Seaport Protocol vs. Sudoswap AMM

Dominant market share: Processes over 90% of all NFT volume on OpenSea, Blur, and LooksRare. This matters for protocol architects needing a battle-tested, widely integrated order book foundation for complex trades like bundles or Dutch auctions.

Rich feature set: Supports bundling, Dutch auctions, partial fills, and signed orders. This matters for marketplace builders who require flexibility beyond simple swaps, enabling sophisticated trading experiences and liquidity aggregation.

Lower cost structure: Enables direct, gas-efficient AMM swaps with 0% protocol fees (only LP-set fees). This matters for high-frequency traders and liquidity providers prioritizing minimal overhead and predictable, automated pricing via bonding curves.

AMM model: Allows anyone to create a liquidity pool for any NFT collection in minutes, providing continuous liquidity. This matters for new or long-tail collections that lack organic order book depth, enabling bootstrapping without relying on bid/ask listings.

Higher gas overhead: Advanced order types and signature verification can lead to more complex, costly transactions. This matters for users making simple 1:1 trades where the extra features are unnecessary.

Limited order types: Relies on AMM curves, which can lead to suboptimal prices for rare traits and lacks support for auctions or bundles. This matters for sellers of high-value NFTs who benefit from auction mechanics and broader market exposure.

Advanced order types: Supports complex orders like partial fills, Dutch auctions, and criteria-based listings (e.g., traits). This matters for building sophisticated marketplaces like OpenSea or Blur that require diverse trading logic.

Standard for major marketplaces: Used by OpenSea, Blur, and others, processing billions in volume. Audited by OpenZeppelin and Trail of Bits. This matters for projects requiring maximum liquidity and battle-tested security for high-value assets.

Higher gas costs for simple trades: The generalized contract can be ~20-30% more expensive for basic listings than a purpose-built AMM. This matters for applications where micro-transactions or pure swapping efficiency is the primary goal.

Marketplace-dependent fees: Protocol-level royalty enforcement was removed (v1.1). Enforcement now depends on individual marketplace policy. This matters for creators and protocols that require on-chain, guaranteed fee payments.

Optimized for NFT/Token pairs: Uses a bonding curve model enabling swaps at a fraction of Seaport's gas cost (often under 100k gas for a swap). This matters for high-frequency trading bots and applications where low transaction cost is critical.

Automated market making: Provides 24/7 liquidity pools with predictable, formulaic pricing (e.g., linear, exponential curves). This matters for building NFT lending collateral oracles, index funds, and instant buy/sell experiences without listing.

Swap-focused design: Primarily supports pool-based swaps, not complex orders like auctions, bundles, or trait offers. This matters for marketplaces needing the full spectrum of P2P trading features beyond simple AMM functionality.

Niche protocol focus: Lower total volume and integration compared to Seaport (e.g., not natively used by top marketplaces). This matters for projects that prioritize access to the broadest possible buyer/seller network and composability.

Generalized marketplace infrastructure: Seaport is the de facto standard for NFT marketplaces, powering OpenSea, Blur, and others. Its modular design supports complex order types (Dutch auctions, bundles) and fee structures. This matters for protocols seeking maximum liquidity and composability across the entire ecosystem.

Rich transaction logic: Supports bundled trades, partial fills, and criteria-based orders (e.g., buy any NFT from collection X with trait Y). This enables sophisticated trading strategies and bulk operations. This matters for professional traders, DAO treasuries, and applications requiring complex settlement.

Concentrated liquidity AMM: Uses bonding curves (like Uniswap v3) for NFTs, allowing LPs to set precise price ranges. This reduces impermanent loss and improves capital efficiency versus blanket listings. This matters for professional market makers and protocols building dedicated, 24/7 liquidity pools for specific collections.

Minimal protocol fees and gas costs: The AMM model eliminates offer/listing management overhead. Trades execute directly against a pool with a ~0.5% protocol fee (configurable), significantly lower than traditional marketplace commissions. This matters for high-frequency traders and cost-sensitive users prioritizing execution price over discoverability.

Reliant on marketplace aggregation: Liquidity is spread across multiple front-ends (OpenSea, Blur, etc.). While aggregators exist, accessing the full depth requires integration work. This matters for developers who need guaranteed, on-chain liquidity without depending on external marketplace activity.

Pure AMM, no native bidding or auctions: Designed for spot trading against pools. Lacks built-in features for offers, auctions, or collection-wide bids, which are handled by Seaport-based marketplaces. This matters for projects that require a full-featured marketplace experience or want to attract casual collectors.