The naive AMM is dead because its passive, on-chain liquidity model is a free option for sophisticated actors. Protocols like Uniswap V2 and Curve created predictable, on-demand liquidity but their constant function market makers are inherently extractable.
future-of-dexs-amms-orderbooks-and-aggregators
Blog
Why DEX Design is Now a Game Theory Problem First
The era of naive AMM math is over. Modern DEX architecture is a battle for control of the transaction supply chain, where searchers, validators, and users are locked in a non-cooperative game. This is a guide to designing for adversarial environments.
introduction
THE GAME THEORY SHIFT
Introduction: The Naive AMM is Dead
DEX design is no longer a liquidity problem but a game theory problem, where the protocol's rules determine who extracts value.
Design is now game theory first. Every parameter—fee tier, block time, oracle design—creates a value flow between LPs, traders, and arbitrageurs. The protocol's success depends on aligning these incentives, not just providing a pool.
Evidence: Over 90% of Uniswap V3 LPs lose money to just-in-time liquidity and MEV bots. This is not a bug; it's the inevitable equilibrium of a naive design that fails to account for adversarial actors with faster information.
key-trends
GAME THEORY FIRST
The New DEX Design Trilemma
Modern DEX design is no longer just about AMM curves; it's a battle of incentive alignment, extractable value, and adversarial network effects.
01
The Problem: MEV as a Structural Tax
Traditional on-chain order flow is a free lunch for searchers and validators, creating a ~$1B+ annual tax on users. This forces DEXs to either become extractors themselves or cede control to external block builders.
- Front-running and sandwich attacks are systemic.
- Latency races centralize infrastructure.
- Solution space includes private mempools (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE), batch auctions (CowSwap), and intent-based routing.
$1B+
Annual Extract
>90%
OF Censored
02
The Solution: Intents & Delegated Execution
Shift from specifying transactions (how) to declaring outcomes (what). Users sign permission slips, and a competitive network of solvers (e.g., UniswapX, Across, 1inch Fusion) competes to fulfill them optimally.
- Breaks MEV monopoly by routing to the best solver.
- Enables cross-chain swaps natively via intents.
- Introduces new trust assumptions in solver networks and oracle dependencies.
~30%
Better Prices
0 Gas
For Users
03
The Problem: Liquidity Fragmentation
Every new AMM curve or chain creates isolated liquidity pools. Aggregators like 1inch and 0x paper over the cracks but don't solve the capital inefficiency. This leads to higher slippage and worse prices for large trades.
- Layer 2 proliferation exacerbates the issue.
- Omnichain liquidity solutions (LayerZero, Chainlink CCIP) add bridging complexity and new risks.
1000s
Isolated Pools
5-20%
Slippage Delta
04
The Solution: Shared Liquidity Hubs
Move from isolated pools to centralized liquidity books or vaults that service all venues. Think Uniswap v4 hooks tapping into singleton contracts, or dYdX's orderbook on a dedicated appchain.
- Capital efficiency improves by 10-100x for passive LPs.
- Creates a single price discovery point.
- Centralizes risk in the hub contract, creating a higher security burden.
10-100x
Efficiency Gain
1 Hub
Many Venues
05
The Problem: Governance & Value Capture
Protocol fees are often meaningless if they can't be enforced or captured. Value accrues to LPs and block builders, not token holders. Governance is reduced to signaling unless it controls critical infrastructure like a solver whitelist or hook permissions.
- Fee switches are a political, not technical, challenge.
- Real yield requires ownership of the execution layer or a critical monopoly.
<5%
Fee Capture
High
Govt. Inertia
06
The Solution: Protocol-Owned Liquidity & Infrastructure
Follow the Cosmos appchain or MakerDAO model: own the entire stack. The protocol controls the settlement layer, the order flow, and the liquidity. dYdX v4 and UniswapX are steps in this direction.
- Direct value capture via sequencer fees or solver auctions.
- Enforceable governance over core parameters.
- Trade-off: Requires massive bootstrap and sacrifices some composability.
100%
Fee Capture
New Stack
To Build
DEX ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
The MEV Supply Chain: Who Gets Paid?
How different DEX designs allocate value from transaction ordering and execution, turning protocol design into a game theory problem.
| Extractable Value Flow | Traditional AMM (Uniswap V2) | Proactive AMM (Uniswap V4 Hooks) | Intent-Based (UniswapX, CowSwap) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Value Extractor | Searchers & Block Builders | Liquidity Providers & Hook Developers | Solvers & Protocol Treasury |
User Pays for... | Slippage + Priority Fee (Gas) | Slippage + Hook Fee | Solver Fee (No Gas) |
Typical Searcher Profit Share |
| 30-70% (shared with LPs/Hooks) | 0% (Searchers outcompeted) |
Liquidity Provider MEV Rebate | None (Negative via JIT) | Yes (via Hook logic) | Yes (via order flow auction) |
Frontrunning Resistance | None (Public mempool) | Partial (via private RPCs) | High (Batch auctions, off-chain) |
Price Impact Source | On-chain pool reserves | On-chain pool reserves | Off-chain solver competition |
Requires Block Builder Collusion | Yes (PBS required) | Yes (PBS required) | No (Execution is permissionless) |
Protocol Revenue from MEV | 0% | 0-100% of Hook fee | ~90% of solver surplus |
deep-dive
THE GAME THEORY
Designing for Adversarial Equilibrium
Modern DEX architecture is a game theory problem where protocol incentives must align with adversarial extractors to achieve sustainable liquidity.
DEX design is adversarial by default. Every new feature, from concentrated liquidity to intent-based orders, creates a new vector for value extraction by MEV bots and arbitrageurs.
The equilibrium is extractable value. Protocols like Uniswap V4 with hooks and CowSwap with batch auctions must design their fee structures and execution paths to internalize this value for LPs and users, not just for searchers.
Passive design invites parasitism. A DEX that ignores the adversarial environment of Ethereum or Solana will have its liquidity drained by faster, smarter agents, as seen in the constant arbitrage loops between Uniswap and Curve pools.
Evidence: Over 60% of DEX volume on Ethereum is arbitrage, not organic trading. Protocols like Flashbots' SUAVE and CowSwap's solver network demonstrate that designing for this reality is the only path to efficiency.
protocol-spotlight
GAME THEORY FIRST
Architectural Responses to the Game
DEX design is no longer just about AMM curves; it's about structuring incentives to win the war for order flow against MEV.
01
The Problem: The MEV Tax
Every on-chain trade leaks value to searchers and validators via front-running, sandwiching, and arbitrage. This is a direct tax on users and LPs.\n- Cost: Estimated $1B+ extracted annually from users.\n- Impact: Creates a negative-sum environment where protocol success enriches extractors.
$1B+
Annual Extract
-99%
User Value
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap)
Decouple transaction specification from execution. Users submit desired outcomes (intents), and a network of solvers competes to fulfill them off-chain.\n- Key Benefit: MEV becomes a positive-sum competition among solvers, improving price for the user.\n- Key Benefit: Gasless experience and protection from failed transactions.
~100%
Fill Rate
0 Gas
For Users
03
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity
Liquidity is siloed across chains and AMM pools, creating arbitrage opportunities that are captured by bots, not LPs. This increases slippage and reduces capital efficiency.\n- Metric: Billions in TVL sitting idle in suboptimal pools.\n- Consequence: LPs earn less, users pay more.
$10B+
Idle TVL
30-80%
Lower LP Fees
04
The Solution: Cross-Chain Liquidity Hubs (Across, LayerZero)
Use optimistic or atomic verification to create a unified liquidity layer. Bridge assets in a single transaction, capturing cross-chain arbitrage for the protocol and its LPs.\n- Key Benefit: Unified liquidity pools reduce fragmentation and improve pricing.\n- Key Benefit: Native yield for LPs from cross-chain arbitrage and bridging fees.
~5 Sec
Bridge Time
+200bps
LP Yield
05
The Problem: Oracle Manipulation & LP Losses
AMMs with low liquidity are vulnerable to oracle price manipulation, leading to instantaneous LP losses. This is a direct attack on the protocol's core economic security.\n- Attack Vector: Flash loans can skew prices, draining pools.\n- Result: Risk of permanent insolvency deters serious capital.
Minutes
Attack Time
100%
LP Risk
06
The Solution: Oracle-Free AMMs (Crocswap, Maverick)
Design AMM curves that are inherently resistant to manipulation by eliminating reliance on external price feeds. Use concentrated liquidity and time-weighted functions.\n- Key Benefit: Eliminates oracle risk, the largest systemic threat to DeFi.\n- Key Benefit: Higher capital efficiency via dynamic liquidity positioning.
0 Oracles
Dependency
1000x
Efficiency
counter-argument
THE GAME THEORY
The Centralization Counter-Argument
The pursuit of decentralization in DEX design has created a new class of game theory problems centered on validator and searcher incentives.
Validator Collusion is Inevitable: Permissionless validator sets in AMMs like Uniswap V4 create a coordination game. The economic incentive for validators to form cartels and extract maximal value from order flow outweighs the risk of slashing, leading to predictable centralization.
Searcher-Builder Nexus Dominates: The MEV supply chain, with players like Flashbots and Jito, demonstrates that specialized actors will always outcompete generalists. This creates a centralized execution layer that DEX logic cannot bypass, only route through.
Intent-Based Architectures Are a Band-Aid: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract complexity to solvers but shift, rather than solve, the trust problem. You now trust a solver's algorithm instead of a validator's code, which is a different form of centralization.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by four entities, and Jito captures over 50% of Solana MEV. This proves specialized, centralized actors are the equilibrium state of permissionless systems under economic pressure.
takeaways
DEX DESIGN EVOLUTION
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The era of simple AMM formulas is over. Modern DEX design is a multi-party coordination game where the protocol's rules dictate the equilibrium between users, searchers, and builders.
01
The MEV-Aware AMM
Traditional AMMs leak value to arbitrageurs. New designs like Uniswap V4 with hooks and Aerodrome V2 with flywheels internalize MEV as a protocol resource.\n- Key Benefit: Recaptures >50% of arbitrage value for LPs/protocol.\n- Key Benefit: Enables custom, gas-efficient logic for concentrated liquidity and limit orders.
>50%
Value Recaptured
Custom
Pool Logic
02
The Solver Network Model
Order flow auctions (OFAs) and intent-based architectures (like UniswapX and CowSwap) separate expression from execution. Users submit intents; a competitive network of solvers (Across, 1inch) bids to fulfill them.\n- Key Benefit: Users get price improvement via competition, not slippage.\n- Key Benefit: Protocol becomes a coordination layer, abstracting complexity.
Price Impr.
For User
0 Slippage
Guarantee
03
The Liquidity Orchestrator
Fragmented liquidity across L2s and app-chains is the new normal. Protocols like Across (unified auctions) and layerzero (omnichain fungible tokens) treat liquidity as a unified, programmatic layer.\n- Key Benefit: Enables single-transaction cross-chain swaps with native yield.\n- Key Benefit: Mitigates $100M+ in bridge hack risk via verified execution.
Unified
Liquidity Layer
Native Yield
Cross-Chain
04
The Stateful User
Static fee tiers and immutable LP positions are obsolete. Next-gen DEXes (Aerodrome, PancakeSwap V4) treat LPs as stateful agents with dynamic strategies, auto-compounding rewards, and vote-escrowed governance.\n- Key Benefit: TVL stickiness increases by aligning long-term incentives.\n- Key Benefit: Protocol captures value via ve-tokenomics and fee redirection.
High
TVL Stickiness
ve-Token
Governance
05
The Execution Guarantee
Users hate failed transactions and frontrunning. Systems like Flashbots SUAVE and private RPCs (e.g., BloxRoute) shift the game from public mempool chaos to encrypted order flow with execution guarantees.\n- Key Benefit: ~99.9% transaction success rate for users.\n- Key Benefit: Eliminates sandwich attacks, a primary UX failure.
99.9%
Success Rate
0 Frontrun
Guarantee
06
The Modular Settlement
Monolithic DEX contracts cannot optimize for all environments. The future is modular: a separate ordering layer (shared sequencer), execution layer (custom VM), and data availability layer.\n- Key Benefit: Enables ~500ms block times and sub-cent fees.\n- Key Benefit: Specialized chains for derivatives, RFQs, or gaming assets.
~500ms
Block Time
Sub-Cent
Fees
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