The maturation of DEFI technology has created a paradox: while the code bases tested in combat and the control of technical mastery lowered the barrier to the entrance to launch new protocols, the securing of sustainable liquidity has never been more difficult. While thousands of projects have been built on increasingly standardized infrastructure in competition for a final capital basin, the ecosystem is faced with a systemic challenge that threatens real innovation and real growth.
You read Crypto Long & Short, our weekly newsletter with ideas, news and analyzes for the professional investor. Register here to get it in your reception box every Wednesday.
The multidimensional fragmentation problem
Liquidity in DEFI is fragmented between the protocols, the chains and the pairs of tokens. For new protocols, securing adequate liquidity is existential – without it, user adoption stands, cost increase, drop in yields and growth steering wheel. This creates a fundamental challenge: each new DEX, loan platform or yield farm must compete for the same final capital basin, more dividing available liquidity. The liquidity request largely exceeds the influx of new capital.
The traditional financial concept of “capital cost” has become the “cost of liquidity” in DEFI, but without standardized executives to assess this risk, protocols have trouble acquiring the capital they need to launch and develop effectively. Protocols use their native tokens, their ecosystem funds and sometimes their own capital to attract early liquidity. Some sub-unequaled, not reaching liquidity providers. Others over-incurrent, exhausting treasury bills and creating sales pressure when symbolic incentives unlock. The two approaches ultimately undermine long -term sustainability.
VC-Protocol tension
This pricing error creates a fundamental tension for projects with the support of VC. Investors who finance portfolio companies via simple agreements for future tokens (SAFTS) want protocols to attract sufficient liquidity for growth and utility. However, the aggressive liquidity incentive programs directly dilute their token assets.
The result is often unsustainable for tokenomics: high initial emissions from bootstrap liquidity, creating artificial success measures that collapse when incentives decrease. This model hinders a real innovation, because truly new approaches are faced with disproportionately higher costs to attract capital.
Market opacity and information asymmetry
The problem is aggravated by the lack of transparency. Most of the most important liquidity agreements occur through over -the -counter private private (OTC) are treating unclear terms. New protocols have no visibility on market rates for comparable arrangements, while established players and initiate networks control the capital flow.
Without standardized risk assessment frameworks, liquidity suppliers are struggling to effectively assess opportunities. This leads to inconsistent risk premiums in similar protocols and capital concentration in projects with familiar conceptions rather than superior technology and innovation.
Towards a solution: a neutral liquidity layer
What the ecosystem needs is connectivity between capital and protocols – an agnostic and neutral layer in protocol focused on effective capital routing. Such a system would be:
- Create visibility on liquidity costs between protocols and chains.
- Establish benchmarks at risk for different categories of protocols.
- Activate protocols to structure durable incentive models.
- Help capital suppliers to be strategically deployed according to transparent risk measures.
The establishment of a system like this does not consist in introducing new financial products, but in creating a shared understanding of the liquidity pricing which aligns the incentives between capital beneficiaries and protocols.
Look forward to
As a challenge, the coordination of liquidity and risk assessment will be essential to the effectiveness of capital. Prosperous protocols should be those that solve real problems and bring a real innovation in space, not necessarily those with the most aggressive incentives.
The challenge is clear: the request for liquidity in DEFI is indeed infinite and the finished supply is existing. However, the infrastructure, services and pricing mechanisms that determine how capital passages from user holders have considerably delayed innovation in the protocol. Tackling this infrastructure gap not only represents an opportunity to increase efficiency, but a necessity for sustainable growth in the entire DEFI ecosystem.
