Aug 23, 2023
Educational
AMMs vs. Order Books in Crypto: A Comprehensive Comparison
by Orderly Network
Cryptocurrency trading has undergone a revolutionary transformation with the rise of decentralized exchanges (DEXs). These platforms provide traders with an alternative to traditional centralized exchanges, offering enhanced privacy, security, and control over their assets. As DEXs become prominent, two distinct types have become popular with traders — Automated Market Makers (AMMs) and Orderbook-based DEXs.
In this article, we detail a comprehensive comparison, delving into the features, benefits, and drawbacks of each approach, while shedding light on the intricacies of AMMs and Orderbook DEXs.
Let’s dive right in…
Decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, are platforms that facilitate peer-to-peer cryptocurrency trading without relying on intermediaries or centralized authorities. These exchanges operate on blockchains, allowing users to trade directly with one another while retaining control over their private keys and funds. Decentralized exchanges prioritize security and user autonomy, making them an appealing choice for traders seeking a more decentralized trading experience.
An Automated Market Maker (AMM) is an essential component of DEXs that leverages smart contracts to create liquidity pools for trading. AMMs remove the need for traditional orderbooks by automatically matching buy and sell orders through predetermined algorithms. Instead of relying on order matching, AMMs utilize liquidity providers who deposit a pair of tokens into a pool. These pools are then used to execute trades while participants earn a share of the trading fees.
An order book is a fundamental concept in traditional and crypto trading alike. It is a record of buy and sell orders for a particular asset, displaying the quantity and price at which traders are willing to buy or sell. Orderbook-based DEXs rely on these order books to match traders’ orders directly, providing a more familiar trading experience for those accustomed to traditional markets.
With those definitions out of the way, now let’s take a closer look at DEXs. DEXs come in various forms, catering to different trading preferences and strategies. They can be categorized into three main types: Orderbook DEXs, AMM DEXs, and Hybrid DEXs.
Orderbook DEXs operate similarly to traditional exchanges. They maintain comprehensive order books and match buy and sell orders accordingly. Some examples of Orderbook DEXs include WOOFI DEX, REF Finance, and JUMP DEFI.
DEXs adopting the central limit order book (CLOB) model share similarities with both traditional centralized exchanges (CEXs) and traditional financial (TradFi) systems in the way they facilitate the interaction between buyers and sellers. In this model, DEXs display the prices and quantities of cryptocurrency trading pairs on their interfaces, much like their centralized counterparts, with all transactions executed on these DEXs recorded on a public ledger, ensuring transparency and accountability.
However, it is important to note that order book DEXs may vary in efficiency, especially when dealing with illiquid markets or low trading volumes, potentially leading to increased slippage — the difference between the expected and executed trade prices.
In essence, order book DEXs can be further categorized into on-chain and off-chain variations, each with distinct characteristics and trade-offs.
For on-chain order book DEXs, every order and transaction is recorded directly on the blockchain. This approach offers a high level of transparency and decentralization, as all trading activities are publicly visible and verifiable by anyone. However, it comes at the cost of potentially higher transaction fees and slower transaction speeds. With each trade requiring on-chain validation, the underlying network’s throughput can become a bottleneck, thus affecting the overall efficiency of the exchange.
Off-chain order book DEXs take a different route by moving much of the trading activity off-chain, only settling the final trades on the blockchain. The order matching, as well as the storage of trade-related information such as asset positions and prices, occurs off-chain. This approach enhances transaction speed and reduces gas fees, making it a more attractive option for traders seeking swift execution.
However, this convenience is accompanied by the potential risk of centralization. Since the order book and matching engines operate off-chain, there is a possibility that they might be controlled by a single entity or a few entities, compromising the decentralized nature of DEXs.
AMM DEXs, as mentioned earlier, use liquidity pools and automated algorithms to facilitate trades. They can be further divided into different types based on their algorithms, such as Constant Product (e.g., Uniswap), Constant Mean (e.g., Balancer), and others.
Uniswap version 1 (v1) introduced the Automated Market Maker (AMM) concept to the crypto world. In Uniswap V1, liquidity providers deposited equal values of two different tokens into a liquidity pool. The smart contract would automatically determine the token price based on the invariant “x * y = k,” where x and y are the quantities of the two tokens in the pool, and k is a constant.
Uniswap V2
To address the limitations of V1, Uniswap V2 was introduced. It retained the AMM model but introduced improvements to enhance flexibility and expand its token offerings. Uniswap V2 allowed liquidity providers to deposit different proportions of tokens in pools, thus enabling more diverse pairs. Moreover, V2 introduced price oracles, which aggregated data from multiple sources to provide more accurate and tamper-resistant price feeds.
Uniswap V3
Uniswap V3 represented a significant leap forward by introducing the concept of “concentrated liquidity.” This version allowed liquidity providers to choose specific price ranges within which their liquidity would be concentrated, optimizing capital efficiency. This approach minimized the issue of impermanent loss — a phenomenon where liquidity providers suffer losses due to token price fluctuations.
Additionally, Uniswap V3 introduced a fee tier system, where liquidity providers could select fee levels, thereby offering a dynamic trading experience that aligned with their risk preferences. Lower fee tiers encouraged trading in concentrated ranges, while higher fee tiers incentivized liquidity providers for supplying assets in volatile markets.
Uniswap V4
Uniswap v4 is still in the works, however, early glimpses suggest that it will introduce a novel approach to automated market makers (AMMs) by offering enhanced customization through the use of “hooks” — contracts that can be integrated into the lifecycle of pool actions. It also introduces new functionalities such as dynamic fees, on-chain limit orders, and time-weighted average market making (TWAMM). The architecture of Uniswap v4 is streamlined with a “singleton” contract that houses all pools, aiming to reduce costs and optimize efficiency. This version will present a powerful ecosystem that balances customization, efficiency, and innovation.
Hybrid DEXs combine features of both Orderbook and AMM DEXs. They offer flexibility in trading options, allowing users to choose between different order-matching mechanisms. A typical example of Hybrid DEXs is Kyber Network.
In Kyber Network, liquidity providers contribute funds to liquidity reserves, and these reserves are then utilized to facilitate seamless token swaps. AMM algorithms come into play here, ensuring that even less popular tokens have adequate liquidity for trading. Users seeking to trade tokens can access these liquidity reserves directly, eliminating the need for an order book.
This AMM-based aspect ensures simplicity and quick execution for users, especially those who prioritize convenience and speed. However, Kyber Network takes it a step further by integrating a dynamic reserve routing mechanism. This means that Kyber Network scans multiple liquidity sources, both its own reserves and external DEXs, to find the best possible exchange rate for the user. This approach improves liquidity and price discovery, as it taps into a larger pool of liquidity, addressing a common challenge faced by pure AMM-based DEXs.
This combination of AMM simplicity and external liquidity aggregation encapsulates Kyber Network’s hybrid approach, maximizing user experience without compromising on liquidity efficiency.
Different factors must be considered in order to draw a detailed comparison between orderbook and AMM DEX. Some of the main points in focus include slippage and liquidity, ease of use, transaction costs, and impermanent loss, among other things.
The crypto trading landscape is currently witnessing a growing inclination towards DEXs, largely due to mistrust in CEXs. However, this shift is hampered by DEX inefficiencies like latency, complex usability, slow transaction speeds, and overreliance on bridges. These issues make DEXs less effective than CEXs. Furthermore, CeFi struggles with transparency issues, and the broader decentralized trading landscape grapples with problems like the absence of limit order functions, inefficient capital use, high slippage, and impermanent loss. While tremendous leeway has been attained over the years, the need for far more optimal solutions is evidently of utmost importance to the evolution of DeFi trading.
Orderly Network offers an innovative approach to DeFi trading by delivering a robust unified infrastructure with easy-to-integrate solutions that enable builders deliver superior dApps. Orderly aims to deliver an omni-chain central limit order book (CLOB) trading infrastructure that empowers institutional and professional traders for high-volume trades. By collaborating with leading market makers, Orderly ensures profound liquidity, tight spreads, and consistent uptime; thus boasting CEX-like performance, and ensuring swift transactions. In essence, builders have the necessary tools, at all times, to deliver a holistic DeFi trading experience; thus ushering in the next generation of DeFi apps.
It is quite evident that both AMMs and Orderbook DEXs offer unique advantages and challenges. The choice between the two depends on individual trading preferences, risk tolerance, and familiarity with the trading mechanisms. By understanding the nuances of each approach, traders can make informed decisions and navigate the world of DEXs more effectively.
Join the Community to stay up-to-date with all things Orderly:
