2026-01-06 11:24:17

On-chain transaction liquidity fragmentation has always been a major issue. Users have to hop back and forth between different chains, with Arbitrum, Polygon, Base each having their own order books. Not only is the depth shallow, but they also have to go through cumbersome cross-chain bridging.

That's why a unified liquidity pool is so crucial. More than 18 chains are aggregated into a single order book, allowing traders to initiate transactions directly from any chain without worrying about cross-chain issues. By embracing liquidity from all sources, the order book depth naturally increases, and slippage can be reduced.

This is what the DeFi trading experience should look like—smooth, efficient, and without extra costs.

ARB1,16%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

19 Likes

Reward
19
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

YieldHunter

· 01-09 02:51

ngl, sounds nice on paper but like... have you actually looked at the liquidity concentration risk? centralizing 18+ chains into one orderbook is literally begging for a catastrophic failure. if you look at the data, every time we've tried this, impermanent loss eats degens alive. sustainable returns? more like sustainable rug pulls waiting to happen tbh

Reply0

UnluckyValidator

· 01-07 07:37

Honestly, this cross-chain bridging setup is really annoying. I always have to worry about slippage. A unified order book sounds good, but I'm just afraid it's all talk and no action.

View OriginalReply0

ProveMyZK

· 01-06 11:52

That's right, liquidity fragmentation is indeed disgusting, and the cross-chain bridging approach should have been eliminated long ago. The unified order book is a brilliant move, directly addressing the pain points.

View OriginalReply0

NFTDreamer

· 01-06 11:46

Cross-chain bridging is really a pain, always having to wait half a day, and the slippage is huge. The idea of a unified liquidity pool is truly brilliant.

View OriginalReply0

OvertimeSquid

· 01-06 11:45

Calling it a unified liquidity pool sounds nice, but in reality, it's hard to implement... Who dares to guarantee the risks of cross-chain bridging?

View OriginalReply0

airdrop_huntress

· 01-06 11:41

Honestly, the cross-chain bridging process is really annoying, and I have to mess around with it for ages every time.

View OriginalReply0

TestnetScholar

· 01-06 11:36

The cross-chain bridging process is really annoying, always having to wait for a long time and worrying about security issues. The idea of a unified liquidity pool is good, but I wonder if implementing it will turn out to be another story.

View OriginalReply0

BasementAlchemist

· 01-06 11:28

That's right, cross-chain bridging is really a hassle, and it always costs extra in fees. Unified liquidity should have been implemented long ago. Currently, each chain operates independently, and the slippage is extremely high. With 18 chains sharing one order book, only then can the trading experience truly improve as depth increases.

View OriginalReply0