Gnosis EURe/USDC.e vs Base EURC/USDC — Pool Comparison
Both pools are FXSwap / Twocrypto-NG variants for EUR/USD stablecoin pairs. This report compares their behaviour across mechanics, economics, and trader composition from initial deployment through their analysed periods.
A very detailed report about the USDC/EURC pool on base:
https://www.cryptonative.ch/report-of-eurc-usdc-fxswap-curve-pool-on-base/
A report about the EURe/usdc.e pool on gnosis chain:
https://www.cryptonative.ch/report-of-eure-usdc-e-fxswap-curve-pool-on-gnosis/
1. Pool Configuration
| Parameter | Gnosis (EURe/USDC.e) | Base (EURC/USDC) |
|---|---|---|
| Contract type | FXSwap / Twocrypto-NG with refuel | FXSwap / Twocrypto-NG with refuel |
mid_fee |
0.01% | 0.05% |
out_fee |
0.30% | 0.10% |
| Fee spread | 30× | 2× |
fee_gamma |
0.003 | 0.003 |
A |
1,000,000 | 1,500,000 |
gamma |
1×10⁻⁴ | 1×10⁻⁴ |
ma_time |
~1 hour | ~1 hour |
admin_fee |
50% | 50% |
The pools share the same fee-split architecture (50% rebalancing buffer / 25% DAO / 25% LP) and the same oracle half-life. The key difference is the fee curve: Gnosis uses a 30× spread (0.01%–0.30%) vs Base's 2× spread (0.05%–0.10%). Gnosis is calibrated to extract more fee income from large imbalancing trades while offering near-zero fees for near-oracle trades. This is well-suited to larger, less frequent trades.
2. Market Summary
| Metric | Gnosis (EURe/USDC.e) | Base (EURC/USDC) |
|---|---|---|
| Period analysed | Jan 22 – Apr 19, 2026 (88 days) | Nov 10, 2025 – Mar 31, 2026 (142 days) |
| Active period | 77 days (LP exited Apr 9) | 142 days (ongoing) |
| Average TVL | ~$83,449 | ~$10,127 |
| TVL ratio | 8.2× larger | — |
| Total trades (active) | 2,460 | 4,413 |
| Trades per day | 31.9 | 31.4 |
| Total volume (active) | $932,142 | $136,279 |
| Volume per day | $12,106 | $969 |
| Median trade size | $135 | $24 |
| Mean trade size | $368 | $31 |
| Direction split | 56.7% EURe→USDC.e | 52.2% EURC→USDC |
| Median slippage | +7.96 bps | +5.53 bps |
| Gross fee APY | +7.54% | +2.00% |
| LP fee APY (25%) | +1.88% | +0.50% |
| Refuel cost (donor) | ~$337 total | ~$43 total |
| Divergence loss APY | −3.20% | −1.30% |
| LP vs HODL (realised) | +$587 (+3.62% APY) | +$129 (+1.29%) at Mar 31 |
The headline difference: same trade cadence, 5.6× larger trades, 12.5× more volume per day. Both pools average ~32 trades/day, but Gnosis median trade size is $135 vs $24 on Base. This is not random noise — it reflects fundamentally different user populations (see Section 5).
3. Fee Income and LP Economics
Fee structure in action
The fee in Twocrypto-NG is determined by the pool's imbalance state at the start of each trade, not by trade size. A tiny trade on a heavily imbalanced pool pays near out_fee; a large trade on a balanced pool pays near mid_fee.
The Gnosis pool was chronically imbalanced for much of its life — the refuel donations were fully exhausted by late February, leaving the rebalancing budget depleted and price_scale unable to track the oracle. As a result, most trades started from an imbalanced state and paid near out_fee (0.30%) regardless of size. This is visible in the top-50 data: several $5K–$9K trades pay 0.010–0.040% (near mid_fee) while other large trades pay 0.29–0.30% — the determining factor is pool state, not trade size.
- Gnosis top-50 trades show a clear two-tier split: trades starting from an imbalanced pool pay 0.15–0.30% (near
out_fee); trades starting near the oracle price (rebalancing direction) pay 0.01–0.02% (nearmid_fee) - Base top-50 trades have narrower fee variation (0.05–0.10%) since the spread is only 2× and the pool stayed better-balanced
As a result, despite Gnosis's lower trade count per unit volume, gross fee APY is 3.8× higher — driven primarily by the pool's chronic imbalance, not by individual trade sizes.
Refuel subsidy burden
Both pools required LP token donations to fund their rebalancing buffers — i.e., neither was self-funding via fee income alone at these TVL/volume levels:
| Pool | Refuel donated | LP fee income | Refuel/LP ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gnosis | ~$337 | ~$306 (LP's 25% of $1,223 gross) | 110% |
| Base | ~$43 | ~$20 (LP's 25% of ~$80 gross over ~77 active days) | 215% |
The refuel burden is roughly proportional to rebalancing activity, which in turn depends on EUR/USD volatility and how far price_scale drifts from oracle. Both pools needed more refuel than the LP share earned — subsidised by the pool deployer/sponsor. Gnosis is closer to sustainability at higher TVL, but still dependent on the refuel subsidy.
LP outcome comparison
| Gnosis | Base | |
|---|---|---|
| Start TVL | $83,448 | ~$3,500 (seed) / ~$10K (post-deposit) |
| Exit / snapshot | $83,385 (Apr 9 exit) | $3,619 at Mar 31 (ongoing) |
| LP vs HODL | +$587 (+3.62% APY) | +$129 (+1.29% APY) |
| Divergence loss | −$520 (−3.20% APY) | −$90 (−1.30% APY) |
| Total gross fees | $1,223 | ~$80 (partial) |
| DAO windfall? | Yes — DAO never claimed before LP exit, LP captured extra $306 | Not applicable (pool ongoing) |
| EUR/USD move | −1.68% over active period (1.1870 → 1.1671) | Volatile (1.05–1.12 range) |
Gnosis's LP outcome is better in absolute and APY terms, though partly due to the DAO windfall. Even excluding it (+$398 vs HODL), Gnosis outperforms Base — driven primarily by much higher fee income per dollar of TVL.
4. Price Dynamics
| Gnosis | Base | |
|---|---|---|
| EUR/USD range | 1.1436 – 1.2043 | 1.05 – 1.12 (approx) |
| EUR/USD at pool start | 1.1870 | ~1.077 |
| EUR/USD trend | Rose Jan 29 (1.2043), fell to Mar trough (1.1436), recovered to exit (1.1671) | Broadly rising over analysis period |
| Divergence loss driver | EUR peaked then partially reversed | EUR gradual rise created persistent DL |
| Rebalancing frequency | ~86% of trades trigger price_scale update |
High |
| Slippage median (active) | +7.96 bps | +5.53 bps |
Higher slippage on Gnosis has two components. The price-impact component (pure AMM mechanics) is driven by trade size relative to TVL. The fee component — which dominates on Gnosis — is driven by pool imbalance state: with the pool chronically imbalanced (refuel exhausted by late February), most trades paid near out_fee (0.30%), which directly appears as positive slippage. On Base, the pool stayed better-balanced and most trades paid near mid_fee (0.05%). The 30× fee spread on Gnosis vs 2× on Base amplifies this effect: when the pool is imbalanced, Gnosis charges 6× more than Base for the same pool-state condition.
5. Who Is Trading
This is where the pools diverge most sharply.
Buyer concentration
| Gnosis | Base | |
|---|---|---|
| Unique buyer addresses | 16 | 40 |
| All buyers are contracts? | Yes (15/16; 1 EOA with $14) | Yes (40/40) |
| Top buyer % of volume | 52.3% | 23.4% |
| Top 2 buyers % of volume | 81.9% | 40.6% |
| Top 5 buyers % of volume | 90.5% | 63.5% |
Gnosis is dramatically more concentrated. Two operator clusters account for 82% of all volume. Base spreads the same trade cadence across 40 buyers, the largest of which is 23% of volume.
User-facing routing
| Protocol | Gnosis | Base |
|---|---|---|
| 0x/Matcha (organic user flow) | Not present | 1,104 trades, $24,146 (4 contracts) |
| Curve Router | 35 trades, $41,170 (Sidechain v1.1) | 45 trades, $2,136 (Sidechain v1.1) |
| CoW Protocol (GPv2Settlement) | 184 trades, $7,318 | Not present |
| EIP-7702 smart wallets | Not present | 2 addresses, 207 trades, $10,283 |
Gnosis lacks Matcha presence entirely — a major organic-flow venue on Base. Instead, Gnosis has CoW Protocol, which is Gnosis chain's dominant user DEX. CoW's low average trade size ($40) confirms it routes genuine user swaps.
Natural vs automated flow
| Metric | Gnosis | Base |
|---|---|---|
| Natural (user-routed) addresses | 2 (CoW + Curve Router) | 5 (4× Matcha + Curve Router) |
| Natural trades | 219 (8.6%) | 1,149 (24.0%) |
| Natural volume | $48,488 (5.2%) | $26,282 (17.9%) |
| Automated/unidentified trades | 2,313 (91.4%) | 3,646 (76.0%) |
| Automated/unidentified volume | $883,856 (94.8%) | $120,693 (82.1%) |
Gnosis is even more automation-dominated than Base: 94.8% of volume flows through unidentified automated contracts vs 82.1% on Base. The Gnosis natural-flow share is barely 5% by volume — almost all trading is programmatic.
Operator clusters vs confirmed arb bots
Base has 7 confirmed arb bots (bytecode analysis + tx-receipt analysis). Gnosis has 4 operator clusters identified by deployer EOA, of which Cluster B shows bytecode matching confirmed Base arb bots:
| Base | Gnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed arb bots | 7 (tx-receipt + bytecode analysis) | 0 confirmed (no tx analysis) |
| Bytecode-matching arb contracts | n/a | 2 (Cluster B, 24,533b + 24,558b = exact match to Base bots) |
| Operator clusters identified | 1 (0xd2be32db cluster) | 4 (A, B, C, D) |
| % volume from confirmed/likely bots | 55.2% (confirmed) | 94.8% (unidentified automated) |
| % volume from natural flow | 17.9% (Matcha + Curve Router) | 5.2% (CoW + Curve Router) |
The Base arb bots operate at high frequency with small per-trade profit margins (~$24 median). On Gnosis, the "automated" category includes different profile bots: Cluster A and C trade much larger ($601 and $540 avg) at lower frequency — more consistent with a market-making or rebalancing strategy than pure arb.
Cross-chain contract
Contract 0xc10ee9031f2a0b84766a86b55a8d90f357910fb4 appears as a buyer on both chains, with identical 20,486-byte bytecode:
| Base | Gnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| Trades | 54 | 187 |
| Volume | $538 | $39,424 |
| Avg trade | $10 | $211 |
The same contract is 73× more profitable per trade on Gnosis, suggesting it's primarily calibrated for Gnosis chain EUR/USD pools.
6. What the Pools Share
Despite the differences, both pools share several structural features:
-
Zero retail wallets. All trades on both pools go through intermediary contracts. No EOA has ever called
exchange()directly in a meaningful way. Both pools exist entirely within the context of automated on-chain infrastructure. -
Same fee architecture (50/25/25 split) and same rebalancing mechanism. Both required external refuel subsidies — neither was self-funding.
-
Same trade cadence (~32 trades/day), despite radically different TVL and trade sizes. This is a striking structural similarity: the pools seem to attract whatever automated activity exists in their ecosystem up to a "saturation" level of ~32 trades/day, regardless of pool size.
-
Curve Router as organic signal. The official Curve Router appears on both chains (35–45 trades, $2K–$41K), confirming it as a reliable proxy for "user-initiated via Curve UI" flow. Its presence on both chains validates it as a cross-chain natural-flow benchmark.
-
Twocrypto-NG peg stability. Both pools maintained good peg discipline (sub-10 bps median slippage on active trades), demonstrating that the FXSwap/Twocrypto-NG design works for EUR/USD at both small ($10K) and medium ($83K) TVL sizes.
-
Arb bot ecosystem overlap. Cluster B on Gnosis (deployer
0xaaBBcC) deploys contracts with bytecode matching the confirmed Base arb bot cluster (0xd2be32dboperator). This indicates a shared codebase — the same arb bot software is being deployed across both chains by potentially connected operators.
7. Summary
| Dimension | Gnosis | Base | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | 8× larger TVL | Smaller | Gnosis more economically viable at current TVL |
| Trade profile | Large, infrequent | Small, frequent | Different automation strategies |
| Buyer diversity | 16 addresses, highly concentrated | 40 addresses, more distributed | Gnosis = fewer, larger players |
| Natural flow | 5% of volume | 18% of volume | Base has more retail/user demand |
| Automation type | Market-making / treasury bots? | High-frequency arb bots | Gnosis bots are larger-scale |
| LP economics | +3.62% vs HODL APY (realised) | +1.29% vs HODL APY (estimated) | Gnosis more profitable for LP |
| Sustainability | Needs refuel but closer | Heavily subsidy-dependent | Both need larger TVL to self-fund |
| Cross-chain operators | Present (Cluster B, 0xc10ee) |
Present (Cluster B, 0xc10ee) |
Shared operator ecosystem |
Bottom line: Gnosis and Base are running the same pool design in two distinct ecosystems. Gnosis has larger, more concentrated trading by a small number of well-capitalised automated operators, yielding better LP returns at higher TVL. Base has more decentralised activity with more retail-adjacent flow (via Matcha), but at lower TVL and lower fee income. Both operate almost exclusively through automated intermediaries, with natural user flow accounting for under 20% of volume on either chain.