LABS
Comparisons
Cosmos Appchain vs Shared L2: Throughput
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects evaluating dedicated sovereignty against shared scalability for high-throughput applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Throughput Dilemma
Choosing between a sovereign Cosmos Appchain and a shared Ethereum L2 requires understanding a fundamental trade-off: dedicated capacity versus shared security.
Shared L2s (like Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) take a different approach by leveraging Ethereum's security while scaling execution. This results in a trade-off: you inherit robust decentralization and a massive liquidity pool (e.g., Arbitrum's ~$15B TVL), but compete for block space with all other dApps on the rollup. During network congestion, fees can spike and transaction ordering becomes non-deterministic, which is a critical consideration for MEV-sensitive protocols.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing and guaranteeing throughput for a specific application, choose a Cosmos Appchain. If you prioritize immediate access to deep liquidity and Ethereum's battle-tested security model, and can tolerate variable performance, choose a Shared L2. The decision hinges on whether you need a private highway or a seat on a high-speed, but shared, train.
tldr-summary
Throughput & Scalability
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A direct comparison of the architectural approaches to transaction processing and capacity.
01
Cosmos Appchain: Sovereign Throughput
Guaranteed, isolated capacity: Your chain has its own validator set and block space. Throughput is not shared with other applications. A chain like dYdX v4 (CometBFT) can achieve 10,000+ TPS in its own environment. This matters for high-frequency trading, gaming, or social apps that require predictable, high-volume performance without network congestion from other protocols.
10K+ TPS
Dedicated Capacity
0 Contention
No Shared Block Space
03
Shared L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, zkSync): Aggregate Throughput
High, but contended capacity: L2s batch thousands of transactions to settle on Ethereum. While a rollup like Arbitrum Nova can process ~40,000 TPS off-chain, this capacity is shared among all apps on the chain. During peak demand (e.g., NFT mint), your app's performance can degrade. This matters for applications that prioritize Ethereum security and liquidity over absolute, guaranteed performance.
~40K TPS
Theoretical Max (Shared)
High Contention
During Network Spikes
COSMOS APPCHAIN VS SHARED L2: THROUGHPUT
Throughput & Performance Specifications
Direct comparison of key performance metrics for sovereign vs. shared execution environments.
| Metric | Cosmos Appchain (Sovereign) | Shared L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) |
|---|---|---|
Max Theoretical TPS | 10,000 - 100,000+ | 4,000 - 65,000 |
Latency to Finality | ~6 seconds | ~12 minutes (L1 finality) |
Transaction Cost (Typical) | $0.01 - $0.10 | $0.10 - $1.50 |
Performance Isolation | ||
Sovereign Execution | ||
Depends on L1 Security | ||
Native MEV Capture |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Cosmos Appchain vs Shared L2: Throughput & Cost
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and operational metrics for sovereign appchains versus shared Layer 2 solutions.
| Metric | Cosmos Appchain (e.g., dYdX v4) | Shared L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) |
|---|---|---|
Max Theoretical TPS | 10,000+ | 40,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost | $0.001 - $0.01 | $0.10 - $2.00 |
Sovereign Throughput Control | ||
Time to Finality | ~6 seconds | ~12 seconds to L1 |
Cross-Domain MEV Risk | Low (Single Domain) | High (Shared Sequencer) |
Infrastructure Cost (Annual Est.) | $200K - $500K | $50K - $150K |
Requires Validator Set |
pros-cons-a
THROUGHPUT COMPARISON
Cosmos Appchain vs Shared L2: Throughput
Key architectural trade-offs for high-volume applications. Throughput is not just TPS; it's about predictable performance under load.
01
Cosmos Appchain: Sovereign Throughput
Dedicated block space: Your chain has its own validators and consensus, eliminating competition for block space. This provides predictable, high throughput (e.g., dYdX v4 targets 2,000 TPS). This matters for order-book DEXs, high-frequency gaming, and enterprise applications that cannot tolerate variable latency.
2,000+ TPS
Target (dYdX v4)
0 Contention
Block Space
02
Cosmos Appchain: Customizability Cost
Throughput requires investment. Achieving high TPS means bootstrapping and incentivizing a dedicated validator set (often 50-100+ nodes). This involves significant capital expenditure and ongoing operational overhead. This matters for teams with deep technical resources but is a barrier for early-stage projects.
$500K+
Typical Validator Bootstrapping
High
Operational Complexity
03
Shared L2: Inherited Scale
Leverage shared security and liquidity. L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync inherit Ethereum's security while offering ~10-100x higher throughput (e.g., Arbitrum Nitro processes ~40k TPS internally). This matters for NFT drops, social apps, and DeFi protocols that need immediate access to a large user base and capital.
40k+ TPS
Internal (Arbitrum Nitro)
$18B+ TVL
Shared Liquidity (Arbitrum+OP)
04
Shared L2: Contention Risk
Throughput is shared and variable. During network congestion (e.g., a major airdrop or meme coin launch), your app competes for block space with every other dApp on the L2. This can lead to spiking fees and transaction delays. This matters for applications requiring consistent, low-latency finality, where unpredictable performance is unacceptable.
Variable
Fee Spikes
Shared Resource
Sequencer Capacity
pros-cons-b
Throughput Showdown
Shared Layer 2: Pros & Cons
Comparing the scalability and performance trade-offs between sovereign Cosmos Appchains and shared Layer 2 rollups.
01
Cosmos Appchain: Dedicated Throughput
Vertical Scaling: Each appchain (e.g., dYdX, Injective) has its own validator set and block space, guaranteeing 10,000+ TPS for its dedicated application. No competition for blockspace from other dApps. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) DEXs and gaming ecosystems requiring predictable, maximal performance.
10K+ TPS
Per Chain
< 2 sec
Finality
03
Shared L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism): Aggregate Throughput
Horizontal Scaling: A single, shared rollup (e.g., Arbitrum One) can process 4,000-40,000+ TPS by batching transactions from thousands of dApps like Uniswap, GMX, and Aave. This creates a powerful network effect and shared liquidity. This matters for DeFi composability and applications that benefit from a unified user and capital base.
40K+ TPS
Theoretical Peak
$6B+ TVL
Shared Liquidity
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Cosmos Appchain for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for sovereign, high-value DeFi protocols. Strengths: Full control over MEV, fee markets, and governance (e.g., dYdX v4, Osmosis). You can implement custom fee tokens, schedule chain halts for upgrades, and optimize the VM for your specific AMM or order book. This sovereignty is critical for protocols with >$100M TVL where economic policy is a core competitive edge. Trade-offs: You inherit the operational overhead of bootstrapping validator security and liquidity. Cross-chain asset transfers via IBC add latency versus native L2 composability.
Shared L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, zkSync) for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for rapid deployment and tapping into existing liquidity networks. Strengths: Instant access to Ethereum's security and a massive, composable liquidity pool (e.g., Uniswap, Aave). Native bridging to L1 assets is seamless. The developer experience is mature with tools like Foundry and Hardhat. For a new protocol, launching here reduces time-to-market and validator coordination to zero. Trade-offs: You compete for block space during network congestion, subject to the L2's sequencer and fee model. Customizations like app-specific fee tokens or MEV capture are impossible.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict & Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between a sovereign Cosmos appchain and a shared L2 is a strategic decision between ultimate control and immediate scale.
Cosmos Appchains excel at guaranteed, dedicated throughput because they operate as sovereign chains with their own validator set and consensus. This eliminates competition for block space, allowing protocols like dYdX (migrated to a Cosmos chain) to achieve 2,000+ TPS with sub-second finality. You gain full control over the execution environment, gas token, and upgrade path, enabling deep customizations like Sei's parallelized EVM or Injective's on-chain order book.
Shared L2s (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) take a different approach by pooling security and liquidity from a base layer like Ethereum. This results in a trade-off: you inherit a robust ecosystem and developer tooling (Solidity/Vyper, Ethers.js) but compete for shared block space. While peak capacity can be high (e.g., Arbitrum Nitro processes ~40k TPS internally), real-world user TPS is lower and fees can spike during network congestion, as seen in past Arbitrum Odyssey events.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable performance, maximal sovereignty, and architectural control for a high-frequency or niche application, choose a Cosmos Appchain. If you prioritize immediate access to Ethereum's liquidity, developer mindshare, and a battle-tested security model, and can tolerate variable fees in exchange for network effects, choose a Shared L2.
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