ThorChain vs Anyswap: Native Asset Swapping vs Liquidity Networks

Direct, non-custodial cross-chain: Swaps occur on a dedicated L1 blockchain using its own liquidity pools (e.g., BTC.RUNE, ETH.RUNE). No wrapped assets are used for the core settlement. This matters for security purists and protocols requiring maximum asset sovereignty without third-party tokenization risk.

Dynamic pricing model: Fees are a function of trade size and pool depth (slip fee), plus a fixed network fee. This can be more capital-efficient for large, deep pools but less predictable for small trades. This matters for institutional-sized swaps and liquidity providers optimizing for volume-based yield.

Bridge and router aggregation: Acts as a meta-protocol that connects existing DEX liquidity across chains (like SushiSwap, PancakeSwap) using wrapped assets (anyBTC, anyETH). This matters for maximum token selection and developers seeking the broadest reach across EVM and non-EVM ecosystems with a single integration.

Predictable cost structure: Charges a fixed bridge fee (e.g., 0.1%) plus destination chain gas, making cost estimation straightforward. This matters for retail users and applications like payroll or recurring transfers that require stable, predictable transaction costs.

Direct settlement on native chains: Swaps occur without wrapped assets, eliminating bridge risk and custodial layers. This matters for large-value transfers where security is paramount. Example: Swapping native BTC for native ETH directly.

Non-custodial, permissionless liquidity: Liquidity is pooled across a network of independent node operators using the THORNode software, secured by the RUNE token. This matters for protocols requiring censorship-resistant and transparent liquidity without a central operator.

Multi-step settlement process: Native swaps require multiple blockchain confirmations, leading to longer finality times (~5-20 minutes). Slippage fees on deep pools can be significant for large orders. This matters for high-frequency trading or arbitrage where speed and cost are critical.

Optimized for wrapped assets: Uses canonical bridges and liquidity networks for fast, low-cost transfers of assets like anyUSDC, anyETH. This matters for DeFi users and protocols (like Curve, SushiSwap) needing quick, cheap cross-chain interactions for yield farming and composability.

Extensive network integration: Supports over 80+ blockchains and layer-2s, far exceeding ThorChain's ~10 supported chains. This matters for emerging ecosystems and niche chains where ThorChain liquidity may not be deployed.

Reliance on wrapped assets and federated bridges: Users hold bridged representations (e.g., anyUSDC), introducing smart contract risk on both source and destination chains. Historical vulnerabilities (e.g., July 2023 exploit) highlight this systemic risk. This matters for security-first institutions and long-term asset holders.

Direct, non-custodial swaps: Swaps native BTC for native ETH without wrapped assets. This matters for security-conscious institutions and protocols requiring pure asset exposure, avoiding counterparty risk from wrapped tokens. Enables direct DeFi for Bitcoin.

Unified liquidity model: Liquidity is pooled in a decentralized network of nodes running the THORChain protocol, not bridged. This matters for achieving deep, shared liquidity across all supported chains (BTC, ETH, BNB, etc.) and reducing fragmentation.

Broad ecosystem reach: Supports 80+ blockchains and thousands of assets via its router contracts. This matters for projects needing maximum interoperability and connecting to long-tail chains (e.g., Fantom, Polygon, Arbitrum) not supported by native solutions.

Optimized for wrapped assets: Uses canonical bridges and liquidity pools for popular stablecoins (USDC, USDT) and blue-chips. This matters for high-frequency traders and arbitrageurs seeking the lowest fees and fastest settlement for major assets across EVM chains.

Higher barrier to entry: Running a node requires a significant bond (~2M RUNE). Swap fees include network (gas) and outbound fees, which can be high for small transactions. This matters for users prioritizing ultra-low cost over native asset purity.

Relies on bridge security: Swaps depend on the security of underlying bridges (e.g., for canonical assets) or the Multichain MPC network. This introduces smart contract and custodial risk, as seen in the July 2023 exploit. This matters for risk-averse capital.