Appchains—one-off, application-specific blockchains designed custom for an application—are emerging as a key innovation in the fast-evolving blockchain world. While open general-purpose blockchains such as Bitcoin or Ethereum are available to many different ecosystems and applications, appchains are designed to serve one system or application and allow developers to optimize performance, governance, and scalability to a specific use case.
While appchains bring about increased efficiency and specialization, they also bring a special issue: liquidity dispersion. In these economies, assets become fragmented across a number of chains, decentralized exchanges, and sources of liquidity. This can lead to problems with asset transfer, impacting transaction speed, market efficiency, and overall user experience.
It should be clear to developers, investors, and users how dispersed liquidity impacts appchain ecosystems. This article discusses why dispersed liquidity occurs, how it impacts asset transfers, solutions to the issue, and real implementations of these solutions.
What is Dispersed Liquidity?
Dispersed liquidity refers to the distribution of digital capital across multiple platforms, networks, or pools of liquidity. Unlike centralized exchanges, in which all the liquidity is concentrated in one location, decentralized spaces—especially appchains—can have liquidity thinly distributed across numerous pools and chains.
In appchain ecosystems, this is particularly true. Every appchain is isolated, with liquidity pools tailored to its users. Consequently, users transferring assets between appchains can find it inefficient and costly.
Main Causes of Dispersed Liquidity
1. Scale of Specialized Appchains
Every appchain has its own purpose, e.g., gaming, decentralized finance (DeFi), NFTs, or social apps.
Assets stay in the appchain ecosystem in which they are utilized most, generating isolated liquidity pools.
2. Interoperability is Limited
Appchains possess few interoperable protocols for interaction across chains.
Assets are restricted from moving between chains, and bottlenecks of liquidity are created.
3.User Behavior and Incentives
oUsers want to keep assets in specific appchains to participate in staking, yield farming, or governance.
oThese behaviors reinforce liquidity isolation.
4. Niche Markets and Fragmented Communities
oSpecific groups, such as gaming user groups or local users of DeFi, can be addressed by appchains.
nSegmentation divides liquidity and reduces total asset movement across the larger ecosystem.
Effects of Dispersed Liquidity on Asset Transfers
Dispersed liquidity has multiple effects on appchain ecosystems. Users, developers, and liquidity providers may feel:
1. Increased Slippage
Slippage occurs when the price at which a transaction is executed differs from its expected price. Dispersed liquidity exacerbates slippage because:
Large trades may not have sufficient counterparties in a single pool of liquidity.
Assets must often cross many chains or pools to be settled in a trade, increasing price deviation risk.
Example: A user wants to send 100 ETH between two appchains. If the target chain is not liquid, the executed trade may be lower than anticipated, reducing profit.
2. Higher Transaction Costs
Asset transfers among appchains typically involve a sequence of steps:
Locking the assets in the source chain
Using a cross-chain bridge or intermediary
tReleasing or minting assets in the destination chain
Each of these operations may involve fees, like gas fees, bridge fees, and potential liquidity provider fees. These fees will accumulate and reduce the efficiency of asset transfers.
3. Delayed Transaction Settlements
Cross-chain transfers are likely to require multiple confirmations on both chains:
Locking assets in the source chain
Validating and confirming transactions
Minting or releasing verification on the target chain
All these processes introduce latency, particularly when there is heavy usage. In cases of timely trading or arbitrage, such latency will result in losing the opportunity.
4. Market Inefficiency
Decentralized liquidity can lead to asymmetric prices between appchains:
The token may be sold at different prices on alternate chains due to fragmented liquidity.
Arbitrageurs who seek out opportunities can profit, but light users are left guessing and potentially losing.