The decentralized finance (DeFi) landscape on Blast has quickly become one of the most vibrant sectors in the Ethereum Layer 2 ecosystem. Central to this growth is the competition between its two leading decentralized exchanges: Fenix Finance and Thruster. While both protocols aim to provide deep liquidity and efficient trading, they approach these goals with fundamentally different architectures and incentive models. For users navigating this space in 2026, understanding the nuances between fenix finance and its counterparts is essential for maximizing yield and minimizing slippage. This guide explores how these platforms leverage Blast’s native yield to create a new paradigm for on-chain trading.

At its core, the platform is designed as a "MetaDEX," a sophisticated hub that integrates multiple liquidity models into a single, unified interface. Built on the modular Algebra Integral framework, fenix finance allows for highly customizable liquidity pools that can adapt to the specific needs of different asset classes. This modularity is a significant departure from the more rigid structures seen in early DeFi protocols and aligns with the technical expertise standards championed by https://ethereum.org for scalable, efficient decentralized applications.

The technical pillars of the platform include:

• Algebra Integral Core: A modular architecture that uses "plugins" to allow for dynamic fees and specialized pool curves without rewriting the entire protocol.

• Concentrated Liquidity (CL): Enabling liquidity providers to focus their capital within specific price ranges, drastically increasing capital efficiency.

• Orbs Liquidity Hub: An intent-based aggregation layer that sources the best prices from multiple on-chain and off-chain sources.

• Unified MetaDEX UX: A single dashboard that simplifies complex tasks like vote delegation, reward compounding, and liquidity management.

The most striking difference between the two protocols lies in their tokenomics. While Thruster follows a more traditional Automated Market Maker (AMM) approach—focused on speed, simplicity, and integration with Blast Gold—the other platform utilizes the ve(3,3) model. This "Vote Escrow" system is designed to solve the "mercenary capital" problem that plagues many DEXs. By locking tokens, users gain the power to direct protocol emissions, creating a "flywheel" effect where the most productive pools receive the highest rewards.

The benefits of the ve(3,3) model used by fenix finance include:

• Alignment of Interests: Token holders, traders, and LPs are all incentivized to support the most high-volume, fee-generating pools.

• Real Yield Generation: Unlike inflationary models, rewards are backed by actual protocol revenue and external bribes.

• Bribe Market Efficiency: External protocols can "bribe" voters to attract liquidity to their tokens, often achieving a high return on their incentive spend.

• Locked-In Loyalty: The use of veNFTs (Vote Escrowed NFTs) allows users to maintain a long-term stake in the protocol while keeping their capital liquid through secondary markets.

Both exchanges are deeply integrated with the Blast network, the only Ethereum L2 that offers native yield on ETH and stablecoins. This underlying infrastructure ensures that assets sitting in liquidity pools are never idle. Reports from major financial outlets like https://www.forbes.com have noted that this "native yield" is a game-changer for attracting institutional-grade capital to Layer 2 networks. However, the way each DEX handles these rewards differs slightly.

How the protocols utilize Blast’s unique features:

• Auto-Rebasing Liquidity: Pools on both platforms benefit from the 4-5% native yield on ETH and USDB provided by the network.

• Gas Revenue Capture: Both protocols collect gas rebates from Blast, but the MetaDEX model often redistributes these to the community via its governance engine.

• Blast Gold and Points: Thruster has leaned heavily into the "Points" narrative, while its competitor integrates these rewards into its broader ve(3,3) incentive structure.

• Developer Incentives: Both platforms compete for Blast’s developer grants to fund continuous audits and technical upgrades.

Concentrated liquidity is the "secret sauce" for high-volume traders. By allowing LPs to provide depth only where the market is actually trading, the platform can offer lower slippage than a traditional "X * Y = K" pool. This efficiency is critical for the Blast ecosystem, which features many closely-pegged assets like LSTs (Liquid Staking Tokens) and stablecoins.

Trust and authority (the "A" in EEAT) are built through transparent governance. In this regard, the ve(3,3) model provides a clear advantage for community members who want a say in the protocol's future. On the MetaDEX, the "ShibArmy" equivalent—the FNX lockers—decide exactly where the protocol’s resources should go each week.

Key governance features for participants:

• Weekly Epoch Voting: Every week, veFNX holders vote on which pools should receive the next round of FNX emissions.

• 100% Revenue Distribution: All trading fees and bribes from a specific pool are distributed directly to the users who voted for it.

• Vote Delegation: Users who don't want to manage their positions manually can delegate their votes to "managed veNFTs" (mVeNFTs).

• DAO-Led Evolution: Major protocol upgrades and partnership integrations are decided by the community through on-chain proposals.

Choosing between these two protocols depends largely on your goals as a user. If you are looking for a simple, fast trading experience with a focus on collecting Blast Points, the traditional AMM model is a strong choice. However, if you are a long-term liquidity provider or a protocol looking to build deep, sustainable liquidity, the advanced MetaDEX model is superior.

By combining the best of UniV3 (concentrated liquidity), Solidly (ve(3,3)), and Orbs (intent-based aggregation), fenix finance has built a "liquidity engine" that is purpose-built for the high-yield environment of Blast. It is not just a place to swap tokens; it is a marketplace for liquidity where the community holds the keys to the kingdom.

As the Blast network continues to mature throughout 2026, the battle for DEX dominance will only intensify. But for those who value capital efficiency, sustainable rewards, and community governance, the path forward is clear. The era of mercenary capital is ending, and the era of the MetaDEX has begun.

The decentralized finance (DeFi) landscape on Blast has quickly become one of the most vibrant sectors in the Ethereum Layer 2 ecosystem. Central to this growth is the competition between its two leading decentralized exchanges: Fenix Finance and Thruster. While both protocols aim to provide deep liquidity and efficient trading, they approach these goals with fundamentally different architectures and incentive models. For users navigating this space in 2026, understanding the nuances between fenix finance and its counterparts is essential for maximizing yield and minimizing slippage. This guide explores how these platforms leverage Blast’s native yield to create a new paradigm for on-chain trading.

At its core, the platform is designed as a "MetaDEX," a sophisticated hub that integrates multiple liquidity models into a single, unified interface. Built on the modular Algebra Integral framework, fenix finance allows for highly customizable liquidity pools that can adapt to the specific needs of different asset classes. This modularity is a significant departure from the more rigid structures seen in early DeFi protocols and aligns with the technical expertise standards championed by https://ethereum.org for scalable, efficient decentralized applications.

The technical pillars of the platform include:

• Algebra Integral Core: A modular architecture that uses "plugins" to allow for dynamic fees and specialized pool curves without rewriting the entire protocol.

• Concentrated Liquidity (CL): Enabling liquidity providers to focus their capital within specific price ranges, drastically increasing capital efficiency.

• Orbs Liquidity Hub: An intent-based aggregation layer that sources the best prices from multiple on-chain and off-chain sources.

• Unified MetaDEX UX: A single dashboard that simplifies complex tasks like vote delegation, reward compounding, and liquidity management.

The most striking difference between the two protocols lies in their tokenomics. While Thruster follows a more traditional Automated Market Maker (AMM) approach—focused on speed, simplicity, and integration with Blast Gold—the other platform utilizes the ve(3,3) model. This "Vote Escrow" system is designed to solve the "mercenary capital" problem that plagues many DEXs. By locking tokens, users gain the power to direct protocol emissions, creating a "flywheel" effect where the most productive pools receive the highest rewards.

The benefits of the ve(3,3) model used by fenix finance include:

• Alignment of Interests: Token holders, traders, and LPs are all incentivized to support the most high-volume, fee-generating pools.

• Real Yield Generation: Unlike inflationary models, rewards are backed by actual protocol revenue and external bribes.

• Bribe Market Efficiency: External protocols can "bribe" voters to attract liquidity to their tokens, often achieving a high return on their incentive spend.

• Locked-In Loyalty: The use of veNFTs (Vote Escrowed NFTs) allows users to maintain a long-term stake in the protocol while keeping their capital liquid through secondary markets.

Both exchanges are deeply integrated with the Blast network, the only Ethereum L2 that offers native yield on ETH and stablecoins. This underlying infrastructure ensures that assets sitting in liquidity pools are never idle. Reports from major financial outlets like https://www.forbes.com have noted that this "native yield" is a game-changer for attracting institutional-grade capital to Layer 2 networks. However, the way each DEX handles these rewards differs slightly.

How the protocols utilize Blast’s unique features:

• Auto-Rebasing Liquidity: Pools on both platforms benefit from the 4-5% native yield on ETH and USDB provided by the network.

• Gas Revenue Capture: Both protocols collect gas rebates from Blast, but the MetaDEX model often redistributes these to the community via its governance engine.

• Blast Gold and Points: Thruster has leaned heavily into the "Points" narrative, while its competitor integrates these rewards into its broader ve(3,3) incentive structure.

• Developer Incentives: Both platforms compete for Blast’s developer grants to fund continuous audits and technical upgrades.

Concentrated liquidity is the "secret sauce" for high-volume traders. By allowing LPs to provide depth only where the market is actually trading, the platform can offer lower slippage than a traditional "X * Y = K" pool. This efficiency is critical for the Blast ecosystem, which features many closely-pegged assets like LSTs (Liquid Staking Tokens) and stablecoins.

Trust and authority (the "A" in EEAT) are built through transparent governance. In this regard, the ve(3,3) model provides a clear advantage for community members who want a say in the protocol's future. On the MetaDEX, the "ShibArmy" equivalent—the FNX lockers—decide exactly where the protocol’s resources should go each week.

Key governance features for participants:

• Weekly Epoch Voting: Every week, veFNX holders vote on which pools should receive the next round of FNX emissions.

• 100% Revenue Distribution: All trading fees and bribes from a specific pool are distributed directly to the users who voted for it.

• Vote Delegation: Users who don't want to manage their positions manually can delegate their votes to "managed veNFTs" (mVeNFTs).

• DAO-Led Evolution: Major protocol upgrades and partnership integrations are decided by the community through on-chain proposals.

Choosing between these two protocols depends largely on your goals as a user. If you are looking for a simple, fast trading experience with a focus on collecting Blast Points, the traditional AMM model is a strong choice. However, if you are a long-term liquidity provider or a protocol looking to build deep, sustainable liquidity, the advanced MetaDEX model is superior.

By combining the best of UniV3 (concentrated liquidity), Solidly (ve(3,3)), and Orbs (intent-based aggregation), fenix finance has built a "liquidity engine" that is purpose-built for the high-yield environment of Blast. It is not just a place to swap tokens; it is a marketplace for liquidity where the community holds the keys to the kingdom.

As the Blast network continues to mature throughout 2026, the battle for DEX dominance will only intensify. But for those who value capital efficiency, sustainable rewards, and community governance, the path forward is clear. The era of mercenary capital is ending, and the era of the MetaDEX has begun.