Why the Matching Pool Should Be a Dynamic, Living Entity

The Problem: Static pools cannot adapt to market conditions or user intent. The Solution: Hooks are smart contracts that execute at key pool lifecycle events (swap, LP position change). This enables dynamic fees, time-weighted orders, and on-chain TWAPs, turning a pool into a programmable state machine.

• Key Benefit: Enables novel AMM logic (e.g., liquidity that migrates to the active price range).
• Key Benefit: Composability for MEV protection and custom LP strategies.

The Problem: LP capital is inefficiently distributed, often sitting idle outside the current price. The Solution: A Dynamic Distribution AMM where LPs can attach liquidity to a "mode" (e.g., Right, Left) that automatically shifts bins as price moves, concentrating capital where it's needed.

• Key Benefit: ~1000x higher capital efficiency for stablecoin pairs versus Uniswap V3.
• Key Benefit: Automated, gas-efficient rebalancing eliminates manual LP management overhead.

The Problem: Bridging liquidity is fragmented and capital-intensive, requiring locked assets on every chain. The Solution: A unified liquidity pool that sits on Ethereum, dynamically fulfilling cross-chain intents sourced by relayers like Across and UniswapX. Liquidity is a single, re-usable resource.

• Key Benefit: ~$2B+ in secured volume with a fraction of the capital of lock-and-mint bridges.
• Key Benefit: Faster settlement (~1-3 min) and better rates via competition among fillers.

The Problem: Liquidity incentives are blunt instruments, often misaligned with long-term protocol health. The Solution: Vote-escrow tokenomics (inspired by Curve) allows token lockers to direct emissions, dynamically steering liquidity to strategic pools each epoch.

• Key Benefit: Creates a self-reinforcing flywheel where fees and bribes attract more locked capital.
• Key Benefit: Enables real-time, governance-led reallocation of liquidity mining rewards.

Traditional AMMs and order books lock capital in fixed curves or discrete price points, leading to ~80% idle capital and massive opportunity cost. This inefficiency is a direct tax on LPs and a bottleneck for user experience.

• Capital Inefficiency: Idle liquidity earns zero fees.
• Slippage Trap: Large orders suffer from high price impact due to rigid bonding curves.
• Fragmented TVL: Liquidity is siloed across thousands of pools, reducing aggregate depth.

A dynamic pool acts as a unified liquidity router, similar to UniswapX or CowSwap, but at the infrastructure layer. It doesn't hold assets; it matches flows. Solvers and fillers compete to source the best execution path across all venues.

• Capital Efficiency: Liquidity is only deployed when matched, approaching 100% utilization.
• Price Improvement: Aggregation across DEXs, private pools, and OTC desks reduces effective slippage.
• Composability: Serves as a universal settlement layer for intent-based protocols like Across and layerzero.

The pool's state is defined by an open network of solvers running verifiable algorithms. They bid for the right to fulfill user intents, creating a continuous auction for liquidity. This turns MEV from a parasitic extractor into a competitive force for better execution.

• Prover-Verifier Model: Solvers submit proofs of optimal execution; the protocol verifies and rewards.
• Dynamic Fee Market: Fees adjust based on solver competition and network congestion.
• Credible Neutrality: The protocol is a ruleset, not a participant, avoiding the pitfalls of centralized sequencers.

A dynamic matching pool abstracts away liquidity sources, presenting a single, deep counterparty to the user. This is the foundational primitive for on-chain derivatives, RFQ systems, and cross-chain swaps that feel instantaneous.

• Unified Depth: Aggregates fragmented liquidity into a single virtual order book.
• Guaranteed Settlement: Cryptographic proofs ensure the matched trade is the final state.
• New Product Vectors: Enables complex orders (TWAP, limit) without requiring new pool deployment.