2025-12-27 17:28:19

The liquidity dilemma in DeFi remains severe. The current problem is not a lack of total volume, but rather overly dispersed distribution—liquidity across multiple blockchains operates independently, leading to the failure of price discovery mechanisms and severely insufficient trading depth. This fragmentation forces most new projects to rely on traditional centralized exchanges to maintain trading activity. But the cost of doing so is obvious: while initial liquidity during project launch is abundant, once hype fades and market makers withdraw, liquidity can dry up instantly. This unpredictable cycle is eroding users' confidence in DeFi. To break this cycle, more capital alone is not enough; a fundamental reorganization of cross-chain liquidity is needed to establish a unified price discovery mechanism. Some projects are exploring this path, attempting to weave fragmented liquidity back into a cohesive network.

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SnapshotLaborer

· 2h ago

To be honest, liquidity fragmentation is really disgusting. A bunch of public chains each doing their own thing, and the trading experience is terrible. Cross-chain integration sounds good, but I'm worried it's just another hype. We'll have to see who can actually make it happen in the future. Market makers come and go, and retail investors end up getting cut. It's the same old story.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterZhang

· 9h ago

Liquidity fragmentation is indeed a stubborn problem, but to be honest, I look down on projects that rely on CFO market making... Basically, they find someone to cover the bottom before listing, then run away after listing, while the retail investors are still shouting about the future of DeFi... Wake up, everyone. Cross-chain aggregation sounds good, but who guarantees that the fees won't eat up all the profits? Another overhyped solution, I bet five cents it will still end in failure. DeFi hasn't even learned how to self-custody, and now they want to unify everything? That's laughable.

View OriginalReply0

SelfStaking

· 12-27 17:58

Liquidity fragmentation ultimately means that DeFi is not mature yet, and relying on centralized exchanges to survive is really disappointing.

View OriginalReply0

MaticHoleFiller

· 12-27 17:57

Honestly, the issue of liquidity fragmentation has long needed a serious crackdown. Cross-chain liquidity playing separately is really disgusting. So many market makers have run away, they've really scared people away. It's "reweaving" again, and "unifying mechanisms" again. Sounds easy, but can it really work? I've heard this DeFi rhetoric so many times. Let's wait and see who can actually make it happen. Liquidity exhaustion quickly turns into chaos, this phenomenon has been annoying me to death. The nicer way to put it is fragmentation; the harsher way is that capital just runs after profiting. Is there really a team working on solving this? Don't tell me it's another vaporware project. The core issue with centralized exchanges providing a safety net is fundamentally flawed. Relying on CEX for DeFi is ironic.

View OriginalReply0

JustHereForAirdrops

· 12-27 17:54

Liquidity fragmentation really has people feeling hopeless, as if each chain is an island. DeFi is now just a cash machine for market makers; once the hype dies down, they immediately run away. Can these cross-chain aggregation projects succeed? I'm still a bit skeptical.

View OriginalReply0

MerkleMaid

· 12-27 17:35

How many times have I said that liquidity fragmentation is the best excuse for market makers to harvest retail investors?

View OriginalReply0

SmartContractPlumber

· 12-27 17:32

Liquidity fragmentation is like a permission control vulnerability in a contract—appears to be a minor issue, but in reality, the entire system's trust mechanism collapses. Cross-chain integration sounds easy to talk about, but who bears the risk of the bridge contract when it comes to real implementation?

View OriginalReply0