Arrakis Modular vs ICHI: Which fits your liquidity needs? (2026)

Arrakis Modular and ICHI both manage liquidity through smart-contract vaults, but they address different needs. Arrakis Modular is built mainly for token issuers that want active market making while retaining self-custody of liquidity. Its Meta Vault standard is designed to let different vault types share infrastructure, and its listed venues include Uniswap V4, Aerodrome, PancakeSwap and Velodrome.

ICHI focuses on vault deposits into concentrated-liquidity pools. Its key convenience is that depositors can supply one token rather than a matched pair, while algorithmic strategies manage and rebalance positions. ICHI also lists deployments across more than 25 chains, compared with six for Arrakis Modular. The difference is not simply scale: Arrakis emphasizes issuer market-making tools and modularity, while ICHI offers a more direct single-token liquidity approach.

Neither project publishes its fee structure. Arrakis says issuers should contact the team rather than presenting a price list; management or performance fees are not stated. ICHI also does not publish details such as management or performance fees, and says any protocol cut should be checked in the app or documentation.

That means you cannot determine which is cheaper from published fee terms alone. Before committing funds, check the specific vault for its current fee rules. Also factor in network gas costs and fees charged by the underlying trading venue. ICHI specifically notes that gas costs vary by chain. With either protocol, returns are not guaranteed: ICHI depositors depend on trading fees from concentrated-liquidity pools, and Arrakis positions carry price-range and impermanent-loss risks. Compare the actual vault terms and strategy, not just the headline product descriptions.

Both projects describe their approach as non-custodial, but that does not remove smart-contract or market risk. Two audits are listed for each. Arrakis does not state the auditors’ names or findings in the details here. ICHI names Quantstamp, Solidified, Certik, Pashov Audit Group, Bail Security and FYEO on its homepage, but does not give audit dates, scopes or findings. Neither project states an incident history publicly in the details here.

For Arrakis, stated risks include smart-contract, upgrade or admin-key, oracle and venue failures, along with impermanent loss and price-range risk. ICHI users face smart-contract bugs, token price swings, impermanent loss and reliance on underlying AMMs; its deployment across many chains also brings chain-specific risks. Review the relevant vault documentation and audit reports before depositing. Do not treat an audit count or non-custodial design as a guarantee against loss.

Choose Arrakis Modular if you are a token issuer or institution that needs actively managed, two-sided liquidity and values its modular Meta Vault approach. Its listed TVL is about $55.2 million, and its venue coverage includes several major DEXs as well as other market-making venues. It is less clearly suited to retail users looking for a straightforward self-serve deposit.

Choose ICHI if you want to deposit a single token into concentrated-liquidity strategies, or if access across many chains matters more than a larger TVL figure. ICHI’s listed TVL is about $5.9 million, and its strategy handles rebalancing, though returns vary and users still bear liquidity and price risks. ICHI has a slightly higher ease-of-use score, but neither publishes fee details. For either choice, check the exact vault and chain terms before depositing.