Core principles and mechanisms underlying different DeFi options trading models.
LABS
AMM-Based Options vs RFQ-Based Options in DeFi
Chainscore © 2025
Foundational Concepts
Automated Market Maker (AMM)
An Automated Market Maker is a decentralized protocol that uses liquidity pools and a pricing formula to facilitate asset swaps without order books.
- Uses a constant product formula (x*y=k) to determine prices algorithmically.
- Liquidity providers deposit assets into pools, earning fees from trades.
- Enables permissionless, 24/7 trading but can suffer from impermanent loss and high slippage for large orders.
Request for Quote (RFQ)
A Request for Quote model allows traders to solicit price quotes from specific, pre-approved market makers before executing a trade.
- Traders broadcast their intent, and market makers respond with firm, executable prices.
- Provides price discovery through competition, often resulting in better execution.
- Commonly used for large, institutional-sized orders to minimize market impact and slippage.
Options Greeks
Options Greeks are risk metrics that quantify how an option's price is affected by various factors.
- Delta: Sensitivity to the underlying asset's price change.
- Gamma: Rate of change of Delta.
- Theta: Time decay of the option's value.
- Vega: Sensitivity to volatility changes. Understanding Greeks is crucial for pricing and risk management in both AMM and RFQ models.
Liquidity Provision
Liquidity provision is the act of depositing assets into a protocol to enable trading, for which providers earn fees.
- In AMM-based options, LPs deposit option collateral into pools, taking on complex, delta-neutral risks.
- In RFQ systems, professional market makers provide liquidity on-demand for specific quotes.
- The risk/reward profile and capital efficiency differ drastically between the two models.
Price Oracle
A price oracle is a service that provides external, real-world data (like asset prices) to on-chain smart contracts.
- Critical for pricing options and settling contracts accurately at expiry.
- AMMs often rely on decentralized oracles (e.g., Chainlink) for spot price feeds.
- RFQ systems may use oracles for settlement but derive execution prices directly from market maker quotes.
Counterparty Risk
Counterparty risk is the probability that the other party in a financial contract will default on their obligation.
- In traditional finance and RFQ-based DeFi, this risk is centralized with the quoting market maker.
- AMM-based options mitigate this via fully collateralized, non-custodial smart contracts.
- The trade-off is between trust minimization (AMM) and potentially better pricing from trusted entities (RFQ).
Mechanism Deep Dive
Understanding the Two Models
AMM-Based Options operate like a liquidity pool. Users trade options directly against a smart contract's liquidity, similar to swapping tokens on Uniswap. The price is determined algorithmically based on a bonding curve and the pool's reserves. This model prioritizes permissionless, 24/7 availability over price efficiency.
RFQ-Based Options (Request-for-Quote) function like an order book. A trader submits a request specifying their desired option parameters (strike, expiry). Market makers or professional liquidity providers respond with a firm quote, which the trader can accept or reject. This model, used by protocols like Lyra, mimics traditional finance for potentially better pricing.
Key Differences
- Price Discovery: AMMs use a formula; RFQ relies on human/quoter algorithms.
- Liquidity Role: In AMMs, LPs provide passive capital. In RFQ, market makers provide active quotes.
- Counterparty: AMM users trade against a pool; RFQ users trade with a specific counterparty's quote.
Side-by-Side Comparison
A technical comparison of Automated Market Maker (AMM) and Request-for-Quote (RFQ) models for on-chain options trading.
| Feature | AMM-Based Options (e.g., Lyra, Dopex) | RFQ-Based Options (e.g., Opyn, Deribit) | Hybrid/Order Book (e.g., dYdX, Aevo) |
|---|---|---|---|
Pricing & Liquidity Source | Algorithmic pricing via bonding curves; liquidity is pooled and passive. | Professional market makers provide bespoke quotes on-demand; liquidity is active. | Central limit order book where users post bids and asks; liquidity is peer-to-peer. |
Typical Fee Structure | LP fees (0.1-1%), protocol fees, and option premium. | Taker fee (0.02-0.1%) on filled quote; no explicit LP fees. | Maker/taker fee model (e.g., -0.02% / 0.05%); no protocol fee on premium. |
Capital Efficiency | Lower for LPs (capital locked in pools). Higher for traders (instant execution). | Higher for market makers (capital deployed only when quoting). Variable for traders. | High for makers (control over inventory). Requires trader to post collateral for orders. |
Execution Speed & Slippage | Instant execution; slippage depends on pool depth and trade size. | Quote request latency (~1-5 sec); zero slippage on accepted quote. | Instant if matching order exists; potential price impact on large market orders. |
Customization & Flexibility | Limited to predefined expiries and strike intervals set by protocol. | High flexibility; can request quotes for any strike, expiry, or exotic structure. | High flexibility for standard options; limited by existing order book liquidity. |
Counterparty Risk | Smart contract and oracle risk. No direct counterparty. | Counterparty risk with the quoting market maker until settlement. | Counterparty risk with the exchange's clearing model and smart contracts. |
Typical Minimum Size | Can be very small (e.g., 0.01 ETH options), set by pool granularity. | Often higher minimums (e.g., 1-10 ETH options) to attract market makers. | Defined by order book tick sizes; can accommodate both small and large orders. |
Settlement Mechanism | Typically cash-settled via oracle price at expiry. | Can be cash-settled or physically settled, as per the quote terms. | Usually cash-settled, with final price from an oracle or TWAP. |
Protocol Implementations
A comparison of leading DeFi protocols that implement Automated Market Maker (AMM) and Request-for-Quote (RFQ) models for on-chain options trading.
Lyra Finance
A leading AMM-based options protocol on Optimism and Arbitrum. It uses a Black-Scholes-derived pricing model and liquidity pools for underwriting.
- Utilizes liquidity pools (sLPs) to underwrite options, earning fees from premiums and delta hedging.
- Dynamically hedges delta risk via integrated spot DEXs to manage LP exposure.
- Offers American-style options with continuous settlement, allowing exercise at any time before expiry.
Dopex
A protocol employing a hybrid option vault (SSOV) and RFQ model. Users deposit assets into Single-Stake Option Vaults to mint options, which are then sold via order books.
- SSOVs allow liquidity providers to mint and sell at-the-money call/put options each epoch.
- An RFQ-based order book (Atlantic Options) facilitates peer-to-peer trading of more exotic structures.
- Features unique products like Atlantic Straddles for leveraged yield strategies on collateral.
Premia Finance
A decentralized options marketplace supporting both AMM (v2) and RFQ/p2p (v3) trading. It provides flexibility for different user preferences and liquidity models.
- v2 uses concentrated liquidity AMMs, allowing LPs to set custom price ranges for capital efficiency.
- v3 introduces a request-for-quote system where market makers can respond to tailored option orders.
- Users can access European-style options with cash settlement upon expiry.
Ribbon Finance
Primarily an options vault protocol that automates strategies using AMM-sourced liquidity. It abstracts complexity for end-users seeking yield.
- Deploys user funds into automated, recurring options strategies like covered calls or put selling.
- Sources option liquidity and execution from integrated AMMs like Lyra or Deribit (via Aevo).
- Provides a structured product layer, transforming options into yield-generating vault tokens.
Aevo (formerly Ribbon L2)
A high-performance order book DEX built as an L2 rollup, specializing in RFQ and perpetual futures. It caters to professional traders.
- Operates a central limit order book (CLOB) model for options and perps, enabling advanced order types.
- Utilizes an off-chain RFQ engine where market makers stream quotes, with on-chain settlement.
- Offers deep liquidity and low latency, competing with centralized exchanges for derivatives trading.
Panoptic
An innovative perpetual options protocol built on Uniswap v3, removing expiries and strike prices. It uses a constant product AMM for liquidity.
- Options are represented as ERC-721 tokens (SFPM) minted against Uniswap v3 LP positions.
- Pricing is derived from the underlying AMM's invariant, not traditional models.
- Enables users to long or short volatility by creating, buying, and selling positions continuously.
How to Choose a Model for Your Trade
Process overview
1
Define Your Trade's Core Requirements
Assess your specific needs for size, speed, and cost.
Detailed Instructions
Begin by quantifying your trade's size and slippage tolerance. For large, illiquid positions, an RFQ model is typically superior to avoid excessive price impact. Next, evaluate your time sensitivity. AMMs offer immediate execution, while RFQs involve a request-for-quote delay. Finally, calculate your acceptable fee structure. AMMs have transparent, protocol-set fees (e.g., 0.3% pool fee), while RFQ fees are negotiated with market makers and may be lower for large volume.
- Sub-step 1: Determine if your trade size exceeds 2-5% of the target pool's liquidity.
- Sub-step 2: Decide if you require execution in the next block or can wait 30-60 seconds for quotes.
- Sub-step 3: Compare the projected AMM fee against typical RFQ taker fees of 5-15 basis points.
typescript// Example: Checking pool liquidity for a token pair on Uniswap V3 const pool = await uniswapV3PoolContract.functions.liquidity(); const token0Reserves = await pool.token0.balanceOf(pool.address); const token1Reserves = await pool.token1.balanceOf(pool.address);
Tip: For complex, multi-leg strategies (like spreads), RFQ systems can often package them into a single atomic transaction, reducing gas costs and execution risk.
2
Analyze Market Conditions and Liquidity
Evaluate the current state of on-chain liquidity and volatility.
Detailed Instructions
Examine the liquidity depth across both AMM pools and RFQ market makers. For AMMs, check the concentrated liquidity distribution in pools like Uniswap V3; a wide distribution indicates resilience. For RFQ, research which protocols (e.g., 0x, 1inch) have active market makers for your asset pair. Assess implied volatility; high volatility can lead to rapid price movement between an RFQ request and fill, causing quote expiration. Also, monitor network congestion, as high gas fees disproportionately affect AMM transactions which are more complex.
- Sub-step 1: Use a blockchain explorer or DeFi dashboard to view the liquidity curve for the relevant AMM pool.
- Sub-step 2: Check RFQ aggregator APIs (e.g., 0x
/swap/v1/quote) to see available quote liquidity and spread. - Sub-step 3: Review recent volatility metrics for the underlying asset from an oracle or data provider like Chainlink.
bash# Example: Fetching a quote from 0x API for a 100 ETH to USDC swap curl 'https://api.0x.org/swap/v1/quote?sellToken=ETH&buyToken=USDC&sellAmount=100000000000000000000' \ -H '0x-api-key: YOUR_API_KEY'
Tip: During periods of extreme volatility or network stress, AMMs provide a guaranteed, albeit potentially expensive, execution, while RFQ liquidity may dry up.
3
Compare Price Impact and Execution Guarantees
Calculate the expected cost from slippage and assess execution certainty.
Detailed Instructions
For the AMM model, calculate the price impact using the pool's constant product formula or a library like @uniswap/v3-sdk. A 1% slippage on a large trade can be significant. The RFQ model provides a firm quote, locking in the price for a short window, eliminating slippage risk. However, you must consider the fill guarantee. An AMM trade either succeeds or reverts; an RFQ quote can expire or be front-run before you submit the signed transaction. Evaluate which risk is more critical for your strategy.
- Sub-step 1: Input your trade size into the AMM pool's bonding curve formula to estimate output and slippage.
- Sub-step 2: For an RFQ, note the
expirytimestamp on the received quote and thetakersignature requirement. - Sub-step 3: Simulate both transactions using
eth_estimateGasto compare potential gas costs and success likelihood.
solidity// Simplified Uniswap V2 price impact calculation (x * y = k) function calcPriceImpact(uint inputAmount, uint inputReserve, uint outputReserve) public pure returns (uint) { uint newInputReserve = inputReserve + inputAmount; uint newOutputReserve = (inputReserve * outputReserve) / newInputReserve; uint outputAmount = outputReserve - newOutputReserve; // Price Impact = (Spot Price - Execution Price) / Spot Price }
Tip: For trades where exact output amount is critical (e.g., hedging), the firm quote of an RFQ is often the only viable choice.
4
Evaluate Counterparty and Settlement Risk
Understand the trust assumptions and finality of each model.
Detailed Instructions
AMM-based options settle trustlessly against a smart contract pool. Your counterparty risk is diffused across all liquidity providers and the security of the protocol's code. RFQ-based options involve a direct counterparty risk with a specific market maker or their settlement contract. You must assess their solvency and reputation. Furthermore, consider settlement finality. AMM trades are atomic and on-chain. Some RFQ systems may involve off-chain order matching with on-chain settlement, introducing a layer of complexity and potential for dispute.
- Sub-step 1: For AMMs, audit the protocol's security history and check if the pool uses audited, non-upgradable contracts.
- Sub-step 2: For RFQs, verify the market maker's on-chain address reputation, perhaps via a whitelist from the aggregator.
- Sub-step 3: Review the RFQ system's settlement process: is it a simple
fillOrdercall or a more complex intent-based architecture?
javascript// Example: Verifying a 0x order signature before submission const { signature, order } = receivedQuote; const isValid = await zeroEx.exchange.validateOrderFillableOrThrowAsync(order); if (!isValid) { throw new Error('Order is no longer fillable'); }
Tip: For regulatory or institutional purposes, the identifiable counterparty in an RFQ trade may be necessary for reporting, whereas AMM liquidity is anonymous.
5
Make the Final Decision and Execute
Synthesize your analysis into a clear choice and proceed with the trade.
Detailed Instructions
Synthesize the data from previous steps. Create a decision matrix: choose AMM for small, urgent trades in liquid pools where transparency is key. Choose RFQ for large, non-time-sensitive trades requiring minimal slippage and a firm price. If the analysis is borderline, consider splitting the order. Finally, prepare and execute the transaction. For AMMs, use the router contract's exact-input function. For RFQs, sign and submit the quoted order transaction within its validity window, ensuring sufficient gas for the fill.
- Sub-step 1: Based on your matrix, select the protocol (e.g., Uniswap for AMM, 0x via Matcha for RFQ).
- Sub-step 2: Construct the final transaction calldata using the appropriate SDK (e.g.,
@uniswap/v3-periphery). - Sub-step 3: Broadcast the transaction, monitor its status on a block explorer, and confirm final settlement.
typescript// Example: Executing an exact-input swap on Uniswap V3 const params = { tokenIn: USDC.address, tokenOut: WETH.address, fee: 3000, // 0.3% recipient: trader.address, deadline: Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000) + 60 * 20, // 20 minutes amountIn: parseUnits('1000', 6), amountOutMinimum: 0, // Set based on slippage calc sqrtPriceLimitX96: 0, }; const tx = await routerContract.exactInputSingle(params);
Tip: Always use a small, test transaction first when interacting with a new protocol or market maker to verify the entire flow and connectivity.
SECTION-FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Further Reading
Ready to Start Building?
Let's bring your Web3 vision to life.
From concept to deployment, ChainScore helps you architect, build, and scale secure blockchain solutions.