Permissionless liquidity is toxic for NFTs. Automated Market Makers like Uniswap V3 work for fungible tokens because price discovery is continuous. An NFT's value is discrete and subjective, creating massive information asymmetry between informed collectors and passive LPs.
future-of-dexs-amms-orderbooks-and-aggregators
Blog
Why NFT AMMs Need Curated, Not Permissionless, Liquidity
Permissionless liquidity is a design flaw for NFT AMMs. This analysis argues curation via whitelists or participant vetting is the only path to sustainable NFTFi, using on-chain data from Sudoswap, Blur, and others as evidence.
introduction
THE LIQUIDITY MISMATCH
The Permissionless Trap
Permissionless liquidity pools fail for NFTs because they ignore the fundamental mismatch between fungible and non-fungible asset valuation.
Curated liquidity solves the adverse selection problem. Protocols like Sudoswap and Blur's Blend use Dutch auction mechanics and peer-to-peer lending to align incentives. This curation prevents the 'lemons problem' where only worthless assets get deposited into pools, a flaw that bankrupted early NFT AMMs.
Evidence: The total value locked in permissionless NFT AMMs like NFTX is under $50M, while curated marketplaces like Blur facilitate billions in volume. This delta proves that liquidity must be intelligent, not just permissionless.
key-trends
WHY PERMISSIONLESS LIQUIDITY FAILS
The Three Fatal Flaws of Open NFT Pools
Uncurated NFT AMMs are structurally broken, leading to toxic liquidity, predatory arbitrage, and unsustainable returns for LPs.
01
The Problem: The Oracle Manipulation Death Spiral
Open pools rely on flawed price oracles (e.g., last sale, TWAP) that are easily manipulated. This creates a feedback loop of bad debt and LP insolvency.\n- Sudoswap and NFTX pools are vulnerable to wash trading to artificially inflate floor prices.\n- A single manipulated sale can drain an entire pool's liquidity, as seen in early BendDAO liquidations.\n- LPs face asymmetric risk: losses are immediate, while gains are slow and uncertain.
>90%
Of Pools Vulnerable
-100%
LP Capital At Risk
02
The Problem: The Parasitic Arbitrage Vacuum
Permissionless pools act as a free option for arbitrageurs, extracting value from LPs with zero-sum efficiency.\n- Arbitrage bots instantly correct pool prices to the true market (e.g., Blur bid), capturing the spread.\n- This creates a "theta decay" effect where LP returns are systematically siphoned by MEV.\n- The result is negative expected value for passive LPs, making liquidity provision a loser's game.
~99%
Of Fees to Arbitrage
<1% APY
Net LP Returns
03
The Solution: Curated, Isolated Vaults
The fix is whitelisted, expert-managed vaults for specific collections or traits, moving from AMMs to an active management model.\n- Isolation prevents toxic collateral from contaminating the entire system (akin to Aave's risk modules).\n- Curators (e.g., DAOs, experts) set parameters, manage inventory, and execute strategies, earning a performance fee.\n- This enables capital efficiency through concentrated liquidity and loan-to-value ratios based on verifiable rarity, not just floor price.
5-10x
Higher Capital Efficiency
+20% APY
Target LP Yield
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Settlement & RFQ
Replace constant-function AMM curves with a request-for-quote (RFQ) system where professional market makers compete to fill user intents.\n- Similar to UniswapX or CowSwap for NFTs, this aggregates liquidity off-chain and settles on-chain.\n- Eliminates passive LP exposure to arbitrage; MMs take on inventory risk for a bid/ask spread.\n- Enables complex orders (baskets, trait swaps) impossible in a simple xy=k pool.
~500ms
Fill Time
-70%
Slippage
05
The Solution: Reputation-Weighted Lending
Move from over-collateralized lending to a system where borrower reputation and NFT provenance dictate terms, reducing capital lockup.\n- Leverage on-chain history (e.g., Arcade.xyz, NFTfi) to score borrowers and collections.\n- Reputable borrowers (high repayment rate) access higher LTV loans, creating a virtuous cycle.\n- Provenance tracking (e.g., Art Blocks verified artists) allows lending against cultural equity, not just price.
60-80% LTV
For Top Tier
<1%
Default Rate
06
Entity Spotlight: Blend's Controlled Marketplace
Blur's Blend demonstrates the power of curated, peer-to-peer lending over open pools. It solves the fatal flaws by design.\n- No open pools: All liquidity is point-to-point, eliminating oracle risk and parasitic arbitrage.\n- Lender control: LPs (lenders) choose specific counterparties and collateral, acting as curators.\n- Market-driven rates: Interest rates are negotiated, reflecting true risk, not a broken AMM formula. This model has captured >90% of NFT loan volume.
>90%
Market Share
$10B+
Total Volume
deep-dive
THE LIQUIDITY MISMATCH
First Principles: Why NFTs Break the AMM Model
AMMs are mathematically optimized for fungible assets, creating a fundamental mismatch with the heterogeneous, illiquid nature of NFTs.
AMMs assume fungible asset pools. The constant product formula (x*y=k) requires identical, infinitely divisible assets. An NFT collection is a set of unique, non-fungible items, each with distinct market value and demand, breaking the core assumption of pool homogeneity.
Permissionless liquidity is toxic. In a standard AMM like Uniswap V2, any user deposits any asset. For NFTs, this allows low-value assets to dilute the pool, creating adverse selection where only undesirable NFTs are deposited, a problem known as the 'lemons market'.
Curated liquidity solves adverse selection. Protocols like Sudoswap and Blur's Blend require explicit, per-asset listing decisions. This curation prevents pool pollution, ensuring liquidity providers (LPs) only back assets they believe will appreciate, mirroring the manual curation of platforms like OpenSea.
Evidence: The failure of early permissionless NFT AMMs like NFTX, which saw pools dominated by floor-price NFTs, versus the traction of curated models. Sudoswap's v2 AMM, which introduced individual NFT pool management, demonstrated that curation is a prerequisite for sustainable NFT liquidity.
WHY PERMISSIONLESS LIQUIDITY FAILS
On-Chain Evidence: The Manipulation Playbook
A forensic comparison of liquidity models, showing how curated pools prevent the wash trading, MEV extraction, and value leakage endemic to permissionless AMMs like Sudoswap.
| Attack Vector / Metric | Permissionless Pools (e.g., Sudoswap v1) | Curated Pools (Proposed Model) | Centralized Order Book (e.g., Blur) |
|---|---|---|---|
Wash Trading for Rewards | |||
JIT Liquidity & MEV Extraction | |||
LP Capital Efficiency (Avg. APR) | Often <5% or negative | Targets >15% via curation | N/A (No LPs) |
Protocol Fee Capture | Near 0% (extracted by bots) | 1-5% (protected by curation) | 0.5-2% |
Slippage on $50k NFT Trade | 15-25% | <5% (deep, stable pool) | 0.1-2% |
Time to Manipulate Floor Price | < 10 minutes |
| < 1 hour |
Requires Active Risk Management |
counter-argument
THE REALITY
Steelman: Isn't Curation Anti-DeFi?
Permissionless liquidity fails for NFTs because it creates toxic, unpriceable inventory that destroys capital efficiency.
Curation is a prerequisite for functional markets. The core failure of permissionless NFT AMMs like Sudoswap is the toxic inventory problem. A pool accepting any NFT becomes a dumping ground for worthless assets, locking capital in illiquid JPEGs.
DeFi's core axiom is efficiency, not anarchic permissionlessness. Uniswap v3 introduced concentrated liquidity, a form of curation. For NFTs, curation is the price discovery mechanism that permissionless models lack.
Compare Blur's Blend to a generic AMM pool. Blend's peer-to-peer, curated model enables efficient lending against specific blue-chip NFTs. Generic pools, like those on early platforms, become insolvent from bad debt.
Evidence: The total value locked in generalized NFT AMMs is negligible. Specialized, curated lending protocols like NFTfi and Arcade dominate the capital-efficient NFT finance sector, proving market preference.
protocol-spotlight
WHY NFT AMS NEED CURATED LIQUIDITY
The Curated Vanguard: Emerging Models
The permissionless liquidity model of DeFi 1.0 is failing NFTs. Here are the emerging models that prioritize quality over quantity.
01
The Problem: The Junk Pool Dilemma
Permissionless pools are flooded with worthless assets, creating toxic liquidity that destroys capital efficiency and user experience.
- >90% of NFT collections are illiquid and worthless, but they still consume pool space.
- Traders face massive slippage and failed swaps due to non-fungible valuation cliffs.
- LPs suffer from impermanent loss squared, amplified by volatile, non-correlated assets.
>90%
Illiquid Assets
-99%
Collection Floor
02
The Solution: Curated Index Pools (e.g., NFTX, FloorDAO)
Treat NFTs like an index fund. Only high-quality, blue-chip collections with proven liquidity are whitelisted.
- Curators (DAO or protocol) select assets based on volume, holder base, and longevity.
- Creates fungible index tokens (like PUNK or DOODLE) for efficient DeFi composability.
- LPs earn fees from actual trading demand, not speculative farming.
10-50x
Higher Capital Efficiency
Blue-Chip
Asset Quality
03
The Solution: Discrete Pricing Oracles (e.g., Sudoswap, Blur Pool)
Abandon constant-product curves. Use off-chain or oracle-driven pricing for discrete, rational valuation.
- Pricing is set by creators or a verifiable oracle (like OpenSea floor), not a flawed AMM formula.
- Enables zero-slippage swaps for NFTs within the same price tier.
- Radically simplifies LPing to single-asset, yield-bearing deposits.
0%
Slippage (in-tier)
Single-Asset
LP Simplicity
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Liquidity Aggregation
Don't force liquidity into pools. Aggregate it across OTC desks, pools, and private sellers to fulfill a user's intent, similar to UniswapX or CowSwap for NFTs.
- Solvers compete to find the best execution across all liquidity sources.
- Users get better prices without needing to understand fragmented liquidity landscape.
- Unlocks idle inventory (e.g., vaulted NFTs) as a liquidity source.
~20%
Price Improvement
Multi-Source
Liquidity
risk-analysis
WHY PERMISSIONLESS LIQUIDITY FAILS NFTS
The Bear Case for Curation
The naive application of DeFi's permissionless AMM model to NFTs creates toxic liquidity pools and systemic risk.
01
The Wash Trading Problem
Permissionless pools are vulnerable to wash trading that artificially inflates prices and TVL, poisoning price discovery.\n- Synthetic volume from a few actors can mislead valuation models.\n- Creates a negative feedback loop where real liquidity flees, leaving only manipulative capital.
~70%
Synthetic Volume
0.1 ETH
Effective TVL
02
The Junk Asset Sinkhole
Uncurated pools become dumping grounds for worthless derivatives and fraudulent collections, destroying capital efficiency.\n- Toxic inventory from rug pulls and spam NFTs dilutes pool value.\n- Slippage models break when the "floor" is composed of valueless assets, as seen in early Sudoswap v1 pools.
90%+
Junk Assets
-95%
LP Returns
03
The Oracle Manipulation Vector
NFT AMMs rely on external price feeds. A permissionless pool filled with junk can be gamed to create false on-chain pricing data.\n- Chainlink and Pyth oracles can be skewed by a single malicious pool.\n- This compromises the entire DeFi stack built on top of NFT collateral, from BendDAO to JPEG'd.
1 Pool
Attack Surface
$100M+
Systemic Risk
04
The Solution: Curator DAOs
Liquidity must be gated by expert curators who whitelist collections based on provenance, community, and smart contract audits.\n- Dynamic bonding curves are tuned per collection, not one-size-fits-all.\n- Models like NFTX V2 and Tribe's guarded launch demonstrate 10x higher capital efficiency in curated vaults.
10x
Capital Efficiency
0%
Junk Rate
05
The Solution: Reputation-Based Staking
Liquidity providers stake reputation tokens (e.g., Curate protocol) to participate in high-quality pools, aligning incentives with long-term health.\n- Slashing mechanisms penalize LPs who deposit fraudulent assets.\n- Creates a virtuous cycle where the best curators attract the most liquidity and fees.
100%
Skin in Game
5-10% APY
Premium Returns
06
The Solution: Layer 2 Specialization
Curation is computationally expensive. Dedicated L2s or appchains (like dYdX Chain) allow for complex, gas-efficient whitelisting and dispute resolution.\n- ZK-proofs of provenance can verify collection legitimacy without full re-execution.\n- Enables sub-second pool updates and real-time risk management, impossible on congested L1s.
~500ms
Update Latency
-90%
Curation Cost
future-outlook
THE REALITY CHECK
The Path Forward: Hybrid Curation & On-Chain Reputation
Permissionless liquidity pools fail for NFTs, demanding a hybrid model that curates assets and leverages on-chain reputation for sustainable markets.
Permissionless liquidity is toxic for NFTs. Universal bonding curves create a dumping ground for worthless assets, diluting capital efficiency and guaranteeing losses for LPs. This is the core failure of models like Sudoswap v1.
Curation is a capital efficiency tool. Protocols like Blur's Blend and Reservoir's marketplace aggregation demonstrate that selective, asset-specific pools attract higher quality liquidity. Curation filters out noise, concentrating capital on assets with provable demand.
On-chain reputation enables dynamic curation. Systems must move beyond static allowlists. A composable reputation layer, akin to EigenLayer for restaking, would score collections based on trading volume, holder concentration, and creator provenance.
Evidence: The 80/20 rule dominates NFT liquidity. Over 80% of trading volume concentrates on less than 20% of collections. A permissionless AMM ignores this reality, while a curated system optimizes for it.
takeaways
CURATED LIQUIDITY THESIS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Permissionless liquidity is a bug for NFTs, not a feature. Here's why curation is the only viable AMM design.
01
The Problem: The Illiquidity Death Spiral
Open pools attract worthless NFTs, creating toxic inventory that scares off real buyers. This is the core failure of models like Sudoswap.\n- TVL bleeds into a few blue-chip collections\n- 99% of pool NFTs become unsellable inventory\n- Creates negative feedback loop, killing the market
>90%
Dead Inventory
-70%
TVL Churn
02
The Solution: Curator-as-Market-Maker
Delegate pool creation to experts (e.g., Flooring Protocol, NFTX) who stake reputation on selection. This mirrors Uniswap v3's concentrated liquidity but for asset quality.\n- Curators earn fees for performing due diligence\n- LPs get safer exposure to vetted collections\n- Protocol accrues value from curation premium
10x
Capital Efficiency
+300 bps
Fee Premium
03
The Mechanism: Bonded Curation & Slashing
Curators post bonds (in ETH or protocol token) that are slashed if their selected pools underperform or get gamed. This aligns incentives without requiring permission.\n- Skin-in-the-game ensures quality over quantity\n- Dynamic bond sizes based on collection risk\n- Automated slashing via oracle-reported floor prices
5-50 ETH
Bond Range
-100%
Slash on Fail
04
The Outcome: Protocol-Owned Liquidity
Curated pools become the protocol's primary product, not a commodity. This builds a sustainable fee engine and defensible moat, similar to Blur's bid pool dominance.\n- Predictable revenue from high-quality swap volume\n- Attracts institutional LPs seeking yield, not gambling\n- Enables derivatives (options, loans) on pooled assets
$100M+
Stable TVL Target
15-25%
APY for LPs
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