Liquidity on another network does not deepen a local pool

Liquidity on another network is not part of a local pool's immediately available reserves. A combined cross-network TVL can describe an ecosystem's scale, but it does not establish the capacity of a same-network trade.

Separate capital location from token branding

Suppose a hypothetical project reports $20 million of liquidity: $18 million on Network A and $2 million on Network B. A swap starting and ending on B does not automatically trade against all $20 million.

Even when tokens share a name, their network-specific contracts and representations can differ. Accessing remote capital requires an execution path that actually delivers the intended destination asset.

Distinguish local and end-to-end offers

A local quote should be evaluated using its accessible sources and state. An end-to-end cross-network offer can incorporate transfer and destination execution, but its final receiving amount, costs and timing become part of the comparison.

Transactions operate within a network's execution context. A dashboard's aggregation does not itself create access to balances on another network.

Avoid adding incompatible depth figures

Two networks may report capacity using different reference prices, price bands, fee conventions or observation times. Adding those figures can create a number with no defined executable meaning, even when both measurements are individually accurate.

If the report concerns a global market, show capacity by network first and explain any transfer assumptions. If it concerns a user's local swap, use the matched local quote rather than the global total.

Remote liquidity may matter to a broader execution service, but that must be demonstrated through the actual end-to-end offer. It should not be assumed from a provider's network-support list or token-wide TVL. This distinction keeps ecosystem-scale capital statistics from being mistaken for the amount a local transaction can exchange at a particular rate.