Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

am-AMM: An Auction-Managed Automated Market Maker

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.03367 v4 pith:WXZCHCUN submitted 2024-03-05 q-fin.TR cs.GTmath.OCq-fin.MF

classification q-fin.TRcs.GTmath.OCq-fin.MF
keywords poolmarketliquiditymanagerorderflowammsauction-managedautomated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automated market makers (AMMs) have emerged as the dominant market mechanism for trading on decentralized exchanges implemented on blockchains. This paper presents a single mechanism that targets two important unsolved problems for AMMs: reducing losses to informed orderflow, and maximizing revenue from uninformed orderflow. The ``auction-managed AMM'' works by running a censorship-resistant onchain auction for the right to temporarily act as ``pool manager'' for a constant-product AMM. The pool manager sets the swap fee rate on the pool, and also receives the accrued fees from swaps. The pool manager can exclusively capture some arbitrage by trading against the pool in response to small price movements, and also can set swap fees incorporating price sensitivity of retail orderflow and adapting to changing market conditions, with the benefits from both ultimately accruing to liquidity providers. Liquidity providers can enter and exit the pool freely in response to changing rent, though they must pay a small fee on withdrawal. We prove that under certain assumptions, this AMM should have higher liquidity in equilibrium than any standard, fixed-fee AMM.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optimal Fees for Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers

    q-fin.TR 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Optimal AMM fees sit just below all-in CEX trading costs in normal markets, rise with volatility, and become effectively infinite (halt trading) in extreme volatility.

  2. Causal Effects of Protocol-Fee Changes on Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers

    stat.AP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A matched-overlap event-study DiD of Uniswap’s protocol-fee switch finds no large short-run average LP liquidity, depth, or participation response to take-rate cuts.

  3. Optimal Dynamic Fees in Automated Market Makers

    q-fin.TR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a constant-function market maker, optimal dynamic fees balance arbitrage deterrence against noise-trader attraction, and a fee that is linear in inventory and external price is a near-optimal approximation.

Pith tools