Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal, business, investment. Do not base investment decisions on it, nor consider it as accounting, legal, or tax guidance. Mention of specific assets or securities are examples and not endorsements. The author’s views may not reflect those of any affiliations and are subject to change without update.

Here is a thread that summarizes this article

DEFI has been a game-changer for the traditional financial industry and Uniswap has been one of the most popular and widely used platforms

However, with the release of Uniswap V3, concerns have been raised that the platform may not be as accessible or practical for retail users as its predecessor. The new version of Uniswap features concentrated liquidity and price ranges, which may be better suited for institutional investors, market makers, or other protocols that require deeper liquidity and more precise control over their trades By focusing on providing infrastructure for larger players, Uniswap V3 is paving the way for a new wave of protocols and applications to be built on top of it

In this article, we will explore how Uniswap V3 is laying the foundation for a new generation of DEFI protocols and applications that could unlock the true potential of decentralized finance

Breaking down the article into:      

1 - LPing is not for retail

 2 - Create a new DEX with modern capabilities and news approaches?

3 - Delegate to active liquidity managers: is it enough?

4 - New protocols built on top of Uniswap V3; overcome the lack of efficiency in CFMMs

5 - Conclusion

---

Prerequisites:

The purpose of this article is not to provide an in-depth explanation of how Uniswap V3's system works, but rather to focus on the limitations of Uniswap for retail users and the solutions and innovations built on top of this AMM to make this market more accessible A clarification of the vocabulary: Impermanent Lost (IL) = Divergent Lost (DL) Autonomous Market Maker (AMM) = Constant Function Market Maker (CFMM)

---

I. LPing is not for retail

@charliemktplace did an interesting analysis about the ETH-USDC 0,05% pool :

(Caveat: this analysis only looks at closed positions)

What can we conclude from this? Charlie highlights the winning behaviors of the investors : the data shows that 55.03% of positions were only marginally profitable at the time of position closure, including fees accrued. Most investors realised profits below 3%, with such low returns… Is it really worth to LPing?

It's important to remember that professional or “elite” investors tend to outperform HODLing. The large LPs who lost against HODL may have hedged their positions on CEXs, seeking to be delta neutral. This nuance is useful for understanding why some of the biggest losing positions against HODL made it so far into the negative

Is it true for the most used Uniswap's pool ? While WETH-USDC is the most lucrative pool in Uniswap, it also suffers from a painful IL However, according to the Crocswap’s article (“Instantaneous profitability of each swap” part), WETH-USDC 0,05% is the main responsible of these losses. This is a paradoxical situation, as the pool that generates the most yield is also responsible for the largest part of the IL

Other data quantitatively demonstrate the PnL outcomes of this strategy. The markout is a useful metric for evaluating AMM liquidity providers and has been approved by the Uniswap team

Simply put, they analyze the markout to measure profit. As Matteo explain, the “markout is defined as the difference between the execution price versus the price 24 hours later.” (Or others timescales). So, it’s is the unrealized PnL of a trade using a price in the future

This markout analysis show us that Uniswap V3 has flow toxicity: since the 01/08/2021, the losses amount to more than 115M :

These data create a reaction on Twitter; great conversation below between DEFI analysts and Uniswap team:

- https://twitter.com/teo_leibowitz/status/1587527337117188101

- https://twitter.com/0xShitTrader/status/1587844723775004678? s=20&t=rE1EgVyimhvYwi9dBRLk9w

- https://twitter.com/thiccythot_/status/1589022227437039616

- https://twitter.com/xin__wan/status/1589321967286378497?s=20&t=R91x4MIJXwJBaeBlA4937g

The unrealized PnL is called toxic flow DeFi Cheetah give us a clear definition : “Toxic flow is when the price marked to the future is worse than the execution price after accounting for fees and price impact. Toxicity is the result of adverse selection of passive market makers on Uniswap by market takers”

Large trades create high volatility, making it easier for arbitragers to exploit and create toxic flow. This creates an ongoing battle between LPs and arbitragers, in which the latter often come out on top.

It's important to note that these analyses show hypothetical PnL because they only consider closed trades. Many open LP positions are not included in the data.

The design of AMMs and the ongoing gas fees competition between centralized and decentralized exchanges are also factors contributing to IL. The compensation for LPs is often insufficient to counteract IL, resulting in significant losses in pools such as the WETH-USDC 0.05% pool. AMMs do have certain advantages over limit order books, especially for less liquid assets, but they face challenges in competing with LOBs for larger trades.

Uniswap has more than x2 more liquidity than Binance :

However, the efficiency of liquidity is limited due to the spread resulting from the AMM mechanism This article by @0x94305 talks about it in detail.

In summary, the markout data shows that more than 45% of LPs are not profitable, resulting in quantifiable losses of over $115 million. It's surprising to see that the most popular pool, WETH-USDC, suffers from such a significant IL, highlighting the mismatch between the rewards received and the risks taken.

While Uniswap V3 is an innovative Dapp that allows users to leverage liquidity with less capital, the risk of IL is higher when the price moves out of the range. Profitability in this activity requires skill and time.

The goals to improve CFMMs model seem to be:

• Fees need to be higher enough to pay LPers at their fair value, and at the same time compete with CEX

• Reduce or even eliminate IL

---

II. Create a new DEX with modern capabilities and news approaches

1) Segmentation of the large size trade

We can think about limiting the size of the trade possible, depending on the size of the pool itself ? Smaller transactions will reduce arbitrage opportunities @thiccythot open this idea here: https://twitter.com/thiccythot_/status/1597201826369400832?s=20&t=yGkjeuwYBJg8GaJlxgXCrQ

Ambient’s (Crocswap) team emphasizes this theory by stating that a minority of swaps are responsible for almost all LPs losses. Can you guess it ? Large trades are these “minority of swap” https://crocswap.medium.com/follow-up-analyses-of-lp-profitability-in-uniswap-v3-2cfc8c5e014e

By reducing or avoiding large trades, IL can probably be drastically reduce. Here is only an idea, I don’t see yet any DEX focus on this aspect for now

2) Loss-Versus-Rebalancing (LVR) : scaling fees

LPs sell the risky asset when the price increases, and buy the risky asset as the price drops; give the opportunity to arbitragers to arbitrage with others DEXes / CEXes. In a sense, arbitrageurs monetize the fact that the CFMM doesn’t know current asset prices

LPs in CFMMs can be compare to straddle strategy in option : both lose if ended prices are different from the starting prices, but option sellers win if prices end where they started. LPs don’t earn enough compare to premium

LVR = shortfall in the value of the CFMM reserves relative to the value achieved by the dynamic rebalancing strategy Simply put, LVR = (maximum) profit extracted by arbitragers ;

LP PnL = (Rebalancing PnL) − LVR + (Trading Fee Income)

The main idea is to avoid arbitragers to make profit on LPers is to rebalance exactly as CFMMs do, but by dynamically trading (on open market) the underlying assets

The question is; when does LPing make economic sense? That means benefit (fees) > cost (LVR)

So, fees should be scale on the LVR The solution? dynamic fees and/or reduce the LVR by quoting better prices (using oracle is a solution even if… you know)

Official document : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.06046.pdf

Cheetah explains it deeper with simple words here

3) Dynamic fees DEX: Crocswap (Ambient)

“To what extent can we design a dynamic fee which delivers returns to liquidity providers in excess of divergence losses (IL)?”

This is the question that these DEFI chads work on this protocol and their analysis are pretty relevant

They deeply study Uniswap pools’ behavior to give quantifiable and exploitable results: https://crocswap.medium.com/. You have three-hour readings, but it is well worth it

What can we learn from it?

• Higher fee tiers perform better in volatile environments

• Lower fee tier captures more fees in periods of low volatility

I quote: “a LP supplying liquidity to the 0.05% static pool will (…) be in the red due to insufficient fee accrual compared to divergence losses. However, even if liquidity is supplied to the 0.3% or 1% static pools, there can be multi-month periods, approaching a year or greater, where the LP might be continuously unprofitable net of DL” & “A dynamic approach that adjusts fee based on swap sizes or accumulated imbalance of swap directionalities, or perhaps somehow modulates the sensitivity of pool prices, could be effective in ameliorating LP losses”

This simulation has been redone by @0x94305 , who confirms this assertion : https://twitter.com/0x94305/status/1611960780316102659?s=20&t=V6B-6b7dIG9cZh_LvFllNQ

So, The goal is to spot “regime shifts” so, you can switch to higher fee tiers or return to lower fee tiers to take advantage of high fee growth in the short term. In addition to that, fees should be adjust depending on the price impact of the swap

More to come about Crocswap’s analysis

4) The Liquidity Book of Trader Joe

BE CAREFUL ; The L.B. increase in the risk of IL if the user doesn’t regularly monitor and re-balance his positions. What is it interesting here is to see in what other ways concentrated liquidity can be used.

Unlike Uniswap V3, here the liquidity is aggregated in each bin vertically rather than horizontally. The trading fees are based on market volatility and the size of the swap, adding more yield to the LP. So, LPers are better rewarded if they manage well their position

The results are surprising, yield is really attractive especially since they launched on Arbitrum, people who manage well their LP should be profitable. But IL come quickly because prices quickly go out of the range …

We hope to see some protocols being built on the top of TJ

5) Antfarm, make the LPing profitable again

The protocol operates in the opposite side of the majority of the DEXes : 1% ⇒ 100% fees for fairly paying the LPs. This DEX is a new market for arbitragers and will be even more efficient during a turbulent market. The idea is to compensate IL as much as possible with fair trading fees by creating new opportunities for arbitragers. They are live since the 24/01/2023, curious to see some analytics in the near future

6) SwaapFinance, the sophisticated model

They build the protocol on the fact that IL is due to arbitragers activities. The global idea is that your position is always balanced in asset but can be unbalanced in value Swaap us a Matrix Market Maker model to face to the inventory risk and the frontrunning; they use an oracle, stochastique calculation, dynamic spread and dynamic fees to delete IL and results are convincing: IL is really slow and net yield is quite attractive

All these protocols compete with Uniswap to create a better model with different methods. Others projects such as Balancer with their unbalanced pools may be more appropriate for high volatility pools

That’s a big challenge to create an AMM perfectly equilibrate between yield, attractive trading fees and IL protection and so far, no other protocol has been able to attract as much liquidity as Uniswap.

What if LP managing is delegated to professionals?

---

III. Delegate to active liquidity managers; is it enough?

As it's widely known, Uniswap V3 has created barriers for retail investors. To address this issue, various protocols have been developed to optimize liquidity management

Some of them :

Arrakis (Gelato Network) https://twitter.com/ArrakisFinance

Strategy : Provide liquidity 5%-10% above or below the current trading price. The Gelato bots rebalance the market every 30 minutes so that the new liquidity position is centered on the current price.

Mellow Protocol https://twitter.com/Mellowprotocol

Strategy : use only a few portions of the liquidities available on the UniV3 ETH/USDC 0,05% pool, and quickly rebalance the interval as soon as the price risks going out of the narrow range

Gamma Strategies https://twitter.com/gammastrategies

Strategy : a complex statistical model is used to set dynamically the center and width of the liquidity ranges in real-time based on how the market has been acting recently. Goal : increase the time spent in-range

Charm Finance https://twitter.com/CharmFinance

Strategy : use two active range orders, (1) base order centered around current price and (2) rebalancing order just above or below the current price depending on which token it holds more of after the base order was placed

Sommelier Finance https://twitter.com/sommfinance

Strategy : can’t find many information about the strategy use as they are made by an external corporate. They manage LP positions with correlate assets (and other profitable conditions) in token pairs to minimize impermanent loss

Theses protocols, although different, rebalance when the price approaches but does not exceed the endpoints of the range order

The goal is to have the asset’s price equal to the median of the range. But a study shows that rebalancing too frequently the LP position is unproductive – better to pick a very wide range and keep it simpleAccurate explanations below: https://crocswap.medium.com/benchmarking-the-performance-of-automated-liquidity-vault-strategies-81a6facf617b

Even if some protocols such as Gamma or Melow seems to be more sophisticated model, that’s maybe the reason why vaults seem to have slowly died off in popularity after an initial spike

Others protocols are launching new products on concentrated liquidity management such as ORANGE FINANCE (delta hedge with AAVE’s lending and mathematic models) and ELIXIR (manage several bands of liquidity simultaneously + “Elixir's Algorithmic Market Making”)

If current liquidity management solutions are not performing well enough, what others solutions do we have?

---

IV. New protocols built on top of Uniswap V3; overcome the lack of efficiency in CFMMs

With Uniswap V3 now primarily used by institutions, hedging LP tokens has become a professional-level task.

We will see in detail some protocols who have taken a different approach to fairly rewards LPs. First, a deep study of PoolsShark, GammaSwap and Panoptic. Then we will see others innovations with Smilee, Bunni, InfinityPools and Blueberry

Poolsharks Protocol

The Directional Automated Market Maker (DAMM)

Bidirectionality on a classic AMM is use to catch fees on a range, but price divergence creates an IL for LP ; depending on the price movement, the LP position swaps the asset to one side or the other. The idea here is to allow LP to hedge their IL by bringing directional liquidity : you can LP with a specific direction to sell or buy one specific asset

This is what we called “Cover” your position : You set up a range and stagger your buying position upwards if the price increase. If the price decreases, your asset is sold on a staggered basis

Why it is powerful ? Cover position works with your UniV3 LP, and hedge your IL

Example;

Alice has an ETH/DAI LP position on Uniswap V3.
Her range has a lower and upper bound of 1000 and 5000.
The current price of ETH is 3000 DAI per ETH.
Alice wants to cover potential IL from 3000 to 5000 DAI per ETH, so she sets up a Cover position from 3000 to 5000 DAI that will reflect IL loses by purchasing ETH.
If she closes the position at ETH = 5000$, she will have UniV3 LP + fees – IL + IL “+IL” is earned from the Cover because ETH has been bought from 3000 to 5000$

Simply put, Cover Pool counterbalances the IL

Under the hood, the smart contract will automatically calculate how much input token you should transfer into the pool based on the currently valid price range Poolshark uses Gradual Dutch Auction and 20bp extra to be competitive in the market and be sure that the position will be execute when it is needed

With Poolshark, you can also use the Price Pool to set up a range on which one you want to sell by giving priority to your orders ; this is great for larges traders because they can wait until their liquidity is prioritized in order to capture the exact execution price they desire.

What is it important to remember : the main idea about Poolshark is to cover your IL buy continuously buy or sell the asset, in opposition with what Uniswap do with your LP token, in order to delete IL and enjoy trading fees

GammaSwap

The bidirectional liquidity market

GammaSwap is a protocol that works on top of CFMMs to allow liquidity to be more efficient, to compete with CEX and where retail can passively earn

In fact, CFMMs are disguised in option market. Be LPer on Uniswap is like be a straddle seller shorting volatility

Taking a quick look at it : In the pool A/B, if asset B is bought, the price increase AMM are selling your asset like option does

• Short put asset A: you sold the option to sell the asset A in the future Because you have too much asset A

• Short call asset B: you sold the option to buy the asset B in the futureBecause you don’t have enough asset B

Uniswap option is perpetual, its strike price at the time of sale is always the current price, its premiums payments are variable and paid in perpetuity

In option market, the most important feature to keep in track in the implied volatility (IV) because in normal options, IV > HV (historical volatility) and 90% of the time selling volatility is a profitable strategy In CFMMs, IV is way less than IV because it is a one-sided market place where LPs can only sell volatility. If you allow people to buy volatility, the pricing will be better and LPing can be passive.

GammaSwap is a new model that allow you to lend liquidity when you are Short Gamma or/and borrow liquidity when you are Long Gamma

Short Gamma : That means you’re a straddle seller, selling volatility like other CFMMs GammaSwap has its own liquidity pool, so you can LP directly in GS. You will receive GS LP token that represent a liquidity provider’s stake in the CFMM’s liquidity pool. This LP earn trading fees from the underlaying AMM used & borrowing fees. So, users are incentive to deposit on these LPs because they earn boosted yield, that is real yield

Long Gamma : That means you’re a straddle buyer, buying volatility. Users can borrow GS LP token deposited by the short gamma, you have to provide collateral and ensure that your loan is always over collateralized

Long gamma has to pay the interest from the utilization rate of the pool + the interest from trading fees accrued in the CFMM This is floating rate : if the LP position earn more and more fees, you borrower has to pay more and more interests. If the IL affect the short gamma, the long gamma benefits from it

To the loan repayment, long gamma receive collateral + impermanent gain (IG) - GS interest. The IL that lenders experience will become an Impermanent Gain for the borrower

There is no liquidation depending on the price’s movement. The Gamma Long deposits collateral and receives LP using the same tokens that they deposit as collateral. Whatever the price direction, your debt and collateral move in the same direction: your loan don’t have delta risk. So, as long as you have enough to pay trading fees + GS fees for the lender (short gamma), the position will never be liquidated

As LP are rewarded with the Long Gamma interest, there is not incentive to LP to have yield from trading fees, which directly depend on the volume (the IV to be more accurate). GammaSwap aims to be a fee-less DEX to compete with CEXes

GammaSwap is oracle-less because, as the debt and collateral are the same dual tokens, you don't need to have external price to liquidate position since the liquidation essentially depend on the borrower, if he has enough collateral to pay fees.

You can use leverage (up to x33) by changing the collateral ratio so that one underlying asset has more weight than the other ; modifying the collateral ratio means changing the payout structure. This feature is powerful because you can easily take a long or short position and see the expected IGI strongly advise using the testnet to understand this mechanism better

A new sustainable model to hedge your LP position could be born thank to GammaSwap. But it will probably be too complicated for new DEFI users to use this kind of complex product. That is why GammaSwap plan to create vaults with turnkey strategies

Protocols as GMX, Arrakis, Alchemix are already looking how to use GammaSwap to create higher yield and improve capital efficiency. And congrats to the GammaSwap’s team who raise 1,7M in seed round recently

What is it important to remember : GammaSwap explore a DEFI market area that has never been done before. In addition to create leverage for trader and a sustainable yield for passive investor, the protocol will improve capital efficiency in any CFMMs, better price discovery and will compete with CEXs

Panoptic

The permissionless perpetual option protocol

We saw that Uniswap is like an option protocol where you provide liquidity and be short selling or short buying, depending on the price’s direction

Panoptic’s aim is to create a new market for buying liquidity, but in a different way from what GammaSwap does. So, you can hedge your position or simply be Long on volatility

Panoptic also has its own pool that works in symbiosis with Uniswap

The idea behind this protocol is that is that Uniswap V3 LP tokens can be used as a primitive for an option contract. Provide the liquidity = selling put and call Fees = commission (premium). And also, no maturity date.

On Panoptic;

• You can provide liquidity on the option market; the liquidity is lent to the options traders to allow them to access trading on leverage. LPs earn commission from option buyers and sellers

• You can sell option, by using LP liquidities as leverage. Panoptic provides liquidity on Uniswap to create this short option. Option seller deposit collateral and can use the liquidities available up to 5x larger (max) than their collateral balance. A commission fees is charged

• You can buy option and leverage your position up to 10x larger (max) to the collateral deposited. Panoptic uses Uniswap to create this long option. You pay the commission and fees as long as your option is ITM

You have choice, you can either provide a single collateral or a cross-collateral Provide a single collateral is riskier because you expose yourself to infinite losses

How? let's take the example on the DAI-ETH pool;

Providing only DAI as collateral means be long on ETH.
Under the hood, the CFMM will continuously sell your DAI if ETH dump, to supply the demand of trader of the AMM.
If ETH goes to 0, you lose 100% of your DAI & inversely if you supply only ETH

Borrowing 1 sided to create a Uni V3 LP position does constitute selling an option

There are several scenarios where liquidations can happened (explained by Brandon from Panoptic)

1. OTM option buyer: you have token X as collateral but owe fees in token Y, price of X drops and you no longer have enough to cover the fees denominated in token Y

2. OTM option buyer: you are in-range (the option seller's position is in-range and collecting fees) but OTM. You may accrue more fees than you have collateral for.

3. ITM option buyer: price drops and puts you OTM, you will have negative intrinsic value up to some max_loss depending on the position, which could push you over your collateral.

Liquidators are incentive with a bonus to cover the distressed positions

Mechanism of the protocol should create incentive to balance the Panoptic’ pools The more the pool is used, the more options sellers there are :

• If the pool utilization increases, the collateral required for option sellers increases

• If the pool utilization decreases, the collateral required for option buyers increases

If you sell OTM, the minimum collateral is 20% and increase until 100% if the pool utilization increases up to 90% (max leverage x5) If you buy OTM, the minimum collateral is 10% and decrease until 5% if the pool utilization increases up to 90% (max leverage x10)

Panoptic uses a novel streaming premium model for pricing options unlike traditional options who use the Black-Scholes model Here, you don’t have to pay the premium upfront, but throughout the holding of the option. The pricing will grow at each block according to the proximity of the spot price to the option strike price. Simply put, the “premium” is the fees collected by that option in Uniswap

Panoptic doesn’t need oracle because asset borrow and assets used as collateral are the same, and the fees come from Uniswap and commission directly depend on the gap between strike and spot price

The leverage liquidity can only be used in the Panoptic-Uniswap ecosystem, all funds are always owned by the Panoptic protocol

Panoptic makes the options market fluid and unconstrained because everybody can create a perpetual put and call options, which are available to any trader, on any asset, at any strike price The protocol is being built with relevant partners such as Vector DAO, Simtopia.ai and ADBK to find the best and the most optimized solutions to create a new market for options

Panoptic recently raised 4,5M $ and have the idea and the tools to create this new attractive market build on the top of Uniswap, and scalable to others of CFMMs

What is it important to remember : Panoptic creates a permissionless & oracle-less option market where you can leverage up to x10 You can use perpetual option in isolated pools on the closed Uniswap-Panoptic’s market to better manage the risk exposure

Are you not too much degen? You can be LP and earn fees whit single asset exposure

---

By considering Uniswap as an option protocol, these 3 projects have quickly identified the limits and the opportunities of CFMMs to create a new source of yield for investors

We deeply covered 3 interesting protocols who are seeking to improve capital efficiency of CFMMs and protect LP from IL Each of them uses a different solution;

• Poolshark create a lateral market to easily hedge your LP positions

• GammaSwap improve efficiency of the LP with a bilateral market for volatility

• Panoptic is more focus on a leverage option market

It is not due to a lack of interest towards this next 4 protocols, in fact, the more we study it, the more we discover new information and innovations. These protocols deserve a deep study as well, due to a matter of time, their presentation will be shorter

Smilee Finance

This protocol also has relevant ideas about how to turn IL into IG. They build a Decentralized Volatility Products (DVP) and use vaults where you can be long or short Gamma. I am referring to the @Slappjakke ‘s thread who include Smilee Finance in his comparative analysis between GammaSwap, Panoptic and Smilee https://twitter.com/Slappjakke/status/1620436830494625793?s=20&t=ku0FcBdvFiD-2H_yQ05GNw

Bunni

The subproject of Timeless add more utility of the Uni_V3 LP by adding gauges and boost rewards to Uniswap’s LPers such as Convex do with Curve. This is a well thought-out innovation and deserves a whole article. Basically, Bunni incentives Uniswap V3 liquidity with an elegant flywheel model that helps the protocol the build their own liquidity, avoid farm & dump and encourage long term LPing. This is a 2.0 veToken model already adopt by the Hidden Hand of Redacted Cartel, Frax is also coming and propose to create a frxETH/WETH gauge (https://docs.bunni.pro/docs/intro)

InfinityPools

They use Uni V3 to allow unlimited leverage with no liquidation and without oracle. In one side, LPs provide liquidities into the Float Pool and the borrowers use these liquidities to leverage. LPs earn fees from borrowers + Uniswap’s trading fees Basically, you can borrow the LP and provide enough collateral to cover the position if the price moves in/out of the range. The range and the loan amount define the max collateral and the leverage of the position ; the narrower is the range, the greater is the leverage More details here by our DEFI chad @0xTindorr ://twitter.com/0xTindorr/status/1625215487050412032?s=20&t=r1864KmGAtnNul0DcoprYQ

Blueberry

Is a leveraged yield protocol focus on Uniswap V3 concentrated liquidity positions. With Blueberry, your LP is your collateral. This collateral is put in a Uni_V3 LP’s vault which is automatically managed by the protocol. Then you borrow with leverage (until x3) on WL yield strategies

---

V. Conclusion

Concentrated liquidity, as used by Uniswap, has been a significant advancement in optimizing liquidity within CFMMs. This approach allows for generating more yield with fewer assets. However, only institutional and advised market makers can take advantage of it.

Beyond the new DEXs, the first idea was to create protocols where investors could delegate the management of these concentrated liquidities, providing a turnkey solution for retail investors. Unfortunately, these solutions have shown their limits by generating unattractive yields. To regain interest, there should be improvements in the strategies used.

By viewing CFMMs as an options market, many innovative solutions have emerged, as seen through these 7 protocols. Each project has its own particularity, and it's still early to know which one will come out on top.

Successful testnets, a strong community, great partnerships, user-friendly UI and accessible investment for all will be critical aspects to monitor.

Don’t hesitate to give feedback about this report, it took me many hours to gathers everything in a single analysis

Obviously, this is not a financial advice :)