.png){kind=logo}
Ethereum remains the dominant environment for decentralized finance, hosting over half of all active DeFi protocols. Platforms like Uniswap, Aave, and Lido define the space but continue to face practical limits. Average transaction fees in 2025 fluctuate between $3 and $6 depending on network congestion, while throughput remains near 15 transactions per second (TPS). Even Layer-2 rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism reduce but do not eliminate gas variability.
These structural limits affect accessibility and liquidity efficiency. A typical Uniswap swap costs more in gas than it yields in arbitrage for smaller traders, and liquid staking providers like Lido rely on custodial infrastructure that separates users from their collateral. For projects entering the space now, Ethereum’s ecosystem still delivers scale but at the expense of affordability and transparent verification.
XRP Tundra approaches infrastructure from a different angle. Rather than using Ethereum’s EVM, it operates across the XRP Ledger (XRPL) and Solana, two networks designed for low-cost, high-speed transactions. Solana averages more than 2,000 TPS, while XRPL consistently clears 1,500 TPS with finality under five seconds. Transaction fees remain below $0.001, a difference of several thousand percent compared to Ethereum.
This performance gap changes how decentralized applications scale. Tundra uses XRPL for governance and final settlement — a layer built for reliability — and Solana for operational execution. Together, the two layers provide capacity without compromising verification.
During the ongoing Phase 9 presale, TUNDRA-S is priced at $0.147 with an 11% bonus, while TUNDRA-X, the XRPL governance token, holds a reference value of $0.0735. With over $2.2 million raised, Tundra’s growth demonstrates how newer architectures can match Ethereum’s reach without inheriting its cost structure.
A technical review from Token Empire details how this dual-chain configuration distributes tasks logically — settlement on XRPL, execution on Solana — instead of stacking multiple rollups onto a congested base chain.
Liquidity design marks one of the clearest distinctions between Ethereum protocols and XRP Tundra. Uniswap V3, Ethereum’s dominant automated market maker, introduced concentrated liquidity but still relies on static fee tiers — typically 0.05%, 0.3%, or 1% — that do not adapt to market volatility. In contrast, Meteora’s DAMM V2, implemented by Tundra on Solana, uses dynamic fees that start high to deter bots and gradually normalize. Early trades can incur 50% fees that decline to 0.25%, neutralizing front-running and manipulation.
Each DAMM V2 position is represented by an NFT, giving liquidity providers ownership transparency and the option to permanently lock liquidity — an anti-rug mechanism largely absent from EVM systems. This creates sustainable depth rather than speculative volume.
Staking follows a similar divergence. Lido, Ethereum’s largest staking platform, currently holds over 70% of liquid ETH staking and requires third-party custody for pooled assets. XRP Tundra’s Cryo Vaults instead run as self-custodial, time-locked smart contracts directly on the Ledger. Participants select lock periods — 7, 30, 60, or 90 days — and receive yield from network activity once the term ends. The user maintains asset control throughout, with transactions visible on-chain.
The result is a verifiable staking model that avoids custodial exposure while maintaining flexibility — a structural advantage over Ethereum’s validator lock-ins or centralized liquid staking wrappers.
A core issue across Ethereum DeFi is uneven verification. Many contracts are unaudited or only partially verified; security assessments often remain private. XRP Tundra took the opposite route, completing three independent audits through Cyberscope, Solidproof, and FreshCoins. Each review covers token logic, Cryo Vaults, and liquidity functions, with results publicly available.
The team also underwent full KYC verification with Vital Block, confirming development accountability — a compliance measure still rare among Ethereum-native presales. Together, these steps position Tundra closer to institutional requirements for verifiable DeFi architecture.
In contrast, the majority of EVM projects still rely on closed-source audits or selective publication, leaving retail participants to trust brand reputation rather than on-chain evidence. Tundra’s fully published audit chain narrows that information gap.
Ethereum continues to be the most significant source of liquidity for DeFi, however, it has become saturated. Fees and validator centralization, along with regulatory uncertainty, remain barriers to growth. XRP Tundra’s dual-chain network is showcasing an alternative approach in DeFi to provide a compliant multi-chain experience while avoiding custodial risks through the utilization of fast settlement infrastructure, coupled with dynamic liquidity engineering.
Further supporting this model is the soon-to-be-released GlacierChain extension that will proactively introduce a Layer-2 execution layer, able to perform the off-chain DeFi work while confirming settlement again on XRPL. The model will still mirror the cross-chain arrangement which has already been evidenced out to Solana and XRPL in parallel, while establishing an institutional-grade DeFi product built on audited infrastructure.
For traders and developers that are comparatively considering using the same services across the platforms, the distinction seems structural in nature. Ethereum has retained the volume for trading services, however, Tundra provides demonstrable efficiency in terms of lower cost, faster settlement, and public verification.
Buy Tundra Now: official XRP Tundra website
How To Buy Tundra: step-by-step guide
Security and Trust: FreshCoins audit
Join The Community: X (Twitter)
Join our WhatsApp Channel to get the latest news, exclusives and videos on WhatsApp
_____________
Disclaimer: Analytics Insight does not provide financial advice or guidance on cryptocurrencies and stocks. Also note that the cryptocurrencies mentioned/listed on the website could potentially be scams, i.e. designed to induce you to invest financial resources that may be lost forever and not be recoverable once investments are made. This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice. You are responsible for conducting your own research (DYOR) before making any investments. Read more about the financial risks involved here.
