The Evolution of DeFi Primitives: From Automated Market Makers to Concentrated Liquidity and Intent-Based Protocols

Introduction

Primitives are the most basic building blocks that DeFi operates on top of. These primitives allow for composable financial systems to function without the presence of a trusted middleman. These primitives dictate how value is transferred, exchanged and accumulated across multiple blockchains.

The first, and arguably most significant primitive, were automated market makers (AMMs): smart contracts that removed traditional order books in favor of liquidity pools, allowing everyone to swap tokens immediately and without permission. After an initial period of AMM style primitives, the base layer of DeFi primitives became much more complex instead of such rudimentary systems.

This essay maps how AMMs have evolved from the first implementations to the concentrated liquidity models that laid the foundation to the intent-based protocols that possibly represent the next generation of decentralized markets. Each layer is not just another layer that gives benefit to technology but also fundamentally changes how users are handling cash, trust protocols and liquidity.

Initial DeFi Basics

Automated Market Makers (AMMs) were one of the earlier innovations in DeFi and Uniswap v2 laid the groundwork for AMMs. AMMs facilitate the swapping of tokens directly against a liquidity pool instead of finding counterparties for buyers and sellers and matching them through an order book. An algorithm defined the price by using the ratio of the tokens in the pool and determined prices using a constant product formula (x * y = k).

This method of swapping tokens did not include a centralized order book, nor market makers. Anyone could act as a liquidity provider (LP) by depositing a pair of assets and making money on trading fees, which offered a simple, transparent, and permissionless process.

However, swaps simplified the process of continuously having to flip between pools and with swaps comes the attendant problem of impermanent loss, or the pooled assets' value decreased simply because the prices of the tokens diverged. The LPs effectively deposited tokens and waited for fees to gradually add up, however there was no risk management nor any optimization of returns through deflationary or risk averse measures.

While the model was simplistic, it nevertheless allowed individuals access to market making and at the same time indicated decentralized liquidity was an alternative to traditional centralized exchanges. The foundational elements of the financial Lego block model of DeFi were in place; composable, identifiable, and transportable.

Liquidity that is concentrated

Uniswap v3 represented a leap forward from v2. Within v3, focused liquidity transformed passive LPs into active positioning strategists. LPs were entitled to provide liquidity in their favoured price ranges with NFT-based positions instead of spreading liquidity equally across the entire price curve.

This provided a new level of capital efficiency. LPs were able to risk less capital and earn the same or more of fees as long as prices stayed within the quoted range. However, it also transitioned the role of providing liquidity from passive to active portfolio management.

The emerging model makes liquidity more like a trading strategy. LPs had to monitor the price and change their ranges, rebalancing positions to make a profit. Many LPs preferred to use automated tools or vaults to kayak their way through the details of providing liquidity, but inevitably placing trust in third-party smart contracts.

The upside was significant: much tighter spreads, better trade execution for traders, and deeper liquidity across less total capital. However the downside to a more complicated model was equally apparent: it was now far less easy to simply get in, and had an increased likelihood to be unfavored by the market. Providing liquidity quickly began to evolve from a simple element of DeFi into a complex data driven art.

Intent-Based Protocols

As the DeFi space developed, it became more complex, thus making it more difficult to use. The need to manage LP ranges and optimize fees, all while interacting with various smart contracts, necessitated a technical knowledge only a select few possess. This led to a new generation of protocols driven by intent.

Intent-based protocols flip the typical way a user engages with the application. With traditional interfaces, users had to carefully describe the way they wanted a trade or transaction to take place. The intent-based model allows a user to specify their intent (or desire), such as "Swap 10 ETH for USDC at the best available price." The protocol, or some third-party solver network, will determine an optimal execution path from the input provided, which will likely involve pooling liquidity across multiple venues or chains.

This eases the burden on the user making for a much better experience. Users do not need to understand how pools work, how fees work, and how to optimize for gas costs. This all happens behind the scenes because of off-chain computation and on-chain settlement.

However, with ease comes additional layers of trust: you have to trust the solvers/middlemen to act with competency and integrity. The challenge of transparency of the off-chain routing opens up pathways for easy MEV extraction, front-running and even nuanced forms of censorship.

Intent-based protocols are, in this sense, a philosophical shift away from explicit user-directed control, into implicit outcome-driven automation. Your experience is better, but the system becomes less open. This leads to an interesting question about how we consider "decentralization" in these terms.

Analysis of Comparisons

DeFi's growth could be understood as a series of trade-offs between ease of use, speed, and control. Every new generation of primitives provides a different way in which users, liquidity, and protocol trust interact.

User Experience

• AMMs are user-friendly and intuitive; one can interact with pools directly.
• Concentrated liquidity requires more activity in management and understanding.
• Intent-Based Protocols: Completely abstracted, where users state their intent - what they want to happen, not how it happens.

LP Roles

• AMMs are basically passive cash generators.
• Concentrated Liquidity: active strategists responsible for the changing of positions.
• Intent-Based Systems: LPs may not be seen because liquidity sourcing is done automatically.

Trust and Openness

• AMMs: Everybody can view the logic on the blockchain.
• Concentrated Liquidity: hard to understand, easy to check.
• Intent-Based: Off-chain routing just makes things less clear and could be employed to manipulate things.

Risks

• AMMs: loss that isn't permanent.
• Concentrated Liquidity: The price changes could be extremely large, with a possibility of rebalancing.
• Intent-Based: execution risk, solver manipulation and hidden MEV.

There is a distinct pattern to this history: the more efficiency and abstraction that is put into the systems, the less transparency and user agency there will be. As the better DeFi systems become, the focus goes from ease of use, to making the complexity of the systems more complex, which under a trustless paradigm and community attitude, becomes difficult to maintain, and dismantles the ethos that has so far made that possible.

The Future

The next phase of DeFi's evolution likely involves the development of cross-chain intent protocols. These protocols abstract not just the liquidity sources, but also bridging, routing, and settlement across multiple networks. In this framework, a user could say "move 1 ETH from Ethereum to Solana and swap for USDC," and the protocol would handle the entire process seamlessly.

This concept invites an overarching liquidity layer across DeFi ecosystems, breaking down barriers facilitating interoperability across a variety of blockchains. However, with strong gains also come new challenges: cross-chain transactions increase attack surfaces, create new risks of dependency, and exacerbate composability issues. Trusting execution integrity across chains creates difficult security challenges, like ensuring intent is satisfied and preventing or limiting the contagion of attacks across the chains. Additionally, as protocols become progressively abstracted, traditional DeFi values like auditability and self-custody will be increasingly difficult to retain meaning. Users will undoubtedly value the convenience: to be provided an "all-in" solution, yet this entails a new relationship and level of dependence upon the protocol with reduced direct control.

Conclusion

The narrative of DeFi primitives represents a narrative at a new stage of evolution, ever since the proliferation of AMMs through focused liquidity and recent experimentation with intent-based protocols. What began as an attempt at extreme transparency and engagement is aimed at efficiency, automation and abstraction today. Every time a solution is proposed, a problem is eliminated, but another problem presents itself.

AMMs democratize liquidity, but the accuracy doesn't help to the vigilante liquidity in the near absence of or inefficient routing. Concentrated liquidity is great, but usability is still a challenge; performance and ease of use tend to create extra friction in the overall user experience. Intended protocols are great from a usability perspective, but they almost completely eliminate any transparency as performance scalability does not guarantee effective routing.

Whether DeFi can continue to balance the competing forces of usability, performance, and trustlessness will dictate its future. The best kind of future blends the usability of intent-based systems, the performance of focused liquidity, and the transparency of AMMs, without departing from the trustless principles that this sector was founded on.

Its future is not just about technology, but ideas. It's no longer about how to make DeFi work, but it is about how to keep DeFi as decentralized as possible as it grows and gets more simplified for anyone to use.

 

This article is contributed by an external writer: Razel Jade Hijastro.

Disclaimer: The content created by LBank Creators represents their personal perspectives. LBank does not endorse any content on this page. Readers should do their own research before taking any actions related to the company and carry full responsibility for their decisions, nor can this article be considered as investment advice.