---
title: Active Liquidity On Chain: Evidence from PropAMMs Across Chains
url: https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2609.38056/
site: ML-Quant (https://www.ml-quant.com)
updated: 2026-10-02
license: Summaries CC BY 4.0; links go to the original sources
index: https://www.ml-quant.com/llms.txt
identifier: arXiv:2609.38056
source_url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38056
featured: 2026-10-02
citations: unknown
topic: Crypto & DeFi
---


# Active Liquidity On Chain: Evidence from PropAMMs Across Chains

Proprietary AMMs earn 0.37 to 1.19 basis points within two seconds by repricing continuously and avoiding arbitrage, compared to passive AMMs losing 0.22 to 0.62 basis points.

- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38056
- Identifier: arXiv:2609.38056
- Released: 2026-09-30
- First featured: Quant Letter No. 133 (2026-10-02): https://www.ml-quant.com/issues/2026-10-02/
- Citations (Semantic Scholar): not tracked
- Published in: not yet
- Topic: Crypto & DeFi
- Authors: Ozan Solmaz, Lioba Heimbach, Jason Milionis

## Abstract (arXiv, CC0)

The liquidity providers of most typical automated market makers (AMMs) are passive and known to suffer from adverse selection. AMMs traditionally rely on trades executed on them to sync the price with external markets (and a notion of fair value thereof). As a result, when an external fair value moves, arbitrageurs trade on AMMs to pick off their stale quotes. A recent approach termed proprietary automated market makers (propAMMs) emerged as a response in 2024: these on-chain programs instead have their singular operator quote from its own inventory, repricing without a trade via efficiently provided price updates. By 2026, propAMMs accounted for more than half of SOL/USDC volume on Solana. We present the first year-long longitudinal measurement of propAMMs on Solana, Base and Monad, and decode the on-chain logic of the dominant propAMM on Base. We find that two seconds after a fill, propAMMs earn 0.37 bps on Solana and 1.19 bps on Base, while AMMs lose 0.22 and 0.62 bps. We empirically quantify and classify their edge as stemming from four factors: propAMMs continuously reprice rather than waiting for a trade, they charge for the source-dependent risk each counterparty might bring, they avoid cross-venue arbitrage from other on-chain markets (such as other AMMs), and they spoof by filling trades at a worse price than they quote. Finally, we show that on our proxy for retail flow (i.e., fills that arrive when the reference price is not moving) propAMMs collect 0.26 bps on Solana where AMMs collect 2.59 bps, indicating that they offer better prices for short-term uninformed flow.

## Related

- [A theoretical framework for fees in AMMs](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2404.03976/): The study explores the workings of arbitrage in decentralized finance automated market makers (AMMs), aiming to understand how AMMs can optimize revenue or minimize losses, and models the dynamics of arbitrage activity.
- [Decentralised Finance and Automated Market Making: Predictable Loss and Optimal Liquidity Provision](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2309.08431/): The study outlines the wealth dynamics of strategic liquidity providers in constant product markets, proposes an optimal liquidity provision strategy, and uses Uniswap v3 data to show its effectiveness.
- [Axioms for Automated Market Makers: A Mathematical Framework in FinTech and Decentralized Finance](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2210.01227/): Mathematical Framework: The research introduces a new framework for Automated Market Makers, suggesting a unique fee structure and a novel AMM that reduces divergence loss.
- [Learning from DeFi: Would Automated Market Makers Improve Equity Trading?](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/4531670/): The study suggests that optimally designed automated market makers could potentially save U.S. investors billions in transaction costs each year.
- [Decentralised Finance and Automated Market Making: Execution and Speculation](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/4144743/): The study investigates automated market makers, particularly constant product market makers, and develops two optimal trading strategies using stochastic optimal control tools, as demonstrated with Uniswap v3 data.
- [Not All LPs Are Equal: The Active-Passive Gap in Automated Market Maker Liquidity Provision](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2609.37963/): Analysis of Uniswap pools shows passive liquidity providers underperform aggregate pool returns, with the gap wider on Ethereum than on layer-two blockchains.