Uniswap’s Hayden Adams Rejects Claims AMMs Are Unsustainable

Adams argues automated market makers are quietly successful the place capital is reasonable and volatility is low, like stablecoin swimming pools.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams has pushed again on claims that automated market makers (AMMs) can’t final, responding on X on January 6 to criticism that liquidity suppliers (LPs) are structurally underpaid.

The change has reopened a long-running DeFi debate over whether or not AMMs can compete with skilled market makers, simply as Uniswap is preparing for main upgrades geared toward lifting returns for LPs.

Adams Defends AMMs as Critics Query Charge Economics

The dialogue started after dealer GEE-yohm “LAMB-bear” Lambert wrote that AMMs “can’t ever be sustainable” as a result of charges are tied to realized volatility, whereas liquidity suppliers promote convexity that needs to be priced on implied volatility. Of their view, that hole leaves LPs uncovered throughout massive worth strikes, with months of features erased in days.

Adams replied with an in depth rebuttal, arguing that AMMs already outperform options in a number of market segments. For low-volatility pairs similar to stablecoins, he stated AMMs provide regular yield to members with cheaper capital, permitting them to outprice skilled companies.

In long-tail, high-volatility tokens, Adams added, AMMs are sometimes the one construction that scales, with initiatives and early supporters offering liquidity to bootstrap markets somewhat than simply chasing delta-neutral earnings.

The fiercest competitors, in response to the Uniswap exec, lies in high-volatility main tokens like ETH pairs. Whereas critics typically level to “markouts” to argue LPs lose cash, Adams countered that AMMs have grown persistently for years, with order books reaching maturity. He stated upcoming Uniswap v4 hooks will enable customized logic on the pool degree, opening the door to swimming pools that seize extra worth for LPs.

“AMMs are solely simply getting began,” he wrote, including that decrease capital prices and composability give them an edge.

You might also like:

Lambert later softened his stance, replying to Adams that he stays “an AMM maxi” however sees structural inefficiencies in present designs. He argued impermanent loss and gamma danger are manageable if charges rise, suggesting options starting from v4 hooks to different issuance fashions or instruments like Panoptic that allow merchants hedge LP publicity.

A Wider Debate on AMM Design and Incentives

Current months have proven each the worth and vulnerability of AMMs. In November 2025, Balancer, a significant AMM, suffered a $120 million exploit resulting from a precision flaw in its code, a stark reminder of the technical dangers inherent in these advanced programs.

In the meantime, Uniswap itself noticed a significant constructive market response in that very same month when Adams proposed turning on a “price swap” to share protocol income with UNI token holders, sending the token’s worth up 35%.

Moreover, initiatives throughout the ecosystem are iterating on the AMM method, with even newer entrants just like the Pi Community rolling out up to date DEX and AMM options centered on bettering liquidity group and person security.

The consensus rising from the talk isn’t that AMMs are doomed, however that their present price buildings want innovation. As Uniswap v4 growth continues, its promised “hooks” might be carefully watched as a possible reply to the crucial query of long-term LP profitability and the sustained well being of decentralized liquidity.