Lorenzo's official website proudly lists a long string of supported blockchains — Mantle, Taiko, Manta, BNB Chain, BEVM, Mode, Corn, Hemi, Botanix, Arbitrum, Aptos, Swell, Sui, Ethereum, Berachain, Bitlayer, B², Scroll, Movement Labs, X Layer, Merlin, counting more than 20 in total.
This list looks impressive, giving the impression of Lorenzo being "everywhere." But if you really check the data on these chains, you will discover a harsh reality: Lorenzo's $600 million TVL is almost entirely concentrated on 3 chains, while the remaining 17 chains together might not even reach $10 million.
This is not just my opinion; the data is there. The 509 million enzoBTC TVL is mainly in the Bitcoin mainnet (as a pegged asset), the $10.18 million stBTC is on Ethereum, and the remaining USD1+ and other assets are scattered across a few chains like BNB Chain. How many real users and TVL does Lorenzo have on those Berachain, Movement Labs, and X Layer? The answer may be disappointing.
The truth about multi-chain deployment: Most are 'zombie integrations'.
First, let's clarify one thing — 'supporting a certain chain' and 'having a real business on a certain chain' are two different things.
Many projects enjoy playing this game: spending a few days deploying token contracts on new chains, then adding a logo on their official website to promote, 'We support XX chain now.' But in reality, there may not be a single user on that chain, no transactions, and zero liquidity. I call this deployment 'zombie integration' — it looks alive, but it has been dead for a long time.
Lorenzo is likely playing this game as well. I looked closely at its actual performance on various chains and found the situation is indeed not optimistic:
On Ethereum, Lorenzo has only deployed stBTC, with a TVL of $10.18 million. Considering the total scale of Ethereum DeFi is several hundred billion dollars, Lorenzo occupies less than one-thousandth of that share. More critically, stBTC is now basically abandoned by Lorenzo (with only 0.6 in circulation), so the business on Ethereum is also in a 'half-dead' state.
On BNB Chain, Lorenzo has deployed USD1+ and BANK tokens. From the distribution of holding addresses, Binance's hot wallet accounts for 53.83% of BANK, the PancakeSwap V3 pool accounts for 2.34%, and the rest is scattered across various addresses. The TVL of USD1+ is estimated to be around $80 million (calculated from the total TVL minus enzoBTC and stBTC), indicating that Lorenzo has some actual business on BNB Chain.
On Sui, Lorenzo claims to be the 'first fully MoveVM-integrated Bitcoin liquidity layer' and has received $2 million in liquidity support from NAVI Protocol. But how much actual TVL is there? According to the Wormhole bridging data, only 1,000 enzoBTC were transferred to Sui, which, at the current BTC price, amounts to about $95 million. This number is not significant compared to the several hundred million dollars of DeFi TVL on Sui, let alone compared to Lorenzo's total TVL of 500 million enzoBTC.
As for the other chains — Berachain, Bitlayer, Movement Labs, X Layer — I couldn't find any effective TVL data for Lorenzo on chain browsers and DeFi data platforms. What does this indicate? It suggests that Lorenzo may have only deployed contracts on these chains but has no real users, no liquidity, and no transaction volume — it's purely an 'empty shell'.
Why is Lorenzo doing so many 'zombie integrations'?
Some may ask: since most chains have no business, why does Lorenzo still bother to deploy? The answer is simple — marketing demands it.
In the crypto space, 'how many chains you support' is a useful marketing metric. Investors see '20+ chains' and feel that this project has a wide ecosystem, strong technology, and expansion potential. Media reports also love to use such figures — 'Lorenzo becomes the first Bitcoin liquidity protocol to support 20+ chains', sounds impressive.
In reality, the cost of deploying to new chains is not high. If it’s an EVM-compatible chain (like BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Optimism), it only requires modifying parameters of the Ethereum contracts and deploying them via cross-chain bridges like LayerZero or Wormhole, which can be done in a few days. If it’s a non-EVM chain (like Sui or Aptos), it may require rewriting contracts, but Lorenzo has a technical team that can complete it in a few weeks.
In contrast, establishing a real business on a new chain is much more difficult — you have to persuade users to bridge their assets over, negotiate partnerships with local DeFi protocols, provide liquidity incentives, and conduct market education. All these require time, funding, and manpower; it’s not something that can be solved by simply deploying a contract.
So Lorenzo's strategy is very clear: first spread a wide net, deploying contracts on as many chains as possible to secure positions, and when any chain takes off in the future, then concentrate resources to deepen involvement. This 'placeholder strategy' is common in the crypto space, but the question is — can you really hold that position?
Only 3 chains have real potential.
From Lorenzo's current business data, there are only 3 chains that have a real opportunity for significant growth:
The first chain is the Bitcoin mainnet. The 509 million enzoBTC TVL is mainly reflected in the BTC pegging on the Bitcoin chain. Although this part of TVL does not come from 'on-chain activity' (it is merely a record of users pledging BTC to exchange for enzoBTC), it forms the foundation of Lorenzo's entire business. Without this $500 million BTC pegging, Lorenzo's other products would not function.
The second chain is BNB Chain. This is one of Lorenzo's 'main battlefields', where the BANK token is traded, USD1+ operates, and BNB Chain has a large user base and a mature DeFi ecosystem. If Lorenzo can develop USD1+ on BNB Chain and attract more stablecoin users, this line has potential.
The third chain is Sui. Although Sui's current TVL is not large, it is one of the hottest new public chains for 2025, with significant security and performance advantages of the Move language, and the ecosystem is still in its early explosive phase. As the 'first fully MoveVM-integrated Bitcoin liquidity layer', Lorenzo has a first-mover advantage. If the Sui ecosystem truly takes off in 2026, Lorenzo's layout on Sui may yield substantial returns.
As for the other chains? To be honest, I am not optimistic. Mature L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism have too much competition, and Lorenzo can't capture much market share by entering. New chains like Berachain and Movement Labs have unclear prospects, and the cost-effectiveness of Lorenzo investing resources in them is very low.
The true cost of a multi-chain strategy: Can Lorenzo afford it?
Lorenzo's deployment across 20+ chains may seem impressive at first glance, but the underlying costs and risks are rarely considered by the outside world.
First is the cost of technical maintenance. Each chain requires continuous maintenance — contract upgrades, security monitoring, cross-chain bridge management, and user support. How large is Lorenzo's development team? From public information, the core team may only have about ten people. Is it realistic for such a small team to maintain the business across 20+ chains?
Next is security risks. The more chains there are, the larger the attack surface. Any vulnerability in a contract on any chain or any cross-chain bridge being attacked could harm Lorenzo's overall business. The Ronin bridge was hacked for $600 million, Poly Network for $610 million, Wormhole for $320 million — these cases are vivid reminders. Lorenzo is currently using top cross-chain solutions like Chainlink, LayerZero, and Wormhole, but that doesn’t guarantee absolute security.
Moreover, there's the risk of liquidity dispersion. Lorenzo's total TVL is only $600 million; if spread across more than 20 chains, each chain averages only about $20 million. This level of liquidity is insufficient in DeFi — when users want to trade enzoBTC, they find huge slippage; when they want to use enzoBTC for collateral lending, they find no protocols accept it. The liquidity is too dispersed, which in turn lowers user experience.
Lastly, there’s the opportunity cost. By spreading resources across more than 20 chains, Lorenzo means it cannot go deep on any single chain. If Lorenzo concentrated all its resources on 2-3 core chains, deeply cultivating the ecosystem and establishing a moat, it might yield better results. The current approach of 'doing everything but not excelling at anything' is easily outperformed by competitors focused on single chains.
Should Lorenzo retract its frontlines?
At this point, some may ask: should Lorenzo abandon those 'zombie chains' and concentrate resources on core business?
My answer is: not necessarily.
In the short term, Lorenzo should indeed invest 80% of its resources into the 3 core chains — Bitcoin mainnet (based on enzoBTC), BNB Chain (USD1+ operation), and Sui (strategic positioning). Deepen and thoroughly develop these 3 chains to establish a true competitive advantage, which is much more effective than spreading a wide net.
However, in the long run, Lorenzo's retention of 'placeholder contracts' on other chains is not a bad thing. The crypto space changes too quickly; today's 'zombie chains' might take off tomorrow. Lorenzo deploying contracts on these chains incurs relatively low costs (mainly initial development costs, with low maintenance costs later), but once a chain suddenly explodes, Lorenzo can immediately reap the benefits.
The real question isn't 'Should we support 20+ chains?', but 'How to balance breadth and depth?'. Lorenzo's current strategy is too focused on breadth — desperately expanding the number of chains, but doing shallow business on each chain. It should adjust its strategy to a model of 'deep cultivation on 3 core chains + placeholder positions on 17 potential chains'.
On the 3 core chains of Bitcoin, BNB Chain, and Sui, Lorenzo should invest the vast majority of its resources — deep collaboration with leading DeFi protocols, providing liquidity incentives, user education, and optimizing product experience. The goal is to raise the TVL on these 3 chains to the billion-dollar level and establish a moat that others cannot shake.
On the other 17 chains, Lorenzo only needs to maintain a 'minimum presence' — contract deployment, cross-chain bridge connections, and basic functionality available, but without investing large resources. When any chain takes off, they can quickly follow up. This kind of 'strategic positioning' has low costs but maintains strategic flexibility.
Multi-chain is not the goal; users are.
Lorenzo's deployment across 20+ chains is essentially a 'digital game'. It can provide investors and the media with a good story, but it doesn’t directly translate into users and TVL.
There's an old saying in the crypto space: 'Distribution is king'. It doesn't matter how many chains you support; what matters is how many real users, actual transactions, and liquidity depth you have on those chains. If Lorenzo merely deploys contracts on 20 chains but no one uses them, then it’s better to focus on doing well on 2-3 chains.
From the data, it can be seen that Lorenzo's business is currently highly concentrated — the 500 million enzoBTC TVL is in the Bitcoin mainnet, 80 million USD1+ is in BNB Chain, and the layout on Sui has just begun. The other chains are basically in a 'placeholder' state, with no substantial business.
This is not Lorenzo's fault; it reflects the current state of the entire crypto industry — everyone is playing the multi-chain narrative, but very few projects can thrive across multiple chains. At least Lorenzo is honestly concentrating resources on a few chains, rather than spreading them thinly everywhere.
In the next 6-12 months, Lorenzo will face a critical choice: continue to expand the number of chains (potentially exceeding 30 or 40), or retract its frontlines and deeply cultivate the core market? This choice will determine Lorenzo's future — whether it becomes 'ubiquitous but insignificant', or 'the absolute dominator on a few chains'.
My personal suggestion is: Lorenzo should learn 'strategic focus'. Don’t be misled by the vanity metric of '20+ chains'; what really matters is establishing a moat in the core battlefield. If Lorenzo can become 'indispensable' on the 3 chains of Bitcoin, BNB Chain, and Sui, then its deployment across 20+ chains would be meaningful — because users will proactively demand Lorenzo expand to more chains. But if Lorenzo can't even go deep on the core chains, supporting 100 chains won't matter.
Multi-chain is a means, not an end. Users are the end goal. Lorenzo needs to understand this principle. @Lorenzo Protocol $BANK
