Same Protocol, Different Supply APY for diff chains – why?

Prob this has an obvious answer but….

Why are there different supply APYs for same protocol deployed on different chains?

Is the short answer that even though it’s the same protocol these are all different liquidity pools each with its own AMM, so there is no reason for them to have the same APY, other than you would expect market forces inc arbitrage to keep them close (minus chain differences in fees and liquidity depth).

A related question, if one of the chains is a layer 2 rollup, why isnt liquidity deposited into that pool being dumped into the main L1 pool, which would then make the APY the same (because its same pool)? Maybe I am misunderstanding the way rollups work, but I thought they batched many L2 txns into 1 L1 txn, so that L1 fees are essentially shared…

Thanks for thoughts.

View Source

2 thoughts on “Same Protocol, Different Supply APY for diff chains – why?”

  1. Yes, different pool for each chain.

    For my non-technical brain, I just treat all of the L2’s as their own chain independent of ethereum aside from the fact that they use the same gas and generally are easy to bridge to. From what I understand they are their own ledger altogether and they get the benefit of rolling up all of their transactions into a single batch of data that gets settled on the L1.

    The L2 is the strip mall you shop in, and then at the end of the day, they send their invoice to corporate L1 for settlement. Each store in the mall is independently owned and operated and can come up with its apy/incentives based on its customers and liquidity.

    USDT supply/demand on AAVE on arbitrum is different than that on Optimism so they have different rates to satisfy the demand on that chain. As of now, I’m not aware of any protocols that talk cross chain that aren’t bridges – but I’m also new


Leave a Comment