In the rapidly evolving crypto landscape, decentralized exchanges (DEXs) have emerged as huge game-changers. These innovative platforms have revolutionized the way crypto transactions are conducted, empowering individuals to have full control over their assets while still being open to the same financial dynamics.
However, as the much-anticipated Uniswap V4 approaches, it becomes essential to reassess our favoured DEX, Fraxswap, and explore its unique offerings in comparison.
In this article, we embark on a journey to delve into the intricate details of both Uniswap V4 and Fraxswap, meticulously comparing their designs, features, and advantages.
By doing so, we aim to shed light on the remarkable potential of these platforms as not just efficient and secure, but also as versatile ecosystems that cater to the needs of both users and developers. I’d also shed light on possible improvements for Fraxswap, and its potential to redefine the landscape of decentralized trading.
Uniswap V4
Uniswap v4 is a non-custodial automated market maker implemented for the Ethereum virtual machine. Its focus is on customization and architectural changes for gas efficiency upgrades. That means that it is built on the AMM model of v1 and v2, and then the concentrated liquidity model of v3. To that effect, it introduces several new features and improvements.
One of its key features is the use of a singleton contract, which manages all the pools on the Uniswap network. This design enhances efficiency, security, and scalability compared to previous versions.
Uniswap V4 builds on the already existing Constant Product Market Maker (CPMM) algorithm to determine token prices. This algorithm calculates the price based on the ratio of tokens in the liquidity pool.
Here’s how the mechanism works:
A user wants to swap tokens.
The user sends a transaction to the Uniswap V4 smart contract.
The smart contract calculates the price of the tokens based on the CPMM algorithm.
The smart contract executes the swap and sends the tokens to the user.
Uniswap has built on all these, to bring about the introduction of hooks. Hooks are contracts that allow developers to customize the behaviour of their pools at different points in the pool's lifecycle. They enable the implementation of dynamic fees, limit orders, and TWAMM pricing, among other functionalities.
On the other hand, we have a competitor…
Fraxswap
Fraxswap is a DEX built upon the core functionality of Uniswap V2. It introduces a groundbreaking concept that sets it apart from other Automated Market Makers (AMMs). As the first of its kind, FraxSwap incorporates a time-weighted average market maker (TWAMM) into its framework, revolutionizing the execution of substantial trades in a trustless manner over extended periods.
This innovative approach distinguishes FraxSwap as a constant product AMM that goes beyond conventional boundaries, offering users a new level of flexibility and reliability when it comes to trading on decentralized platforms.
Another key feature of Fraxswap is the embedded AMM, which is a standard constant-product market maker that enables users to trade FRAX with other ERC-20 tokens even when there is no liquidity in the TWAMM pool. This makes Fraxswap more liquid and accessible to users.
The embedded TWAMM is based on Paradigm's original whitepaper specifications, in which the TWAMM is designed to slowly and reliably exchange assets over time to reduce slippage. Thus allowing Fraxswap to offer improved liquidity, accessibility, and versatility compared to many other DEXs out there.
Mind you, the concept of TWAMM was first coined in this paper in July 2021. The said paper was written by Dave White and Dan Robinson, a research team of Paradigm, and Hayden Adams, a founder of Uniswap.
Fraxswap was purposefully designed as a vital component of the Frax protocol, serving multiple functions that contribute to the stability of FRAX and FPI stablecoins while also benefiting FXS holders. Specifically, the Frax protocol utilizes Fraxswap to execute buybacks and burn FXS tokens using any generated profits. This process helps maintain the value and scarcity of FXS.
Furthermore, Fraxswap enables the protocol to mint new FXS tokens for buybacks and subsequent burning of FRAX stablecoins. This action aids in stabilizing the price peg of FRAX tokens.
Additionally, Fraxswap plays a vital role in the Frax protocol's ability to mint FRAX tokens for the purpose of acquiring tangible assets through seigniorage. By utilizing Fraxswap's capabilities, the protocol can effectively manage its reserves and support the stability of the entire ecosystem.
Through this intricate system of revenue generation, Fraxswap not only serves as a crucial tool for stabilizing pegs but also ensures the ecosystem's sustainable growth while benefiting FXS holders.
Battle of the AMMs
Both Uniswap V4 and Fraxswap rely on liquidity pools and automated market makers (AMMs) to determine token prices and facilitate trades. However, they differ in their AMM models. Uniswap V4 uses the CPMM algorithm, while Fraxswap utilizes the TWAMM algorithm.
Uniswap V4 utilizes a constant product market maker (CPMM) algorithm, providing flexibility in token pairs and ratios, customizable hooks, dynamic fees, and limit orders. With the singleton contract design, it enhances efficiency and security.
CPMM is a more traditional AMM algorithm that is based on the concept of a constant product pool. In a constant product pool, the product of the number of tokens in the pool is always constant. This means that as the number of one token in the pool increases, the number of the other token in the pool must decrease in order to maintain the constant product.
On the other hand, Fraxswap employs the TWAMM algorithm for improved liquidity and reduced slippage. It supports a wider range of tokens and offers an embedded AMM for increased accessibility.
The main advantage of TWAMM over CPMM is that it is more efficient. TWAMM can handle more trades per second than CPMM, which means that it can provide better liquidity for users. However, TWAMM is also more complex than CPMM, which makes it more difficult to implement.
The main advantage of CPMM over TWAMM is that it is more predictable. The price of a token in a CPMM pool is always deterministic, which means that users can always be sure of the price they will get when they trade. However, CPMM can be less liquid than TWAMM, especially in illiquid markets.
TWAMM is known for its efficiency and reducing slippage, but it is more complex to implement compared to CPMM. So, while Uniswap V4 excels in efficiency and security, Fraxswap stands out in terms of liquidity, versatility, and accessibility.
Advantages
The advantages of Uniswap V4 include:
Improved liquidity: Uniswap V4 uses a number of new features to improve liquidity, such as hooks and the singleton contract. This makes it easier for users to find the best prices for their trades.
More customization: Hooks allow developers to customize the behaviour of their pools in a variety of ways. This makes Uniswap V4 a more versatile platform for developers.
Improved efficiency: The singleton contract design makes Uniswap V4 more efficient than previous versions. This means that trades can be executed more quickly and cheaply.
Improved security: The singleton contract design also makes Uniswap V4 more secure. This is because there is only one contract that needs to be audited, which reduces the risk of vulnerabilities.
Dynamic fees: Uniswap V4 allows developers to set dynamic fees for their pools. This means that the fee can be changed based on market conditions, such as the volatility of the tokens in the pool.
Limit orders: Uniswap V4 allows developers to create limit orders for their pools. This means that users can place orders to buy or sell tokens at a specific price.
The advantages of Fraxswap include:
Improved liquidity: TWAMM is designed to improve liquidity and reduce slippage. This makes it easier for users to get the best possible price for their trades.
More accessible: The embedded AMM makes Fraxswap more accessible to users, even if there is no liquidity in the TWAMM pool.
A More Detailed Comparison
In comparing Uniswap V4 and Fraxswap, we can evaluate their strengths and weaknesses across several dimensions:
a. Gas Efficiency:
Uniswap V4 exhibits superior gas efficiency due to its singleton contract architecture. This design reduces the overall number of contract calls, resulting in cost savings and faster transaction execution. Fraxswap can explore implementing optimizations to improve its gas efficiency further.
b. Flexibility:
Fraxswap, with its support for fixed pools and TWAMMs, offers greater flexibility compared to Uniswap V4. Fixed pools ensure stable liquidity, making them suitable for specific use cases. TWAMMs allow the execution of large orders over time, catering to traders seeking to minimize market impact.
c. Liquidity Pool Size:
Uniswap V4 boasts a larger liquidity pool, thanks to its widespread adoption and popularity. This larger pool size translates into increased trading volume and enhanced liquidity, providing users with improved price execution and reduced slippage.
d. User-Friendliness:
Fraxswap prioritizes user-friendliness, offering a seamless trading experience. Its design aims to simplify the process for traders, providing an intuitive interface and a straightforward approach to executing trades. Uniswap V4, while feature-rich, may have a steeper learning curve for less experienced users.
Improvements for Fraxswap
To enhance Fraxswap's functionality and align it with the advancements of Uniswap V4, several potential improvements can be considered:
a. Dynamic Pools:
Implementing dynamic pools in Fraxswap would allow the protocol to adapt more effectively to fluctuations in liquidity demand.
Let’s take a look at that…
To provide liquidity to Uniswap v4, you will need to:
Choose the tokens that you want to provide liquidity for.
Specify the price range in which you want your liquidity to be used.
Deposit the tokens into the pool.
Receive liquidity provider (LP) tokens in return.
Once you have deposited your tokens into the pool, you will be able to earn fees from swaps that take place in the pool. The fees will be distributed to you in proportion to your share of the pool's liquidity.
Now, imagine if Frax Finance is able to build upon this design, in such a way that would allow users to provide liquidity without doing any fancy calculations. Maybe something with a very simple/practical interface. It’ll definitely draw in the less technical crowd, allowing them access to greater liquidity options, reducing slippage, and improving their overall trading experience.
b. Multiple Fee Tiers:
Introducing support for multiple fee tiers in Fraxswap would empower users to customize the level of slippage they are willing to accept. This feature, present in Uniswap V4, offers greater control and flexibility to traders, catering to a wider range of preferences.
In Uniswap v3, the fee was a flat 0.30% of the swap value. In Uniswap v4, the fee is a base fee of 0.05%, plus a dynamic fee that is based on the amount of liquidity in the pool.
The dynamic fee is calculated as follows:
dynamic_fee = base_fee + (0.05 * (1 - pool_liquidity_ratio)
where:
base_fee is the base fee, which is 0.05%
pool_liquidity_ratio is the ratio of the pool's liquidity to the total liquidity in the market for the two tokens being swapped
The dynamic fee was designed to encourage liquidity providers to deposit their tokens into pools with high liquidity. This is because the dynamic fee will be lower for pools with high liquidity, which means that liquidity providers will earn more fees.
The fees from swaps are distributed to all of the liquidity providers in the pool, in proportion to their share of the pool's liquidity. This means that liquidity providers are rewarded for providing liquidity, and they are also incentivized to deposit their tokens into pools with high liquidity.
The fee structure for Uniswap v4 is designed to be more efficient and fair than the fee structure for Uniswap v3 or v2.
If Fraxswap were to implement this, it’ll have a base fee that is lower, along with a dynamic fee that will encourage liquidity providers to deposit their tokens into pools with high liquidity. Probably making it the most efficient and user-friendly decentralized exchange on the market.
c. Concentrated Liquidity:
Fraxswap could benefit from incorporating the concept of concentrated liquidity introduced in Uniswap V4. Concentrated liquidity allows liquidity providers to focus their funds within specific price ranges, improving capital efficiency and reducing impermanent loss.
In Uniswap v3, liquidity was provided by liquidity providers who deposited tokens into a pool and received liquidity provider (LP) tokens in return. These LP tokens represented a share of the pool's liquidity and could be used to redeem the original tokens or to collect fees from swaps that took place in the pool.
In Uniswap v4, the liquidity model is based on concentrated liquidity. This means that liquidity providers can deposit tokens into a pool and specify the price range in which they want their liquidity to be used. This allows liquidity providers to optimize their returns by depositing their tokens into the price range where they are most likely to be used.
Let me outline the benefits having a concentrated liquidity model on Fraxswap will have over the traditional liquidity model.
First, it’ll allow liquidity providers to provide more efficient liquidity. This is because liquidity providers can deposit their tokens into the price range where they are most likely to be used, which reduces the amount of slippage that occurs when users swap tokens.
Second, the concentrated liquidity model will allow liquidity providers to earn more fees. This is because the fees from swaps are distributed to all of the liquidity providers in the pool, regardless of the price range in which their liquidity is used.
Third, the concentrated liquidity model will make it easier for users to find the best prices when swapping tokens. This is because users can see the liquidity that is available in each price range, and they can choose the price range that offers the best price for their trade.
d. Customizable Hooks:
Fraxswap could consider adopting customizable hooks, another feature available in Uniswap V4. As I explained earlier, customizable hooks enable developers to customize and extend the protocol's functionality, fostering innovation and the creation of new features within the Fraxswap ecosystem.
In Uniswap v4, Hooks are defined by a contract that implements the IUniswapV4Hook interface. This interface defines four methods:
onPriceImpact()
is executed before a trade is executed.onLiquidity()
is executed when liquidity is added or removed from a pool.onTrade()
is executed when a trade is executed.onFee()
is executed when fees are collected from a pool.
The onPriceImpact()
method takes two parameters: the amount of tokens being swapped and the current price of the token being swapped. The onLiquidity(
) method takes two parameters: the amount of tokens being added or removed and the address of the account that is adding or removing liquidity. The onTrade()
method takes three parameters: the amount of tokens being swapped, the price of the token being swapped, and the address of the account that is trading. The onFee()
method takes one parameter: the amount of fees collected.
The logic that is executed in a hook contract is up to the developer. However, there are some restrictions on what the logic can do. For example, the logic cannot modify the state of the pool or the fees that are collected.
If Fraxswap is able to integrate this, then users will be able to create a custom trading bot that automatically trades based on certain market conditions. Or they even go as far as using it to create a custom analytics tool that tracks the liquidity and trading activity in a pool.
Imagine if, on fraxswap, you are able to build:
A trading bot could use price impact hooks to calculate the price impact of a trade and to prevent trades that would have a negative impact on the pool.
An analytics tool could use liquidity hooks to track the liquidity in a pool and trigger events when the liquidity in a pool reaches a certain threshold.
A user interface could use trade hooks to track the trades that happen in a pool and to display the trades in a user-friendly way.
A free collection service could use fee hooks to track the fees that are collected from a pool and to distribute the fees to the liquidity providers.
The possibilities are insane!!
Further improvements for Fraxswap
Increasing user-friendly experience: Fraxswap could improve the user experience by making the platform more intuitive and easy to use. This could be done by simplifying the user interface, providing more clear and more concise documentation, and offering more support options.
Streamlining the user interface: Fraxswap could streamline the user interface by making it more efficient and easy to navigate. This could be done by reducing the number of steps required to perform common tasks, and by making the interface more visually appealing.
Exploring layer 2 solutions for scalability: Fraxswap could explore layer 2 solutions for scalability by using sidechains or other technologies to increase the throughput of the platform. This would allow Fraxswap to handle more transactions per second, which would improve the user experience and reduce transaction fees. Wen Fraxchain?
Leveraging multiple oracles for reliable price feeds: Fraxswap could leverage multiple oracles for reliable price feeds by using better/advanced sources to get price data. This would help to ensure that the platform is always using the most accurate price information, which would protect users from market volatility.
Mitigating risks for liquidity providers: Fraxswap could mitigate risks for liquidity providers by providing more protection against impermanent loss. This could be done by using a variety of techniques, such as dynamic fees or insurance pools. This would help to protect liquidity providers from losing money when the prices of the tokens in a pool fluctuate.
Implementing incentives for single-sided liquidity provision: Fraxswap could implement incentives for single-sided liquidity provision by offering higher rewards or lower fees for providing liquidity to a single token. This would help to increase liquidity in the platform and make it easier for users to trade.
Conclusion:
Uniswap V4 and Fraxswap represent two distinct approaches to automated market makers. Uniswap V4 excels in technical advancements, gas efficiency, and a larger liquidity pool. On the other hand, Fraxswap prioritizes user-friendliness, flexibility, and stability through fixed pools and TWAMMs.
To enhance Fraxswap, maybe we need to focus more on technical advancements and adapt to market demands.
Maybe…as the decentralized exchange landscape continues to evolve, the ongoing exploration and implementation of new features and enhancements will contribute to the growth and maturation of the DeFi ecosystem, benefiting traders and liquidity providers alike.
Credits: