As L2 TVL is rapidly increasing, zkSync has become a top competitor in this field, and the future of Dex landscape will likely be the same as other L1&L2, with only one top native Dex. Mint Ventures research partner Alex Xu compares and analyzes the top Dex Syncswap and iZiswap, covering their mechanism design, business metrics, economic models, and team situations.
Syncswap: 1) Mechanism design – there is not much innovation in the product mechanism, as it uses the commonly used multi-pool mechanism of ve(3,3) type projects. Currently, it mainly consists of the Classic Pool based on Uniswap v2 (suitable for trading pairs with large exchange rate fluctuations) and the Stable Pool based on Curve (suitable for trading pairs with stable exchange rates). 2) Transaction fees – Syncswap refers to its fee mechanism as “Dynamic Fees”, but it is not actually related to “dynamic”. A more accurate term would be “customizable fees”. 3) Business performance – the pool with the highest trading volume has a daily trading volume of about $10 million, while as of June 5th, the number of independent addresses on zkSync was 922,000 and the total liquidity was $67.61 million. 4) No coins have been released yet.
iZiswap: 1) Mechanism design – the main innovation lies in the introduction and implementation of DL-AMM. DL stands for Discretized Concentrated Liquidity, and DL-AMM does not use the constant product formula. Instead, it places liquidity at discrete price points, with each price point following a constant sum formula L = X* √P + Y/√P. It also designed the liquidity incentive service LiquidBox based on concentrated liquidity. 2) Business performance – iZiswap’s ETH-USDC trading volume is more extreme, with the trading volume of the two pools accounting for 85.8% of the daily total trading volume, followed by stablecoins and its own token IZI. The active addresses are around 35-40% of Syncswap’s. The current liquidity displayed on the official dashboard is $44.78 million, while Defillama’s data shows it as $25.95 million.
- In-depth analysis of the differences between Eigenlayer and Cosmos ICS and their impact on ETH security
- Overview of Binance Labs investment strategy: DeFi and infrastructure lead the way
- Character: Korean professor who tracked Do Kwon’s funds predicted Terra’s collapse in 2019
3) Protocol revenue: Compared to the daily protocol revenue of Syncswap, which is $11,631.4, iZiswap’s daily protocol revenue is $6,312.5. However, according to the token design, 50% of this revenue will be used to repurchase iUSD and as market funds, which means only 25% of the fees will be allocated to IZI token holders.
Conclusion: In the competition among zkSync’s top DEXs, Syncswap is mediocre in terms of product mechanism and lacks memorable native innovation, while iZiswap has more rich native exploration. However, it remains to be seen whether this can translate into user and fund growth. In terms of specific business data, Syncswap currently occupies a significant leading position in both TVL and trading volume, and its token has not yet been distributed. The project’s expected airdrop has a strong appeal to users’ funds and trading behavior, enjoying lower operating costs (while iZiswap still has daily token incentive expenses). However, both sides currently face the problem that zkSync, as a young project, has insufficient native projects with vitality, and most of the liquidity and trading volume of the two DEXs are related to ETH.