The AMM is a tax. Automated Market Makers like Uniswap V3 and Curve impose a universal liquidity tax (swap fees) on all trades, regardless of counterparty availability. This model forces peer-to-peer value transfer through a rent-seeking intermediary pool.
blockchain-and-iot-the-machine-economy
Blog
Why P2P Trading Demands a New Cryptoeconomic Model
DeFi's liquidity-first tokenomics fail for energy's physical, real-time constraints. This analysis deconstructs why and outlines the state-aware, constraint-based models needed for the machine economy.
introduction
THE MARKET FAILURE
Introduction
The current on-chain trading model is fundamentally misaligned with the peer-to-peer nature of blockchains, creating systemic inefficiency and extractive value capture.
True P2P trading is intent-matching. Protocols like CowSwap and Uniswap X demonstrate that solving a coordination problem unlocks superior execution. Their success proves demand exists for a model where peers transact directly, settling only the net difference.
The new model is settlement minimization. The optimal cryptoeconomic design does not broadcast every intent to a public mempool. It aggregates, matches, and settles net obligations, a shift championed by Flashbots' SUAVE and intent-centric architectures.
Evidence: In Q1 2024, CoW Swap saved users over $20M in fees via its batch auction model, directly capturing value that AMMs would have extracted as MEV and liquidity provider fees.
key-trends
THE P2P DILEMMA
Executive Summary
Traditional AMMs and order books fail peer-to-peer trading, creating a vacuum for cryptoeconomic innovation.
01
The Problem: AMMs Are Not P2P
Automated Market Makers like Uniswap V3 are peer-to-pool, not peer-to-peer. This creates permanent loss for LPs, MEV leakage for traders, and inefficient capital allocation.
- ~$2B+ in MEV extracted annually from AMMs.
- LPs face impermanent loss vs. simple holding.
- Capital efficiency capped by the constant product formula.
$2B+
Annual MEV
-80%
LP ROI vs. Hold
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures
Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across separate expression from execution. Users state what they want (intent); a network of solvers competes to fulfill it optimally.
- Eliminates frontrunning and reduces MEV.
- Enables gasless transactions and cross-chain swaps.
- Unlocks ~30-50% better prices via off-chain liquidity.
30-50%
Price Improvement
0 Gas
User Experience
03
The New Model: Prover-Network Economics
The value accrual shifts from passive LPs to active provers and solvers. This demands new token models that align verification, execution, and liquidity provisioning.
- Solvers earn via execution efficiency (e.g., CoW DAO).
- Provers/Sequencers (e.g., LayerZero, Espresso) secure cross-domain state.
- Tokens must secure intent liquidity and solver bonds.
New
Value Accrual
Active
> Passive
04
The Bottleneck: Fragmented Liquidity & Settlement
P2P trading across rollups and appchains requires atomic composability that bridges like LayerZero and Axelar can't natively provide. Settlement risk and liquidity fragmentation kill the user experience.
- ~2-20 min finality delays between chains.
- Bridge hacks account for ~$2.8B+ in losses.
- Native cross-chain intents require new settlement layers.
$2.8B+
Bridge Losses
20 min
Worst-Case Delay
05
The Enabler: Verifiable Execution & ZKPs
Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) allow solvers to prove correct execution off-chain, enabling trust-minimized P2P settlement. This is the backbone for on-chain dark pools and complex order types.
- ZKPs enable privacy-preserving order matching.
- Succinct verification replaces slow on-chain execution.
- Projects like Aztec and Penumbra are pioneering this.
~100ms
Proof Verify Time
Trustless
Settlement
06
The Outcome: Hyper-Structured Products
The end-state is P2P networks facilitating complex, multi-leg derivatives and OTC deals directly on-chain. This moves beyond simple swaps to replicate TradFi capital markets with crypto-native efficiency.
- OTC desks move on-chain with guaranteed settlement.
- Composability creates new yield and hedge instruments.
- The protocol capturing this flow becomes the new exchange.
OTC
On-Chain
New
Primitives
thesis-statement
THE MISMATCH
The Core Flaw: Treating Energy as a Pure Digital Asset
Current cryptoeconomic models fail because they treat energy as a perfectly fungible, digital commodity, ignoring its physical constraints.
Energy is location-bound. A kilowatt-hour in Texas is not the same as one in Germany due to grid congestion, carbon intensity, and local pricing. Treating it as a simple ERC-20 token creates a fundamental market distortion.
P2P markets require physical settlement. Unlike trading NFTs or stablecoins, a peer-to-peer energy trade must resolve on a physical grid. This demands a cryptoeconomic model that natively encodes grid topology and constraints, unlike Uniswap's constant-product curves.
Proof-of-Work got it backwards. Bitcoin and Ethereum miners consume energy to secure a ledger. A P2P energy system must secure the ledger to enable energy exchange. The economic security must be derived from, and service, the physical asset flow.
Evidence: The 2021 Texas freeze saw power prices spike to $9,000/MWh while tokenized energy derivatives on platforms like PowerLedger traded at a massive, disconnected discount. The digital abstraction broke under physical reality.
P2P TRADING ECONOMICS
DeFi vs. Energy: A Fundamental Misalignment
Comparing the cryptoeconomic models of traditional Automated Market Makers (AMMs) versus Peer-to-Peer (P2P) trading systems, highlighting the core inefficiencies that necessitate a new model.
| Cryptoeconomic Feature | Traditional AMM (Uniswap V2/V3) | P2P Trading (e.g., CowSwap, UniswapX) | Ideal P2P Model (Energy) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Counterparty | Liquidity Pool (LP Tokens) | Coincidence of Wants (Direct User) | Coincidence of Wants + Solver Network |
Price Execution | Constant Function (e.g., x*y=k) | Batch Auctions (Uniform Clearing Price) | Batch Auctions + MEV Capture Redistribution |
Liquidity Source | Capital-Intensive (TVL Locked) | Capital-Efficient (Intent Aggregation) | Hybrid (On-Chain Fallback + Solver Liquidity) |
Fee Model | LP Fee (0.01%-1% to LPs) | Protocol Fee + Solver Reward (~0.1-0.5%) | Dynamic Fee (Solver Competition → User Surplus) |
Slippage & MEV | High (Front-running, Sandwiching) | Reduced (Batch Shielding) | Negative (MEV converted to user surplus) |
Gas Cost Burden | User Pays (2x Swap TX Cost) | Protocol Pays (1x Settlement TX via Solver) | Protocol Pays + Gas Optimization Rebates |
Economic Alignment | LPs vs. Traders (Zero-Sum) | Traders & Solvers vs. Inefficiency (Positive-Sum) | User Surplus Maximization (Aligned Incentives) |
Settlement Finality | Immediate (On-Chain Swap) | Conditional (Batch Resolution, ~1-5 min) | Fast & Guaranteed (With On-Chain Fallback) |
deep-dive
THE CONSTRAINT
Blueprint for a Physics-Aware Cryptoeconomic Model
Existing cryptoeconomic models fail because they ignore the physical laws governing peer-to-peer network performance.
Network physics dictates latency. The speed of light and network topology create a latency floor that no consensus algorithm can overcome. This physical reality makes synchronous global state a fantasy, directly undermining the economic assumptions of monolithic L1s like Ethereum and Solana.
P2P trading is a latency arbitrage game. High-frequency traders on centralized exchanges like Coinbase exploit milliseconds. In a decentralized network, this manifests as front-running and MEV. Protocols like Flashbots and CoW Swap are economic patches for a physical problem.
The economic unit is data availability. Validators are not just stakers; they are bandwidth providers. A model that only rewards staked capital, like Ethereum's, misaligns incentives when block propagation depends on physical network capacity. Celestia's data availability sampling framework recognizes this shift.
Evidence: The mempool is the battlefield. Over 90% of Ethereum blocks contain MEV, proving that latency advantages are monetized. A physics-aware model must price latency and bandwidth as first-class economic resources, not afterthoughts.
protocol-spotlight
WHY P2P TRADING DEMANDS A NEW CRYPTOECONOMIC MODEL
Protocol Spotlight: Early Attempts & Next-Gen Builders
Traditional AMMs and CEXs are fundamentally misaligned with peer-to-peer value exchange, creating a market gap for intent-based systems with novel incentive structures.
01
The AMM Deadweight Loss Problem
Constant function market makers like Uniswap V2/V3 are inefficient intermediaries. They force all trades through a shared liquidity pool, creating permanent loss for LPs and suboptimal prices for traders.
- Inefficiency Tax: Traders pay for LP hedging costs and slippage.
- Capital Drag: ~$50B+ in TVL is locked, earning fees but exposed to impermanent loss.
- Rigid Execution: No ability for direct, negotiated P2P settlement.
0.3%+
Base Fee
High
Slippage
02
Intent-Based Architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap)
Separates declaration of intent from execution. Users sign a desired outcome, and a network of solvers competes to fulfill it off-chain, settling on-chain.
- Price Discovery: Solvers source liquidity from any venue (AMMs, OTC, private pools).
- MEV Capture Redirection: Auction mechanics convert extractable value into better prices or protocol revenue.
- Gasless UX: Users submit signed messages, solvers batch and pay for execution.
~5-20%
Price Improvement
Gasless
For User
03
The Solver Economics Challenge
The new cryptoeconomic frontier is solver incentivization and slashing. Protocols must design mechanisms to ensure solver honesty and liveness without centralized control.
- Bonding & Slashing: Solvers post bonds (e.g., 10 ETH) slashed for failed or malicious fills.
- Profit Sharing: Revenue from order flow auction must sustainably reward solvers.
- Decentralized Verification: Networks like Across and Chainlink FSS enable trust-minimized proof of execution.
10 ETH+
Solver Bond
Critical
Incentive Design
04
Cross-Chain as the Ultimate Test (LayerZero, Across)
P2P trading is inherently cross-chain. Bridging assets requires a cryptoeconomic model that secures liquidity and validates transactions across sovereign domains.
- Unified Liquidity: Intent systems can treat all chains as one liquidity source.
- Verifier Staking: Protocols like LayerZero use decentralized oracle networks and staked verifiers.
- Cost Abstraction: Users pay in source-chain gas or via signed fee commitments.
~15 Secs
Settlement Time
Multi-Chain
Liquidity
risk-analysis
CRYPTOECONOMIC FRICTION
The Bear Case: Why This Is Harder Than DeFi
DeFi automated market makers; P2P trading requires solving for human behavior and adversarial incentives.
01
The Problem: Unbounded Counterparty Risk
Unlike AMMs with on-chain settlement, P2P trades introduce off-chain counterparty risk. The core challenge is making a stranger's promise credible.
- Time Value of Theft: A counterparty can renege if the asset price moves > the cost of their on-chain penalty.
- Sybil Attacks: Adversaries can create infinite identities to default, overwhelming any reputation system.
- Collateral Inefficiency: Over-collateralization kills liquidity; under-collateralization invites defaults.
~100%
Potential Loss
0
Native Guarantee
02
The Problem: The Liquidity Fragmentation Trap
P2P networks fragment order books across countless bilateral channels, destroying price discovery and fill rates.
- Coordination Failure: Traders cannot find each other without a central order book, which defeats the P2P premise.
- Worse Execution: Slippage and latency increase as you search a fragmented network versus a unified pool like Uniswap.
- Network Effects: Liquidity begets liquidity; bootstrapping a critical mass is a multi-sided market problem.
-90%
Fill Rate
10x
Search Latency
03
The Solution: Intent-Based Coordination & Cryptographic Proofs
The answer is not replicating CEX order books, but creating a new settlement layer for conditional state. This is the domain of projects like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across.
- Solver Networks: Off-chain solvers compete to fulfill user intents, abstracting away counterparty discovery.
- Cryptographic Commitments: Use zero-knowledge proofs or optimistic verification to prove trade execution off-chain before final settlement.
- Credible Penalties: Slash solver/staker bonds for malfeasance, aligning incentives without over-collateralizing each trade.
$1B+
Solver Bond TVL
~500ms
Intent Resolution
04
The Solution: Programmable Reputation as Capital
Reputation must be tokenized, stakable, and slashable to have economic weight. It cannot be a simple score.
- Staked Identity: Actors bond capital to a verifiable identity; poor performance leads to slashing.
- Portable History: Reputation proofs (e.g., Verifiable Credentials) must be composable across applications like LayerZero's DVN network.
- Dynamic Pricing: Counterparty risk is priced into the trade via variable fees or required collateral, based on real-time reputation.
50-90%
Capital Efficiency Gain
Sybil-Resistant
Identity
05
The Problem: MEV is the Business Model
In a transparent P2P network, value extraction via frontrunning, backrunning, and sandwich attacks becomes the primary revenue source, distorting all incentives.
- Adversarial Solvers: Solver networks will inherently capture MEV; the design challenge is to redirect it to users (cf. CowSwap's CoW AMM).
- Privacy Requirement: Without cryptographic privacy (e.g., ZKPs), every intent is a public MEV opportunity.
- Regulatory Gray Zone: Classifying MEV redistribution may trigger securities laws, unlike simple AMM fees.
$1B+
Annual Extracted Value
100%
Network Exposure
06
The Verdict: A Harder, Higher-Value Layer
P2P trading isn't just DeFi with a different UI. It requires a new cryptoeconomic base layer for trust-minimized coordination.
- Winner's Profile: The protocol that solves credible execution, not just messaging (LayerZero) or intents (UniswapX), but their secure composition.
- Total Addressable Market: Enables derivatives, OTC deals, and complex orders impossible in AMMs, targeting the $10T+ traditional OTC market.
- The Hard Part: The winning model will look less like an exchange and more like a verifiable compute marketplace.
10T+
TAM
New Primitive
Required
future-outlook
THE AUTONOMOUS ECONOMY
Future Outlook: The Convergence of IoT, AI, and Crypto
The fusion of IoT and AI creates autonomous economic agents that expose the fundamental limitations of today's human-centric transaction models.
Machine-to-machine commerce requires a cryptoeconomic model built for speed and cost predictability, not human patience. Current models with gas auctions and mempools fail because autonomous agents cannot afford unpredictable latency or cost spikes for micro-transactions.
Intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap provide the necessary abstraction layer. These systems shift the burden of execution from the user (or agent) to a network of solvers, guaranteeing outcomes instead of specifying complex transaction steps.
The settlement layer must be modular. Agents will route value and data across specialized chains—Celestia for data availability, Arbitrum for fast execution, EigenLayer for shared security—based on real-time cost-performance optimization dictated by their AI.
Evidence: The 2023 MEV-Boost relay outage, which stalled Ethereum block production for 20 minutes, demonstrates that systems dependent on human vigilance are incompatible with an economy of always-on, latency-sensitive machines.
takeaways
WHY P2P TRADING DEMANDS A NEW CRYPTOECONOMIC MODEL
Key Takeaways for Builders & Investors
The shift from AMMs to peer-to-peer settlement breaks existing assumptions, requiring fundamental redesigns of incentives, security, and infrastructure.
01
The Liquidity Fragmentation Problem
P2P models like UniswapX and CowSwap fragment liquidity across private order flows, breaking the AMM's unified pool model. This demands new mechanisms for discovery and aggregation.
- Key Benefit: Enables complex, cross-chain intents and MEV protection.
- Key Risk: Without proper aggregation, fill rates and price execution suffer, creating a poor user experience.
1000+
Potential Pools
-30%
Fill Rate (Unmanaged)
02
Solver Economics & Credible Neutrality
Networks like Across and CowSwap rely on competitive solvers. The cryptoeconomic model must incentivize honest, efficient solving without centralizing power or creating new MEV vectors.
- Key Benefit: Creates a competitive market for execution, driving down costs.
- ** Requirement**: Bonding, slashing, and reward distribution must be attack-resistant, drawing from EigenLayer and Cosmos SDK design patterns.
$1M+
Typical Bonds
~500ms
Auction Window
03
Cross-Chain as a First-Class Citizen
P2P intents are inherently cross-chain. The model must natively account for bridging latency, validator set security, and message delivery guarantees, unlike siloed L1/L2 AMMs.
- Key Benefit: Unlocks $10B+ in fragmented cross-chain liquidity.
- Architecture Need: Requires a security model that integrates with LayerZero, Axelar, or CCIP, moving beyond simple mint/burn bridges.
2-20s
Settlement Latency
10x
Market Scope
04
From LPing to Underwriting
Capital providers shift from passive AMM liquidity to actively underwriting solver bonds or providing intent-specific liquidity. This changes risk/return profiles and capital efficiency metrics.
- Key Benefit: Capital can be deployed against specific, high-margin opportunities (e.g., large cross-chain arb).
- New Metric: Risk-adjusted return on locked capital (RAROC) replaces simple APR from pool fees.
50-200%
Target RAROC
Dynamic
Capital Rotation
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall