Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Haardik
@haardikkk
AMMs: - better UI/UX - largest trading volume - available everywhere - actually decentralized - nicely composable - crypto native - not wintermute why do you think CLOBs are still better?
10 replies
2 recasts
15 reactions
Jorge Schnura
@schnura
Liquidity efficiency
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Haardik
@haardikkk
what do you mean?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Jorge Schnura
@schnura
On a CLOB I don't need to lock up my capital to make the market, which allows me to make the market in a much more capital efficient way. Also, AMMs are decent for spot products, but for derivatives they work worse
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Haardik
@haardikkk
Agreed for derivatives If you place an order you do need to lock your liquidity. The equivalent is simply placing that liquidity highly concentrated in an AMM - no?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jorge Schnura
@schnura
I can use the same liquidity to place multiple limit orders. The first one to get filled would close the rest. It's not real liquidity (otherwise it would mean leverage) but theoretical leverage. In any case, it's more efficient than AMMs. What really kills AMMs though is fees. There's no way we @turingcapital could operate with Uniswap's fees for example
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Haardik
@haardikkk
Good point Re: fees - isn’t 10bps standard on most CLOBs? Uni has several 10bps pools
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jorge Schnura
@schnura
Not really. Funds like us have fees ranging 2bps to -2bps (rebates) on maker orders and 3.5bps to 2bps on taker orders, depending on volume. 10bps would kill the performance of many of the strategies we run. Basically all the trading strategies, we'd have to rely solely on asset allocation strategies (low volume) and buy and hold (very low volume)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
