Universal DEXs like Uniswap V3 and Curve excel at broad asset coverage by leveraging generalized Automated Market Makers (AMMs) and permissionless listing. This model enables trading for thousands of ERC-20 tokens, fostering innovation and accessibility. For example, Uniswap's TVL often exceeds $3.5B, supporting a vast array of long-tail assets and new launches. However, this universality can lead to fragmented liquidity, higher slippage for large trades, and exposure to volatile, low-quality assets.
LABS
Comparisons
Broad Asset Coverage vs Selective Markets: A DEX Strategy Analysis
A technical comparison of the broad asset coverage model used by AMMs like Uniswap versus the selective, high-liquidity markets of orderbook DEXs like dYdX. This analysis covers liquidity depth, capital efficiency, and optimal use cases for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Trade-off in DEX Design
Decentralized exchange architecture forces a fundamental choice between universal asset access and optimized market performance.
Selective DEXs like dYdX (v3) and GMX take a different approach by curating a limited set of high-liquidity markets, such as major crypto pairs and perpetual futures. This strategy concentrates capital into fewer, deeper liquidity pools, resulting in superior execution with tighter spreads and lower slippage. dYdX, for instance, has consistently processed over $1B in daily volume from a focused product set. The trade-off is a closed ecosystem that limits token diversity and developer composability compared to open protocols.
The key trade-off: If your protocol's priority is maximum composability and supporting a wide range of experimental assets, choose a universal AMM like Uniswap. If you prioritize institutional-grade execution, deep liquidity, and professional trading features for mainstream assets, choose a selective DEX like dYdX or a specialized AMM like Curve for stablecoins.
tldr-summary
Broad Asset Coverage vs Selective Markets
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the strategic trade-offs between platforms offering extensive asset support versus those focusing on curated, high-liquidity markets.
01
Broad Coverage (e.g., Ethereum, Cosmos)
Massive Composability: Supports thousands of ERC-20 tokens, enabling novel DeFi primitives like Aave's aTokens and Compound's cTokens. This is critical for protocols building complex, multi-asset strategies.
02
Broad Coverage (e.g., Ethereum, Cosmos)
Developer Familiarity & Tooling: Leverages established standards (ERC-20, CW-20) and massive ecosystems (Uniswap V3, SushiSwap, Osmosis). Reduces integration time and taps into a deep pool of developer talent.
03
Selective Markets (e.g., dYdX, Hyperliquid)
Optimized Performance & Cost: By focusing on major assets (BTC, ETH, SOL), these chains can achieve 10,000+ TPS and <$0.01 fees. Essential for high-frequency trading and perpetual futures.
04
Selective Markets (e.g., dYdX, Hyperliquid)
Deep, Concentrated Liquidity: TVL is funneled into fewer, high-volume pairs, resulting in tighter spreads and lower slippage for large orders. This is the core value proposition for professional traders.
LIQUIDITY MODEL COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Broad Coverage (AMM) vs Selective Markets (Orderbook)
Direct comparison of Automated Market Makers (AMMs) and Central Limit Order Books (CLOBs) for decentralized trading.
| Metric | Automated Market Maker (AMM) | Central Limit Order Book (CLOB) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Asset Coverage | Any ERC-20 / SPL token pair | Selective high-liquidity markets (e.g., SOL/USDC, ETH/USDC) |
Capital Efficiency | Low (requires liquidity across entire price curve) | High (liquidity concentrated at specific prices) |
Typical Fee for $10k Swap | 0.3% + ~$5 network fee | 0.1% + ~$0.01 network fee |
Price Discovery Mechanism | Algorithmic via constant product formula (x*y=k) | User-subited limit orders |
Impermanent Loss Risk | High for volatile pairs | None (no LP position) |
Requires Active Market Making | ||
Example Protocols | Uniswap V3, Raydium | Phoenix, Hyperliquid, dYdX |
pros-cons-a
Broad AMMs vs. Selective Markets
Pros and Cons: Broad Asset Coverage (AMM Model)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. This analysis compares the AMM model (e.g., Uniswap, PancakeSwap) for broad asset coverage against selective market models (e.g., dYdX, Vertex) for specific assets.
01
Broad AMMs: Strength - Permissionless Listing
Specific advantage: Any ERC-20 token can create a pool instantly. This enables discovery of long-tail assets and new projects like meme coins or governance tokens. It matters for decentralized innovation and early liquidity provision.
02
Broad AMMs: Weakness - Capital Inefficiency & Slippage
Specific disadvantage: Liquidity is fragmented across thousands of pools. For large trades on less popular assets, slippage can exceed 5-10%. This matters for institutional traders and large-scale DeFi operations where execution cost is critical.
03
Selective Markets: Strength - Deep, Concentrated Liquidity
Specific advantage: Liquidity is focused on a curated set of high-volume assets (e.g., BTC, ETH, major stablecoins). This enables <1% slippage on large orders and tighter spreads. It matters for high-frequency trading and professional market makers.
04
Selective Markets: Weakness - Limited Asset Discovery
Specific disadvantage: New or niche assets cannot be traded without governance approval. This creates a barrier for emerging protocols and community-driven tokens, potentially stifling ecosystem growth and user choice.
pros-cons-b
Broad Asset Coverage vs. Selective Markets
Pros and Cons: Selective Markets (Orderbook Model)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocols using an orderbook model.
01
Pro: Deep Liquidity & Price Discovery
Specific advantage: Concentrates trading volume into fewer, high-demand pairs, enabling tighter spreads and deeper order books. This matters for institutional traders and arbitrageurs who require minimal slippage on large orders. Protocols like dYdX and Hyperliquid demonstrate this with daily volumes often exceeding $1B in their core markets.
02
Pro: Superior UX for Traders
Specific advantage: Mirrors the familiar interface of CEXs (limit orders, stop-losses, advanced charting), reducing onboarding friction. This matters for attracting professional traders migrating from Binance or Bybit. The model supports complex order types that AMMs cannot easily replicate, a key differentiator for protocols like Vertex and ApeX.
03
Con: Limited Asset Discovery
Specific trade-off: New or long-tail assets are excluded, stifling innovation and community-driven token launches. This matters for new protocols and NFT communities seeking decentralized price discovery. Users must bridge assets to a separate AMM (like Uniswap or PancakeSwap) for these tokens, fragmenting liquidity and capital efficiency.
04
Con: Centralized Curation Risk
Specific trade-off: Market selection is a centralized governance decision, creating a single point of failure and potential for rent-seeking. This matters for decentralization purists and DAO-led projects who prioritize permissionless listing. It creates a bottleneck where projects must lobby for inclusion, contrary to the ethos of open finance.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each Model: A User Scenario Breakdown
Broad Asset Coverage for DeFi
Verdict: The Strategic Choice for Composability. Strengths: A broad asset model (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum) provides deep liquidity and a massive, established ecosystem of tokens (ERC-20, ERC-4626). This enables superior composability for protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Yearn, allowing them to build on a vast base of collateral and trading pairs. The TVL is significantly higher, offering proven security and battle-tested smart contracts. Standards like EIP-712 and EIP-4337 are mature. Trade-off: This comes with higher average transaction fees and potential network congestion, making micro-transactions or high-frequency interactions costly.
Selective Markets for DeFi
Verdict: The Niche Optimizer for Cost & Speed. Strengths: A selective market model (e.g., dYdX on StarkEx, Hyperliquid on its own L1) is architected for a specific asset class (e.g., perpetuals). It delivers lower fees, faster finality, and higher TPS by optimizing the stack for a single use case. This is ideal for order-book DEXs and high-performance lending markets where latency and cost are critical. Trade-off: You sacrifice the open-ended composability and broad liquidity of a general-purpose chain. Integrating with external DeFi legos is more complex.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between broad asset coverage and selective markets is a foundational architectural decision that defines your protocol's reach and resilience.
Broad Asset Coverage excels at maximizing Total Addressable Market (TAM) and user acquisition by supporting thousands of tokens, including long-tail assets and memecoins. For example, protocols like Uniswap V3 and Curve Finance achieve deep liquidity across a vast array of ERC-20 tokens, with Uniswap alone facilitating over $1.5B in daily volume. This approach reduces integration friction for new projects and captures speculative trading demand, but can dilute liquidity and increase exposure to volatile, low-quality assets.
Selective Markets takes a different approach by curating a high-quality asset basket, focusing on deep liquidity, safety, and capital efficiency for core trading pairs. This results in superior price stability and lower slippage for major assets, as seen with dYdX's concentrated BTC/ETH/USDC perpetual markets or Aave's carefully vetted lending pools. The trade-off is a smaller immediate TAM and potential exclusion of emerging, high-growth assets that drive new user cohorts.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user growth, composability, and maximum market capture in a rapidly evolving landscape, choose a broad coverage model. If you prioritize capital efficiency, risk management, and building a trusted brand for sophisticated traders and institutions, a selective, curated market strategy is superior. Your choice dictates your liquidity architecture, risk parameters, and ultimately, which segment of the DeFi economy you will dominate.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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