What is Decentralized Exchange?

Maciej Zieliński

25 Sep 2021
What is Decentralized Exchange?

DEX is far more than just another DeFi trend in the game. Decentralized exchanges allow crypto traders to swap tokens in a peer-to-peer model. Direct transactions between parties, no need to sign in - these are just some of their advantages over centralized exchanges.

In this article, you will find:

  • How does decentralized exchange work?
  • Decentralized exchange vs centralized exchange 
  • Pros and cons of decentralized exchanges
  • What do DEXs mean for the world of decentralized finance?

Definition: 

Decentralized exchange, also known as DEX, is a platform where crypto investors can buy and sell cryptocurrencies without intermediaries.

Substantially any exchange working on a peer-to-peer basis could be called decentralized. Yet, in this article, we will focus on those with backend existing on a blockchain. 

Thanks to the usage of that technology, no one takes custody of your assets and the safety of transactions is guaranteed by protocol. Therefore, you don't have to give the exchange this amount of trust as in the case of centralized exchanges.

How does CEX work?
How does CEX work?

How does centralize exchange work?

Centralized exchanges, for example, Coinbase, are digital markets where people can buy, sell and trade digital assets such as Bitcoin, Ether, or other cryptocurrencies.

To access the site, you have to sign up by providing banking details and identifying personal data. This is the part of KYC and AML practices, which have to be followed by every centralized exchange. Because such data is fragile, it's quite clear that a security dilemma is present even before one starts trading.

Buying cryptocurrencies on a centralized exchange

The price of each coin on the site is based on an "order book" - consisting of orders to buy and sell.

Trading on centralized exchanges generally seems simple. You just need to choose coins and confirm a transaction.  The exchange will show the funds you acquired in your account. Then you can trade them for other digital assets.

Yet, users don't really hold their funds. Exchange work here as a custodian of customer funds. Furthermore, trades don't occur on the blockchain. Instead, they take place only within the exchange's database.

Disadvantages of central authority

From a technical point, when you deposit funds on a centralized exchange, you lose control over it. Exchange puts your funds into wallets controlled by it.

Additionally, it owns your private keys. Therefore, if you want to withdraw your money, the exchange has to sign the transaction on your behalf.

Security

With CEXs come some vital security questions.

Firstly, exchanges can limit user access to their assets or even restrict the ability to trade them.  Secondly, the risk of a hacker attack is always present. Exchanges work very hard to avoid it, yet as the example of Mt. Gox shows, they are still vulnerable.

Advantages of centralized exchanges

Generally, this type of cryptocurrency exchange is easier and more convenient to use than decentralized exchanges. Especially for the newcomers.

Moreover, trading there is often faster because the whole process doesn't take place on a blockchain. Additionally, trading fees can be lower as well.

Decentralized exchanges vs centralized exchanges
Decentralized exchanges vs centralized exchanges

How do decentralized exchanges work?

In many ways, decentralized exchanges are similar to centralized ones. However, differences are more than substantial. Essentially in decentralized exchanges, trade rely on a blockchain (most often Ethereum or Binance Smart Chain). Trading between users is conducted using smart contracts - orders are executed on-chain. Thanks to that, during the whole process exchange, doesn't take control of users' assets.

Cross-chain exchanges are a very promising novelty on the DEX market. Yet, most of the popular decentralized exchanges operate only on one blockchain - most often Ethereum or Binance Smart Chain.

There are three ways in which decentralized exchanges operate trading:

  • On-chain order book
  • Off-chain order book
  • Automated Market Maker
How does decentralized exchange handle trading?
How does decentralized exchange handle trading?

On-chain order book

There are decentralized exchanges where every transaction is written to a blockchain. It means that every order, as well as cancellation or alteration, is handled on-chain.

Without a doubt, this is the purest approach to decentralization. There is absolutely no third party involved at any stage of trading. Everything is extremely transparent. Unfortunately, there are vital downsides as well.

The on-chain order book is far less practical than the other two options. Firstly, because every node on the blockchain record the order, placing it requires paying a fee. Furthermore, users have to wait until the miner adds necessary data to the chain. It translates to high costs and poor liquidity.

Front running

Front running refers to a situation when some insider posses information about a pending transaction and uses this knowledge to place an order before the transaction is completed. Because he benefits from the fact that is inaccessible to the public, it’s illegal. Some believe that’s a serious threat in the on-chain model.

It can't occur in the traditional way, since everything is recorded on the global ledger. Yet, a miner can observe the order before it's added to the blockchain,  and add their order first.

Off-chain order book

Off-chain order books are a bit more centralized than their counterparts. But they are also far more practical. In this model, orders are hosted elsewhere and only the final transaction is settled on the blockchain. Moreover, you can still benefit from non-custodial storage.

Because orders aren't stored on-chain, this approach is faster and less costly. Furthermore, it helps to achieve better liquidity of trades. However, it can encounter some of the security issues typical for CEXs.

Automated Market Maker (AMM)

Automated Market Maker, sometimes called Proactive Market Maker, has some serious advantages over the previous two solutions.

In order books model, if you have Bitcoin and want to trade it for Ether, you need someone who wants to buy Bitcoin and have Ether. Moreover, they have to be willing to trade at an agreed-upon price.

AMM simply removes counter-parties and applies algorithms that deal with asset pricing. With Automative Market Maker, you can trade Ether regardless of whether there’s someone who wants it for Bitcoin. 

To achieve it, AMMs typically use liquidity pools. We'll explain this term in another article.

Decentralized margin trading

Margin trading refers to the practice of borrowing funds from a broker to trade a financial asset, which forms the collateral in lending from the broker. Usually, a broker in DeFi is one of the AMMs.

Pros and cons of Decentralized Exchange
Pros and cons of Decentralized Exchange

Pros of decentralized exchange

Lower risk

Decentralized cryptocurrency exchange doesn't hold users' assets. Because they are held in a private wallet, and you have the keys, they are immune to hacks.

No KYC needed 

Most of DEXs doesn’t have to follow KYC and AML requirements, because they don’t intermediate in transactions between parties. That’s why it’s often more convenient to build your own DEX than CEX. 

More options

On the DEX platform, trades of tokens that aren’t listed on CEXs are possible.

Cons of decentralized exchange

Trading volume

The volume traded on CEXs is still much higher than that on DEXs. Liquidity is lower as well.

Higher fees

It's not an absolute norm, but when it comes to fees CEXs often offer the best price.

Convenience

Decentralized exchange is less user-friendly than a traditional one.

Conclusion

Decentralized Exchanges can be considered as one of the key factors in the current Defi boom. That’s why we mentioned them among the top DeFi trends for 2021. To this point, everything indicates we were right. Just look at the success of projects like Uniswap or PancakeSwap. 2021 definitely belongs to DEXs. Apparently, today crypto traders value high security, privacy, and the wide range of options that they bring. 

Yet, DEXs are still a relatively new branch of the crypto world. Therefore, there is still much space for innovation. That’s why more and more investors become interested in building their own Decentralized Exchange. With the high speed of blockchain technology development and the growing popularity of alternative crypto assets, circumstances are more than promising.

Most viewed


Never miss a story

Stay updated about Nextrope news as it happens.

You are subscribed

Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Kajetan Olas

22 Nov 2024
Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Authors of the contents are not affiliated to the reviewed project in any way and none of the information presented should be taken as financial advice.

In this article we analyze tokenomics of Aethir - a project providing on-demand cloud compute resources for the AI, Gaming, and virtualized compute sectors.
Aethir aims to aggregate enterprise-grade GPUs from multiple providers into a DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network). Its competitive edge comes from utlizing the GPUs for very specific use-cases, such as low-latency rendering for online games.
Due to decentralized nature of its infrastructure Aethir can meet the demands of online-gaming in any region. This is especially important for some gamer-abundant regions in Asia with underdeveloped cloud infrastructure that causes high latency ("lags").
We will analyze Aethir's tokenomics, give our opinion on what was done well, and provide specific recommendations on how to improve it.

Evaluation Summary

Aethir Tokenomics Structure

The total supply of ATH tokens is capped at 42 billion ATH. This fixed cap provides a predictable supply environment, and the complete emissions schedule is listed here. As of November 2024 there are approximately 5.2 Billion ATH in circulation. In a year from now (November 2025), the circulating supply will almost triple, and will amount to approximately 15 Billion ATH. By November 2028, today's circulating supply will be diluted by around 86%.

From an investor standpoint the rational decision would be to stake their tokens and hope for rewards that will balance the inflation. Currently the estimated APR for 3-year staking is 195% and for 4-year staking APR is 261%. The rewards are paid out weekly. Furthermore, stakers can expect to get additional rewards from partnered AI projects.

Staking Incentives

Rewards are calculated based on the staking duration and staked amount. These factors are equally important and they linearly influence weekly rewards. This means that someone who stakes 100 ATH for 2 weeks will have the same weekly rewards as someone who stakes 200 ATH for 1 week. This mechanism greatly emphasizes long-term holding. That's because holding a token makes sense only if you go for long-term staking. E.g. a whale staking $200k with 1 week lockup. will have the same weekly rewards as person staking $1k with 4 year lockup. Furthermore the ATH staking rewards are fixed and divided among stakers. Therefore Increase of user base is likely to come with decrease in rewards.
We believe the main weak-point of Aethirs staking is the lack of equivalency between rewards paid out to the users and value generated for the protocol as a result of staking.

Token Distribution

The token distribution of $ATH is well designed and comes with long vesting time-frames. 18-month cliff and 36-moths subsequent linear vesting is applied to team's allocation. This is higher than industry standard and is a sign of long-term commitment.

  • Checkers and Compute Providers: 50%
  • Ecosystem: 15%
  • Team: 12.5%
  • Investors: 11.5%
  • Airdrop: 6%
  • Advisors: 5%

Aethir's airdrop is divided into 3 phases to ensure that only loyal users get rewarded. This mechanism is very-well thought and we rate it highly. It fosters high community engagement within the first months of the project and sets the ground for potentially giving more-control to the DAO.

Governance and Community-Led Development

Aethir’s governance model promotes community-led decision-making in a very practical way. Instead of rushing with creation of a DAO for PR and marketing purposes Aethir is trying to make it the right way. They support projects building on their infrastructure and regularly share updates with their community in the most professional manner.

We believe Aethir would benefit from implementing reputation boosted voting. An example of such system is described here. The core assumption is to abandon the simplistic: 1 token = 1 vote and go towards: Votes = tokens * reputation_based_multiplication_factor.

In the attached example, reputation_based_multiplication_factor rises exponentially with the number of standard deviations above norm, with regard to user's rating. For compute compute providers at Aethir, user's rating could be replaced by provider's uptime.

Perspectives for the future

While it's important to analyze aspects such as supply-side tokenomics, or governance, we must keep in mind that 95% of project's success depends on demand-side. In this regard the outlook for Aethir may be very bright. The project declares $36M annual reccuring revenue. Revenue like this is very rare in the web3 space. Many projects are not able to generate any revenue after succesfull ICO event, due to lack fo product-market-fit.

If you're looking to create a robust tokenomics model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure your project’s resilience in the long term.

Quadratic Voting in Web3

Kajetan Olas

04 Dec 2024
Quadratic Voting in Web3

Decentralized systems are reshaping how we interact, conduct transactions, and govern online communities. As Web3 continues to advance, the necessity for effective and fair voting mechanisms becomes apparent. Traditional voting systems, such as the one-token-one-vote model, often fall short in capturing the intensity of individual preferences, which can result in centralization. Quadratic Voting (QV) addresses this challenge by enabling individuals to express not only their choices but also the strength of their preferences.

In QV, voters are allocated a budget of credits that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The cost of casting multiple votes on a single issue increases quadratically, meaning that each additional vote costs more than the last. This system allows for a more precise expression of preferences, as individuals can invest more heavily in issues they care deeply about while conserving credits on matters of lesser importance.

Understanding Quadratic Voting

Quadratic Voting (QV) is a voting system designed to capture not only the choices of individuals but also the strength of their preferences. In most DAO voting mechanisms, each person typically has one vote per token, which limits the ability to express how strongly they feel about a particular matter. Furthermore, QV limits the power of whales and founding team who typically have large token allocations. These problems are adressed by making the cost of each additional vote increase quadratically.

In QV, each voter is given a budget of credits or tokens that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The key principle is that the cost to cast n votes on a single issue is proportional to the square of n. This quadratic cost function ensures that while voters can express stronger preferences, doing so requires a disproportionately higher expenditure of their voting credits. This mechanism discourages voters from concentrating all their influence on a single issue unless they feel very strongly about it. In the context of DAOs, it means that large holders will have a hard-time pushing through with a proposal if they'll try to do it on their own.

Practical Example

Consider a voter who has been allocated 25 voting credits to spend on several proposals. The voter has varying degrees of interest in three proposals: Proposal A, Proposal B, and Proposal C.

  • Proposal A: High interest.
  • Proposal B: Moderate interest.
  • Proposal C: Low interest.

The voter might allocate their credits as follows:

Proposal A:

  • Votes cast: 3
  • Cost: 9 delegated tokens

Proposal B:

  • Votes cast: 2
  • Cost: 4 delegated tokens

Proposal C:

  • Votes cast: 1
  • Cost: 1 delegated token

Total delegated tokens: 14
Remaining tokens: 11

With the remaining tokens, the voter can choose to allocate additional votes to the proposals based on their preferences or save for future proposals. If they feel particularly strong about Proposal A, they might decide to cast one more vote:

Additional vote on Proposal A:

  • New total votes: 4
  • New cost: 16 delegated tokens
  • Additional cost: 16−9 = 7 delegated tokens

Updated total delegated tokens: 14+7 = 21

Updated remaining tokens: 25−21 = 425 - 21 = 4

This additional vote on Proposal A costs 7 credits, significantly more than the previous vote, illustrating how the quadratic cost discourages excessive influence on a single issue without strong conviction.

Benefits of Implementing Quadratic Voting

Key Characteristics of the Quadratic Cost Function

  • Marginal Cost Increases Linearly: The marginal cost of each additional vote increases linearly. The cost difference between casting n and n−1 votes is 2n−1.
  • Total Cost Increases Quadratically: The total cost to cast multiple votes rises steeply, discouraging voters from concentrating too many votes on a single issue without significant reason.
  • Promotes Egalitarian Voting: Small voters are encouraged to participate, because relatively they have a much higher impact.

Advantages Over Traditional Voting Systems

Quadratic Voting offers several benefits compared to traditional one-person-one-vote systems:

  • Captures Preference Intensity: By allowing voters to express how strongly they feel about an issue, QV leads to outcomes that better reflect the collective welfare.
  • Reduces Majority Domination: The quadratic cost makes it costly for majority groups to overpower minority interests on every issue.
  • Encourages Honest Voting: Voters are incentivized to allocate votes in proportion to their true preferences, reducing manipulation.

By understanding the foundation of Quadratic Voting, stakeholders in Web3 communities can appreciate how this system supports more representative governance.

Conclusion

Quadratic voting is a novel voting system that may be used within DAOs to foster decentralization. The key idea is to make the cost of voting on a certain issue increase quadratically. The leading player that makes use of this mechanism is Optimism. If you're pondering about the design of your DAO, we highly recommend taking a look at their research on quadratic funding.

If you're looking to create a robust governance model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure that your DAO will stand out as a beacon of innovation and resilience in the long term.