2026-01-06 05:24:34

A recent statement by a leading DEX founder has attracted attention. He candidly refuted the claim that "the AMM model is unsustainable" and elaborated on the survival space of automated market makers in different market environments.

His core point is quite interesting: for trading pairs with lower volatility, AMMs open the door for participants with low capital costs. In contrast, traditional professional market makers have much higher capital costs, which is enough to put them at a disadvantage in price competition. In the high-volatility long-tail asset sector, the situation is completely reversed—AMMs have almost become the only solution capable of providing liquidity on a large scale. This means liquidity providers still have significant opportunities in these assets.

This argument hits the core: different market structures determine the competitiveness of different models. Simply saying that AMM is dead clearly ignores the true complexity of the market.

View Original

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHarvester

· 14h ago

I think what this guy is saying makes some sense, but the real profit still comes from those meme coin long-tail assets. The more volatile, the more opportunities, right?

View OriginalReply0

HappyMinerUncle

· 01-07 17:50

Wake up, AMM is not dead at all, some just haven't understood it --- The long-tail assets are indeed well understood; low-volatility tokens rely on cost advantages, while high volatility is the real liquidity goldmine. This logic is sound --- Another bunch of "XXX is dead" arguments, I really can't believe it. The market is so complex, yet some still insist on binary opposition? --- Basically, it's just a matter of different supply sides. Those claiming unsustainability simply haven't seen through it --- It feels like this guy finally said something reasonable. Finally, someone dares to counter those bearish voices

View OriginalReply0

GweiWatcher

· 01-07 01:15

Just tell me, how many people are shouting that AMM is dead every day without even thinking about what they are talking about --- Low-volatility trading pairs are indeed dominated by AMM, I agree with this, the cost advantage is clear --- He is right about long-tail assets; without AMM, there would really be no liquidity, LPs are all waiting for this opportunity --- The old-fashioned "certain model is going to die" rhetoric, hearing it too often really numbs you --- The core issue is the scenario problem; different markets require different strategies. Is it naive to insist there will definitely be no exceptions? --- I can accept this logic, but how many LPs are actually making money now... --- Forget it, instead of debating whether we can survive, it's better to see if we can make money from it

View OriginalReply0

Fren_Not_Food

· 01-06 05:54

It's true, but things that are often written off tend to last longer. --- The argument that AMM is dead has been tired for a long time; it's a typical surface-level view. --- Using AMM for low-volatility pairs is indeed great, and the cost advantage over traditional market makers is well explained. --- The real survival space is in long-tail assets, LPs can even laugh in their sleep. --- The market complexity has been ignored for so many years; it's about time someone explains it properly. --- Different scenarios require different approaches; binary thinking should really be thrown into the trash. --- People love hearing absolute statements—like AMM is dead—tsk, really. --- For high-volatility small-cap tokens, AMM is basically the only choice, and that's an opportunity. --- The control over capital costs is tight, traditional market makers can't argue with that. --- Another model declared dead is alive and kicking; the story is always the same.

View OriginalReply0

ETHReserveBank

· 01-06 05:54

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The claim that AMM is dead is a false proposition. Low-volatility trading pairs don't require professional market makers at all; the costs are just there. Conversely, those elusive long-tail assets can't be managed without AMM.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 01-06 05:52

nah this is the real alchemy right here... watching traditional market makers get bled dry while we're literally brewing alpha in the long tail. AMM never dies, it just transmutes into different forms depending on where the chaos lives 🔮

Reply0

UnluckyMiner

· 01-06 05:42

That's reasonable. AMM has long needed to distinguish itself this way; not all trading pairs are the same. --- Long-tail assets are indeed the main domain of AMM; traditional market makers simply don't want to touch them. --- Trading pairs with low volatility have obvious cost advantages; this is the territory AMM should defend. --- They're starting to shift blame again, saying AMM is dead. Nothing is truly dead; it's these doom-mongers who deserve to be criticized. --- The key is to admit market segmentation; otherwise, it's just blind hype. --- A blessing for low-cost participants; the high and mighty centralized exchanges should be worried. --- This gentleman finally told the truth, much more reliable than those who constantly talk down. --- Liquidity scarcity in long-tail assets, AMM is really a lifesaver. --- Differentiated competition; this time, no one should be able to argue against it, right?

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 01-06 05:39

To be honest, I really respect this guy's logic. Not all assets are suitable for AMM, but not all assets are dead either. The market is just this complex. The liquidity issues of long-tail assets can really only be solved by AMM, and LP opportunities are not nonexistent. In low-volatility trading pairs, they indeed can't compete with traditional market makers, but that doesn't mean the entire model is invalid. Market-making costs are the key, and the advantages of low-capital participants are seriously underestimated. AMM is not dead; it's just looking for the niche segment where it truly excels. This kind of argument is much more reliable than those who are always bearish. Each niche market has its own gameplay; black-and-white thinking is really boring. That's reasonable, but impermanent loss for LPs is still a hurdle that can't be bypassed. For long-tail asset liquidity, there really is no alternative solution.

View OriginalReply0

SilentObserver

· 01-06 05:36

Haha, this guy hit the nail on the head. The long-tail assets are indeed the main arena for AMM. --- Another argument that "AMM is finished," it's funny. Just look at how long-tail coins survive, and you'll understand. --- Low-cost advantage + long-tail liquidity vacuum, AMM won't die, it's that simple. --- The high capital costs of professional market makers... can't compare to the thin profit, high turnover model of AMM. That's a real competitive edge. --- Exactly, different market environments call for different strategies; one size doesn't fit all. --- Without AMM, there's basically no market making for long-tail assets, so this one is a win. --- For low-volatility pairs, institutions handle them; for high-volatility pairs, AMM takes over. Each does what it’s best at. Why would it die?

View OriginalReply0