๐ฆ Uniswap Technical Analysis Series #3: Programmable Exchanges
Hello, I am BQ Developer. @BQ_Developer
In the last episode, we discussed how Uniswap V3 sacrificed simplicity for efficiency. This time, I will talk about how Uniswap is facing another fundamental limitation.
๐ค The Paradox of Innovation: Even with new ideas, they cannot be used
The development of Uniswap up to V3 has been remarkable, but one thing has remained unchanged.
Once a protocol is deployed, it cannot be changed.
This is the core value of blockchain: immutability, but it has also become a shackle for innovation.
Let me give you an example. When market volatility is high, if the fee could be automatically adjusted to 0.5%, and to 0.1% when stable, LPs would earn more, and traders could trade at fair prices.
The idea is good, but it is impossible on Uniswap. The fee rate is hardcoded, so no one can change it.
So, canโt we just create a new protocol?
Here lies the cruel reality of DeFi. The Uniswap ETH/USDC pool already has 100 million dollars, but a new protocol has to start from zero. Even trying to swap just 1,000 dollars could cause the price to slip by 5%. Who would use it?
Without traders, LPs wonโt come, and without LPs, traders wonโt come either. This starts a death spiral.
โ๏ธ Uniswap V4's Paradigm Shift: Separating Liquidity and Logic
V4 approached this problem from a completely different angle.
"What if we keep the liquidity pool as is, but allow only the trading logic to change?"
The core of the Hook system is this separation. Previously, a single smart contract handled everything from holding funds to executing trades. V4 split this into two.
- Core Protocol: Responsible only for liquidity management
- Hook: Responsible for the detailed logic of the trading process
Now, if there is an idea for dynamic fees, there is no need to create a new protocol. You just need to add a hook to the existing 100 million dollar pool.
The hook can check market conditions before a trade, adjust fees, and execute the trade, all while utilizing the existing liquidity.
๐ญ New Chaos Created by Infinite Possibilities
V1 was simple, V2 was still simple, and V3 became complex, but the rules were clear.
V4 made the rules themselves programmable.
Now, even the same ETH/USDC trade can be done in dozens of ways. Some hooks defend against MEV, some reduce price impact, and some allow trades only under specific conditions.
In my opinion, the big problem here is how the average user chooses among these options.
Security is the biggest issue. Hooks can execute arbitrary code during the trading process. A malicious hook could sneakily take more tokens or siphon fees to a specific address. However, it is practically impossible for an average person to read and verify smart contract code.
๐ฏ A New Form of Decentralization
Looking at the situation created by V4 raises an interesting question.
If the protocol is completely open, but in reality, only a few verified hooks are used, is this true decentralization?
Perhaps V4 is experimenting with a new form of decentralization.
Keeping the infrastructure neutral and immutable while leaving the application layer above it to the market's choice. Just like TCP/IP provides a neutral communication protocol, allowing Google or Facebook to compete freely on top of it.
Ultimately, what V4 has shown is the growing pains of DeFi.
From V1 and V2's "simple tools for everyone" to V3's "efficient tools for experts," it has now evolved into a "platform created by developers and chosen by the market."
Like it or not, this may be the way decentralized finance is maturing.
โ๏ธ In the next episode,
Technically, it seems everything has been resolved, but one last question remains. Who will decide the future of all these protocols?
In episode 4, we will look at the new power structure created by the UNI token and governance.
---
Your likes and shares are love ๐ฅฐ
#BQDeveloper #Uniswap #V4 #Programmability

๐ Uniswap Technical Analysis Series #2: Awakening of Dormant Capital
Hello, I am BQ Developer. @BQ_Developer
In the last episode, we discussed creating a 24-hour automated exchange using the x*y=k formula, and this time we will look at a new dilemma faced by Uniswap.
๐ค A New Problem Created by a Perfect Solution
Uniswap V2 was the epitome of simplicity. It solved everything with just the x*y=k formula.
However, this simplicity hid a fatal inefficiency.
Let's say ETH is trading at $3,000. Most trades will occur between $2,900 and $3,100. But V2 allocates capital equally across all price ranges from $1 to $1 million.
Even if there is $100 million in the ETH/USDC pool, the actual money used in the trading range is less than $1 million. The remaining $99 million is just lying dormant.
Why is this a problem?
From the trader's perspective, slippage increases. The liquidity in the actual trading range is thin. From the LP's perspective, capital efficiency decreases. Most of the capital is not earning fees.
โ๏ธ V3's Choice: Concentrated Liquidity
The Uniswap team chose a fundamental redesign.
They allowed LPs to directly choose the price range they wanted. If they set it to provide liquidity only between $2,800 and $3,200, they could create 100 times deeper liquidity in that range with the same capital.
Mathematically, this is an astonishing improvement. Capital efficiency has increased by dozens or even hundreds of times.
However, the ripple effects of this change went beyond simple efficiency improvements.
๐ฏ The Cost of Efficiency
In V2, LPs were investors. They just had to put in money and wait.
In V3, LPs had to become traders.
What happens if the price goes outside the set range? The position becomes useless. They can't earn fees and are left holding only one token. They have to wait for it to come back into the range or adjust their position at a loss.
An even more significant change was the market structure itself.
Professional market makers entered in droves. They monitor the market 24/7, adjust ranges algorithmically, and employ complex hedging strategies. Regular LPs cannot compete with them.
In V2, everyone equally shared the fees, but in V3, experts take most of the fees.
๐ญ The Value of Simplicity
What V3 has shown is the fundamental dilemma of DeFi.
Pursuing efficiency brings complexity. Complexity creates barriers to entry, and barriers to entry lead to centralization.
The inefficiency of V2 was, in fact, the cost of democratic accessibility. Anyone could participate, and everyone earned fairly. It was inefficient, but it was closer to the ideal of decentralization.
V3 has created better tools. But only a few can use those tools effectively.
Was this a wrong choice?
I don't think so. Isn't efficiency essential for DeFi to grow? However, we now know that every improvement comes at a cost.
โ๏ธ In the next episode
While V3 solved the capital efficiency problem, developers have started to demand new things. "Isn't it possible to create an AMM suited to each situation?"
In the next article, we will discuss how V4 responded to this demand!
---
Your likes and shares are love ๐ฅฐ
#BQDeveloper #Uniswap #V3 #CostOfEfficiency

6.69K
2
The content on this page is provided by third parties. Unless otherwise stated, OKX is not the author of the cited article(s) and does not claim any copyright in the materials. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to be an endorsement of any kind and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell digital assets. To the extent generative AI is utilized to provide summaries or other information, such AI generated content may be inaccurate or inconsistent. Please read the linked article for more details and information. OKX is not responsible for content hosted on third party sites. Digital asset holdings, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk and can fluctuate greatly. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition.