2026-01-18 09:29:29

Looking at the on-chain data of this privacy coin project, it's somewhat interesting. The total locked value (TVL) across the entire chain DEX is only $277,000, with a daily trading volume of $1.15 million spread across 13,000 transactions — in other words, each transaction is tiny. Compared to mainstream public chain projects, this liquidity level is definitely on the edge — large traders would definitely face slippage when entering or exiting positions.

Where's the problem? Multi-chain deployment. The project has set up liquidity pools on Ethereum, BNB Chain, and its own L1, resulting in highly fragmented funds, making it impossible to build deep liquidity. The team plans to burn ERC20 and BEP20 tokens via burner contracts to swap for native chain tokens — sounds logical, but in practice, user experience is terrible — ordinary users simply can't understand why they need to burn tokens.

By comparing with industry standards, the gap becomes clear. Solana consolidates liquidity directly on its main chain, capable of matching over ten CEXs and more than 60 trading pairs, with depth far beyond this project. Similarly, Secret Network, which also focuses on privacy, connects the entire Cosmos ecosystem's liquidity through IBC cross-chain bridges — a completely different approach. In its current fragmented state, this project will struggle to attract market makers and institutional funds.

Recently, PieSwap launched its native chain and introduced the $PIE token for fee sharing — a kind of experiment. But the problem is that platform trading volume isn't growing, the dividend pool has no juice, and relying on dividends to attract long-term stakers is simply unrealistic. If DuskEVM could integrate Chainlink CCIP for cross-chain bridging, it might help, but in the short term, low liquidity remains the biggest weakness.

Here's another data point — a $60 million market cap with less than $500,000 in TVL. What does this ratio indicate? Either on-chain applications haven't taken off at all, or the tokens are just sleeping in exchanges and wallets. Regardless of which, ecosystem activity is a major issue.

ETH0,34%

BNB0,3%

SOL-1,34%

ATOM-3,05%

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.

11 Likes

Reward
11
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

UnluckyMiner

· 5h ago

Liquidity is so dispersed, no wonder no one dares to move. Multi-chain deployment has messed things up. --- With a market cap of 60 million and TVL only 500,000, the gap is quite despairing. --- The burner contract is really a mystery to beginners; who understands it? --- Far from matching Solana, they are not even in the same dimension of competition. --- No profit in the dividend pool and still want to attract stakers? Dream on. --- Such small transaction amounts, a big player could easily dump with one move. --- Funds are fragmented like this; trying to attract institutions? Don't make me laugh. --- If it weren’t for the data, you really wouldn’t see how serious the problem is. --- Secret Network’s approach is much smarter; this project is a complete cautionary tale. --- TVL is even smaller than the market cap, which means nothing is being utilized. --- Even launching new tokens on PieSwap can’t save it; the foundation is too weak. --- Multi-chain sounds high-end, but in reality, it’s just self-destructive. --- With this level of trading depth, how terrible must the slippage be?

View OriginalReply0

DegenDreamer

· 5h ago

Liquidity fragmentation is really a hard flaw; deploying across multiple chains ultimately disperses itself. The data showing funds spread across 13,000 transactions looks uncomfortable; big players simply can't enter. Compare the liquidity of Solana and Secret; the gap is not just a little bit. By the way, should such projects focus on a single main chain to survive? The ratio of TVL to market cap is really disappointing; the tokens are all sleeping on exchanges. The logic of burning tokens to exchange for other tokens is clear, but the user's understanding cost is too high. PieSwap's fee sharing idea is good, but the trading volume can't support it like this.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterLucky

· 5h ago

Fragmented liquidity is a dead end; it's high time to fully commit to one main chain. --- This is a typical case of greed; multi-chain deployment sounds impressive but is actually suicidal. --- With such poor TVL-to-market cap ratio, how can it possibly attract institutional investors? --- Solana is truly focused; they understand what it means to concentrate efforts. --- Burning tokens to exchange for the native chain? Ordinary users simply can't grasp this logic. --- Single transaction volume is only a few thousand dollars; retail investors can easily suffer slippage when selling, what kind of trading experience is this? --- PieSwap's dividend pool has no benefits; it's a joke. What can it use to attract stakers? --- Secret Network's approach is indeed smarter, connecting the entire ecosystem liquidity. --- 50 million TVL against a 600 million market cap, the data looks terrible. --- Unless it connects with Chainlink CCIP, there's no hope in the short term. --- Funds are scattered everywhere; whoever provides liquidity loses. --- This is a classic example of trying to do too much and failing to do any of it well.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationTherapist

· 6h ago

This is a typical case of "wanting to do everything but not doing anything well." With funds fragmented to this extent, how can there be any talk of liquidity? The ratio of TVL to market cap is a bit embarrassing; no wonder no one is willing to enter the market. The original intention of multi-chain deployment was good, but it ended up killing itself. The approach of aggregating liquidity on Solana is the proper way. The logic of that burner contract is really, ordinary users simply can't understand it. That's why the public is always hesitant to touch privacy coins. Still trying to attract people with $PIE dividends? Trading volume can't even pick up, and the dividend pool is just an empty shell. This path is not going to work. Maybe learn from Secret Network—connecting the ecosystem is the key. Right now, this kind of fragmentation benefits no one.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoFortuneTeller

· 6h ago

Liquidity is so dispersed, no wonder no one is willing to enter the market. It feels like self-castration. --- A market cap of 60 million with only 500,000 TVL? This comparison is quite embarrassing. No wonder institutions aren't interested. --- The original intention of multi-chain deployment is good, but it ended up making itself a fragmented king. This lesson is worth learning. --- The concept of token burning is really unfamiliar to ordinary users. Maybe a different way of explaining it would be better? --- Compared to Solana and Secret, this project is indeed a lot lower in tier. --- Don't expect to attract people with a dividend pool that has no benefits. This logic is too straightforward. --- In my opinion, there should be trading mining or other incentives. Just dividends are simply not enough. --- The ratio of TVL to market cap indicates that the ecosystem has not really taken off yet. --- Connecting to CCIP is a possible idea, but it won't save the scene in the short term.

View OriginalReply0