2026-01-05 04:25:17

Many DEXs attempt to meet all user needs with a single design, but this often leads to compromises. Truly excellent trading protocols should recognize that the core needs of traders and liquidity providers (LPs) are different.

Traders care about execution efficiency and spreads—they need fast transactions and optimal pricing. LPs, on the other hand, seek structured returns and transparent mechanism design, understanding how their funds create value. When DEX protocols separate and optimize the incentive mechanisms for these two roles, the overall ecosystem efficiency can be significantly improved. This is the essence of market design—ensuring that each participant's interests are respected and protected.

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.

21 Likes

Reward
21
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SerumSqueezer

· 01-06 18:43

Honestly, this theory sounds good, but in reality, how many DEXs have actually achieved this? It still feels like everyone is doing their own thing.

View OriginalReply0

DuskSurfer

· 01-06 17:43

Honestly, most DEXs are just brainstorming products without much thought, and as a result, no one is satisfied. High slippage, opaque yields, traders and LPs doing their own thing... The idea of a separated incentive mechanism is good, but execution is really difficult.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeAssassin

· 01-05 04:53

That's right, most DEXs are just compromises now. Traders and LPs are not the same group of people, and forcing them together will only make both sides unhappy.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainNewbie

· 01-05 04:47

Someone should have said this a long time ago; DEXs are indeed quite frustrating right now.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropworkerZhang

· 01-05 04:45

That's true, but the key question is how many DEXs are actually doing it now? Most are still just fooling around.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 01-05 04:35

Honestly, most DEXs are just messing around there, insisting on a single solution to satisfy everyone, and as a result, no one is happy. Actually, the problem isn't that complicated. The idea of separating incentive mechanisms should have been popularized long ago. It's quite ironic that only now are people seriously working on this. The demands of traders and LPs are fundamentally mismatched. Forcing them together will only water down both sides. No matter how much the mechanism is optimized during a market downturn, it can't save the situation. Real liquidity depth is what truly matters. I haven't seen any DEX that truly achieves a win-win for both traders and LPs; it's mostly a zero-sum game. This theory sounds good, but the real test is in its implementation.

View OriginalReply0

TestnetScholar

· 01-05 04:26

That's right, DEXs are still too complicated now. A design that tries to please everyone ends up satisfying no one. The real issue is that there are very few protocols that can serve both traders and LPs well. Separating incentive mechanisms sounds simple, but how exactly to implement it? It still seems to depend on the team's execution capability.

View OriginalReply0