Polkadot in the right place in the DeFi value chain – from speculation to mass adoption

The End of the Era of Generalist Blockchains: Specialization Takes Over the Market

The blockchain industry is going through a pivotal moment. After years of dominance by universal smart contract chains, we are witnessing a clear trend shifting towards specialized solutions that better meet the specific requirements of various use cases. This dynamic results from the fundamental limitation of general-purpose architectures—the ability to handle incompatible technical demands simultaneously without compromises.

We are already seeing signs of this transition. Solana has lost a significant portion of trading volume to specialized chains like Hyperliquid, which offer deterministic delays and ultra-fast block times essential for perpetual DEXs. Ethereum, as the main platform for DeFi applications, is beginning to feel competition from specialized stablecoin chains and RWA (Real World Assets) chains, which provide capabilities impossible to achieve at the application layer.

The Problem with Current DeFi Infrastructure: Why Millions of Users Remain Off-Chain

The real obstacle is not a lack of innovative products but fundamental infrastructural deficiencies. The DeFi user experience remains daunting for mainstream adoption for three reasons:

Volatility of two cost layers. Transaction fees fluctuate with network congestion, and gas-denominated tokens are subject to volatility. For applications, this means two independent variable costs—similar to a company whose “cost of sales” changes unpredictably. Modeling sustainable business economics under these conditions is nearly impossible.

Liquidity fragmentation through multichain deployment. Under market pressure, projects are forced to launch simultaneously on multiple chains—practice known as “opening stores in every market.” This strategy disperses liquidity, complicates user experience, and increases operational costs.

Native resource limitations. Resources such as processing capacity, oracle throughput, or block finalization remain equally limited for all applications, with no way to prioritize certain users or scenarios.

Anatomy of Specialization: What Different DeFi Segments Truly Need

The process of specialization reveals that various market segments require radically different infrastructural properties. This explains the growth dynamics of new categories of chains.

Stablecoin chains—a new category supported by financial institutions and DeFi projects—require: fast block finality, short block times for payment scenarios, the ability to denominate gas fees directly in stablecoins, advanced compliance logic, and optional privacy. Examples include Tempo (a joint effort by Paradigm and Stripe), Arc (from Circle), Plasma (USDT), Codex (USDC), or Stable (funded by Tether).

Perpetual DEX chains—supporting futures trading—need: ultra-fast finality, deterministic order flow, high-priority oracle channels, native MEV handling at the protocol level, the ability to place/cancel orders without fees, and on-chain order books. Projects like Hyperliquid, Lighter, Bullet, and Astar compete with these capabilities.

RWA chains—for tokenizing real assets—require advanced on/off-chain logic, compliance mechanisms, and privacy protections that are impossible to fully implement on general-purpose platforms.

This evolutionary specialization is not driven solely by technological innovation but by pragmatic adaptation to real market needs.

Strategic Choice: Independent Chain or Ecosystem Integration?

In the era of specialization, developers face a key question: should they build a fully sovereign chain or join a mature ecosystem?

The answer depends on the team profile:

Large teams with significant resources—such as Tempo, Circle, or Paradigm—can afford full autonomy. They are characterized by: their own distribution channels independent of Ethereum or Solana, the ability to attract Web2 users, no fear of technological challenges, a long time horizon for market entry, no runway pressure, and a strong desire to control the entire tech stack. These teams employ engineers specialized in consensus design and protocol architecture.

Small startups with limited resources—must build from scratch and need an existing user base for deployment. They depend on ready-made infrastructure: oracles, explorers, cross-chain bridges, identity outsourcing, and other components. They cannot afford to build their own economic security layer. Typical examples include: Codex (stablecoin chain), Katana (DeFi chain on Polygon), Bob (built on Bitcoin).

Polkadot: From Prematurity to the Perfect Moment

Polkadot has always had the tools needed to support specialized chains. Acala was one of the first stablecoin chains—it natively integrated a stablecoin at the protocol level and built a full ecosystem of services around it. Polkadot also experimented with chains dedicated to transactional scenarios.

However, in the past, Polkadot was “too early.” The available tools mainly attracted the second category—less funded experimental teams. The ecosystem lacked network effects, less mature infrastructure, missing user access channels, and a higher technological barrier compared to smart contracts.

Today, the situation has undergone a fundamental transformation. After years focused on solving the toughest problems—scaling, decentralization, interoperability—Polkadot now offers mature, stable, and proven solutions. The future lies in complementing the “soft infrastructure” layer: liquidity, direct user access points, more accessible tools. Polkadot Hub embodies this goal—providing basic capabilities that will catch up with mature ecosystems and enabling teams to quickly start and seamlessly migrate to independent parachains.

Polkadot has finally reached the ideal stage of development—with the right tools, mature infrastructure, and a clear direction to support the next generation of specialized DeFi applications.