Chainfeeds Guide:
In 2022, Appchain might have been a relatively marginal technical option. Entering 2025, with the emergence of more Appchains, especially Unichain and HyperEVM, the competitive landscape is quietly changing, and a trend around Appchains is forming.
Article Source:
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YZzSxI4XqQlrU2d7k4Or7A
Article Author:
IOSG Ventures
Perspective:
IOSG Ventures: The concept of Unichain was first proposed by Nascent founder Dan Elitzer in 2022, believing that based on Uniswap's scale, brand, liquidity structure, and performance and value capture needs, launching an independent chain is an inevitable trend. In February 2025, Unichain was officially launched, with over 100 applications and infrastructure providers already settled, TVL of around $1 billion, ranking in the top five of L2, and will launch Flashblocks with 200ms block time and verification network in the future. Similarly, Hyperliquid in the perp domain required an Appchain and deep customization from the beginning, launching HyperEVM in addition to its core perpetual contract product, protected by the HyperBFT consensus mechanism. The HyperEVM ecosystem currently has a TVL of over $2 billion, with ecosystem projects rapidly emerging. Unichain and HyperEVM demonstrate the differentiation of the L1/L2 competitive landscape: their combined TVL exceeds $3 billion, assets that would have originally been deposited on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and other general-purpose L1/L2. In the past, applications and platforms were symbiotic, but now they are establishing their own territories, directly competing with L1/L2 for users, liquidity, and developers, inviting projects to build on their chains, significantly changing the competitive situation. The expansion path of Unichain and HyperEVM differs from traditional L1/L2 - they follow a product-first model: first having a core product verified by the market with a massive user base and brand recognition, then building an ecosystem and network effects around it. This model is more efficient and sustainable, not requiring high-cost incentives to purchase the ecosystem, but attracting developers through the network effects and real needs of the product. For example, developers choose HyperEVM because the platform has high-frequency trading users and clear application scenarios, rather than relying on uncertain subsidies. Three major changes driving this trend include: mature technology stack and third-party services (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, AltLayer, and other RaaS make Appchain deployment as simple as using cloud services), brand and user mindset shifting towards the application layer (users are loyal to application experiences like Uniswap rather than underlying chains, with cross-chain experience becoming almost imperceptible through wallet and UX optimization), and applications' pursuit of economic sovereignty (controlling gas income, internalizing MEV, customizing fee structures, etc.). These factors combined have transformed the relationship between top applications and underlying chains from dependence to competition. Data shows that in Uniswap's total value creation of $6.4 billion, protocols/developers, shareholders, and token holders receive less than 1%, while Uniswap itself contributed $2.7 billion in gas revenue to Ethereum (about 20% of its settlement fees). If applications run on their own chains, this value can be fully internalized. Token Terminal data shows that protocol and application revenue share has shifted from protocol-dominated in 2020 to application revenue accounting for 80% in 2025, to some extent overturning the "fat protocol, thin application" theory and signaling a shift towards the fat application paradigm. In the future, the market cap of top applications may exceed most L1s, with L1 valuation logic becoming more similar to stable cash flow infrastructure service providers rather than primary ecosystem value capturers. Under advantages in branding, user mindset, and customization, Appchains can sediment long-term user value and capture infrastructure revenue, becoming a dual existence as both product and platform. However, this model is still in its early stages and not suitable for all protocols - highly composability-dependent lending projects may not be compatible, while perp with less external dependency is more suitable, and mid-tier applications need specific assessment for Appchain selection.
Content Source
