Some folks keep saying Prop AMMs and Intent-based mechanisms have killed off classic AMMs—but the data tells a different story. Stablecoin-to-stablecoin AMM liquidity remains rock solid, and honestly, orderbooks still lag way behind in this segment. The real question isn't whether these innovations killed AMMs; it's when volatile pair trading gets its own StableSwap moment. That's where the next wave of efficiency gains happens.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
NFTHoardervip
· 12h ago
Stablecoin liquidity is indeed not as fragile as imagined, but what about volatility... Wait, can the StableSwap system be universally applied?
View OriginalReply0
UnluckyMinervip
· 12h ago
The liquidity of stablecoin pairs is indeed stable, but who is really using them?
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityHuntervip
· 12h ago
The liquidity depth data of stablecoin pairs is not as fragile as imagined; this perspective is quite interesting.
View OriginalReply0
hodl_therapistvip
· 12h ago
Stablecoin trading pools are indeed still the domain of AMMs, this point is beyond doubt.
View OriginalReply0
SelfStakingvip
· 12h ago
Liquidity for stablecoin pairs is still a real skill; the order book is far behind.
View OriginalReply0
OfflineValidatorvip
· 12h ago
Stablecoins indeed have no problem with liquidity, but isn't that just saying that the new mechanism hasn't been used yet? Let's talk again when the volatility pair also has its own killer move.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • بالعربية
  • Português (Brasil)
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Español
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Русский
  • 繁體中文
  • Українська
  • Tiếng Việt