LIVE: Aerodrome and Metadex03 | 0xResearch

What's up, guys? Welcome back to another live stream of 0xResearch, the first one of the new year. And today we're joined by Alex from Dromos Labs, the company labs team behind Arrow, now changed from Aerodrome. How you doing, Alex?

Doing well. It's my first pod of the new year here, too. So, I feel like I'm shaking off the cobwebs a bit here. So, thanks for having me on.

Thank you for coming on. I guess, just to start us off, why did you guys decide to change it to Arrow?

I mean, if you think about the journey we've been on, everything sort of started with Velodrome on OP Mainnet. Velodrome quickly became the leading exchange on OP Mainnet, and then it's expanded across now 10 different super chains, and it leads across almost all of them. It also meant we launched Aerodrome, which quickly became the leading exchange of Base, but that was a huge deal because Base is the L2 of Ethereum these days, so it was no small thing.

I think as we began to think about the future, Metadex03 is kind of a major upgrade to what we think is the leading DEX operating system on the market. We thought it was time for these two protocols to come together as one to expand to Mainnet Ethereum, and be that one protocol, one name, one unified ecosystem to connect liquidity across all of Ethereum. It's a classic social network vibe of drop the "drone," it's simpler, just go with Arrow.

Actually, I do want to give some credit because quite some time ago when I first shared with Jesse Pollock of the Base team our plan here, his question was, "So what are you going to call the thing?" We were kicking around a few different ideas, and when I mentioned Arrow, he was like, "No, that's it, you got to go with that." It took us another few months of arguing and debating, but that stuck in my head. So, Arrow, it's simpler.

I agree with Jesse and with you as well. I like it, although I did really like the Velodrome branding as well. Like the bicycle was very cool. Thinking about it, VEL stakers got Arrow token, so there isn't anything functionally changing in terms of revenues and everything, right?

Correct. The initial distribution is basically benchmarked on previous year revenue of the two protocols. So if you assumed that the only thing that we announced last November was the two protocols coming together, and we announced a lot more expansion into new markets, major upgrades to the technology, the economics, but if it was just the merge and you were to benchmark your distribution of the revenue of the two protocols based on that past year, everybody's claim of the pie would be the exact same. So Arrow and VE Arrow tokens are getting dropped proportionate to Arrow's revenue. Same for VEL. But the great thing is is you aren't actually getting a share of the same pie. You're getting a share of what we think will be a much larger pie because right now these two protocols only service about 1/5 of total EVM volumes. So in theory everybody's share of total rewards should grow.

You mentioned Metadex03 a few times. At a high level, because I want to dive deeply into each section, what are the changes? So it's expansion into new chains as well as a few other things. What are they?

We think Metadex03 is the endgame of the DEX design, spot exchange design that will finally unify liquidity across all of Ethereum. So there's a few key features probably worth hitting on here. One is the air and rev engines. These are big changes to the economics of the protocol which we think are already the best economics in the industry. Arrow led all DEXes last year in revenue by a substantial margin. Even if you look at the back testing of the fee switch on Uniswap, it would lead it significantly even if it had been enabled over the same period.

The air and rev engines basically make the economics much more adaptive. It means we internalize new revenue streams like aggregator fees, like MEV. We direct that to the token as well. So that is an increase in the amount of revenue coming into the system. And then the air engine means emissions can now be dynamically allocated which means we can drop the amount of value out. So air and rev engine simply just means more value into the system with less value coming out and based on our back testing and estimates it's like a 2.8x net increase in value flowing back into the system. So we think these are really powerful new economic engines.

The other big thing is Slipstream V3. Slipstream V2 already leads on a 3:1 margin versus Uni V2, V3, V4 combined anywhere they compete. Slipstream V3 will bring even more upgrades, institutional level verification and KYC features, upgraded dynamic fees, and a whole bunch of other upgrades that will make it even more competitive than it is today.

One I'm personally very excited about is MetaSwaps. If you think about the experience of swapping for assets on chain right now, there's still a lot of confusion. You might have USDC sitting on Mainnet Ethereum and then you see Jesse's tweeting about some token. You're having to go through all these bridges and get it over and then you forgot to bridge the gas. So, you have to bridge that. And then by the time you get there, which DEX do you use using an aggregator, etc. MetaSwaps is basically the first totally bundled crosschain, swapper, aggregator, and bridge all in a single product. So, you won't need to it won't matter where you have your assets. If you see a token somewhere that you want, MetaSwaps make it possible for you to click swap, trade, execute on the chain and you don't need to worry about gas, any of this stuff.

There's a bunch of other features we can get into. Open pools just make it way easier for token launchers and things to integrate directly within our system. Autopilot just makes the entire earning yield process much much simpler whether you're a token operator, whether you're an LP or you're participating in any number of these different ways. But the net result of this is that this our hope is Metadex03 Arrow's expansion. This will be the liquidity infrastructure of Ethereum and that means it's one place to go for the best place to trade, the best place to earn and the best place to launch new tokens.

Unless you have a first question I wanted to ask about.

Maybe just one quick followup there. Curious on some talk about the expansion here and you mentioned meta swaps which sounds interesting. Are those intertwined in the sense that you're looking to expand the product to maybe a few chains here and there and then this product will apply to those environments or is it kind of more broadly encompassing of the variety of EVM ecosystems that exist?

MetaSwaps will be live day one anywhere Arrow's deployed. On day one that'll mean obviously the OP chain that Velodrome serves today, that'll mean Base that Aerodrome serves, Ethereum Mainnet, Circle's ARC, and Syndicate's chain as well. That will mean accessing and trading tokens and liquidity and all that sort of stuff across all those chains will be fully abstracted for the first time ever. This has always been the vision of the Ethereum scaling road map is it shouldn't feel like this fractured thing. You should be able to tap into this without needing to worry about what chain you're on. But we can continue to scale this to any chain where we see activity, users, interests.

The great thing is because of our decentralized DApp, we can scale infinitely at zero marginal cost because we don't rely on any centralized APIs, servers. We're probably like the largest protocol without like an AWS or cloud account. It's as easy as just deploying the contracts. The front end reads everything offchain. While we will cover now I think like 23 or maybe even more with those chains of global EVM volumes, addressing the markets we're not currently serving will be very easy.

One more quick followup there. The expansion to Ethereum Mainnet makes a ton of sense. A large amount of EVM activity happens there. Of course ARC and Syndicate are interesting. I'm curious the decision-making behind some of these newer teams and ecosystems coming to market versus like an Arbitrum or something along those lines. What was the thinking?

Ethereum Mainnet makes a ton of sense because that is still where the bulk of trading activity happens. Service that win a significant share of that and you are probably now the largest DEX in volume terms anywhere in EVM. In the choices beyond that it's kind of about experimentation right now. In Syndicate we see a very very interesting app chain model and they have interest and ability in developing some unique offerings. Being there day one it's kind of like okay let's see what we can build together in that space which I won't get too much into unless we get further along in the process before launch but we see it as an experimental sort of place to go.

ARC is super interesting because we've been very close partners with Circle for years. Our EURC USDC pool is the top onchain FX pool and it's obviously their top FX pool anywhere on chain. With them what we see is they built an L1 because they see an opportunity to onboard institutions that for them any Ethereum chain is probably a step too far in the complexity. They know they want to get engaged onchain. They want to get engaged in tokenization, but they literally want to be able to call a CEO somewhere if something goes wrong. We see they have an opportunity perhaps to bring assets that would not ordinarily come into other ecosystems. They have the relationships at the institution level, I think, to do this. By being the DEX infrastructure there, that means we are able to host and service assets that we might not be able to otherwise. But then because of things like MetaSwaps, we give them distribution across broader EVM.

If there's a really new interesting RWA and you want exposure to that again you don't have to worry about the fact that it's on ARC you can just swap on the UI. We want to be that sort of bridge. If they are going to bring net new issuers, net new users, institutions, our liquidity infrastructure can not only help them but then bridge them back to the broader world of Ethereum.

I'm going to go back to the MetaSwap for one second. So it's not I guess like a traditional aggregator in the way that like 1inch or Matcha is and is more so like a unified front end for all Arrow products. Are you guys planning on charging a fee for that usage or will it just be treated as like the regular do you know what I like aggregators charge some form of whatever like five bips or something you guys are planning on doing?

It's something we're looking at because especially if I mean think about how cool this actually is, right? Because if you're on a chain right now with bad wrapped ETH USDC liquidity and you could get better trading execution on the most basic swap or even the route of wrapped ETH USDC on another chain you would have to go bridge that right those funds in order to do that and most people are just not going to do that they're going to eat a bad trade on the chain that they are on.

The big innovation here is the crosschain aggregation of liquidity. If you just want ETH at the best price and you're on Mainnet Ethereum and we can give it to you on Base or vice versa, it'll route your trade. We do potentially see, if the rates we are giving and the access we're giving on the crosschain piece are significantly better than what other products can give in aggregating even multiple DEXes within a single chain, that perhaps there's some additional fee but that fee again would only go back to the token and the token goes back to incentivizing liquidity providers. So it just be a way of growing depth across all of these chains versus there's going to be an entity taking that value out of the system that's core to us is that all value needs to be internalized. All of it needs to be redirected to the token. All the token needs to go to deepening liquidity which fuels the overall flywheel.

The reason that I was wondering is you might have to do some bridging but it does it it doesn't make any sense because you would just fill them on the chain that they get filled in right like if I yeah there would be some some bridging components in there and we will have the ability to integrate with any bridging solution so for instance if you're going to ARC right you might be using Circle's solution you might be using Layer Zero you might be using Hyperlane and there'll be some degree of bridging fees there. Overall the goal is to keep the cost absolutely minimal. If you know about how bad slippage can get, especially on low liquidity chains, it's going to be nothing in comparison to the value you will make up.

I was recently looking at crosschain swaps and there are some providers that like intense providers that take like 11 bips take which is very very high obvious.

It's the classic line of their margin is our opportunity. So much of Metadex03 is designed around it does not make sense that an auto compounder should take 5 to 10%. Let's just build it directly into the product and you could charge 1% if anything and then you redirect it back towards the token. Secondary marketplaces for voting positions, auto voters, all of these bridges, aggregators, there is just so much value that has been I think extracted out of systems at rates that are, you know, I think quite offensive or at least not what the market rate should be if they were being competed with effectively. We want to internalize all of that margin. We want to charge that bare minimum. We want to redirect it all towards the token and basically internalize all the value that DEXes so far have been very very happy to leak.

One last thing on the crosschain side VE tokconomics themselves are kind of I would say more complex than other other token systems. Is there how are you guys working around that? If I want to vote on a poll on Ethereum, how is that going to work?

That's where Autopilot comes in. That complexity has pros and cons. On the one hand, isn't it incredible that an entity like Coinbase Ventures can go out, buy a bunch of Arrow, lock it up, and then use that to drive liquidity and business outcomes on Base while earning back a ton of value for that activity. That utility is very good. It's complex. It takes some learning, takes some management, but that's a good thing. If you're just a retail participant and you're just here to earn yield, that's where Autopilot comes in, where you can just say, "Hey, I've basically locked up some arrow. I'm going to toggle the Autopilot button and each week Autopilot's going to vote automatically for me and return to me that yield in the token of my choice. It could be autoco compounding back into position. It could be USDC. It could be arrow. We want to ensure that the access to yield is as simple as possible. That's why, by the way, on the LP side, we're building in things like ALM with no additional fees. Why we're building in things like autoco compounding with no additional fees or minimum fees that go back to the token such that even if you're just a mini app user on the Base app and it doesn't matter if you want to be operating right using locked positions or you want to be lping it's just a one-click yield experience that is simple enough to manage on your phone.

I thought this vote auto voting system or a form of it is already live, right? Like you guys have some form of an implementation and I assume this one is just going to build on top of that.

Exactly. As of today, we have something called Relay in which you can deposit into the Maxi Relay vault and it'll do that voting and compounding for you. In Autopilot it's basically an upgrade where right now it's only compounding back into the locked position versus converting your yield into the asset of your choice. There are also just some technical limitations on it right now around crosschain voting doesn't work on the side. So obviously crosschain voting will fully work in the stacks that's going to expand everywhere. The number of pools right now is limited that the relays can vote for. So that can have some trade-offs with yields potentially in some conditions and bunch of upgrades just to ensure if you toggle that Autopilot button and you go on hiatus for 6 months you come back and all you got was the best you could possibly have gotten.

Maybe to jump to another topic I'd love to get into the details here with you on Slipstream V3. Maybe can you give us some background explainer on it, walk us through it and then then we can dive in.

There's a ton of stuff coming in Slipstream V3. Slipstream V2 has been an amazing success anywhere it's deployed like Base or OP Mainnet it's competing against basically like 10 years of or eight years of Uniswap's development Uni 2 Uni3 Uni 4 it's taking a 3 to one margin. One of the portions of that just to highlight it is we direct rewards just into the active tick of liquidity. Only productive liquidity is utilized and those rewards come in the form of error emissions. That reward rate is constant. It's not going up and down based on volatility. When you combine those two things with dynamic fees, which are adjusting the fee rate like surge pricing based on volatility in the market, it means you have kept liquidity sticky and you can undercut feebased sort of exchanges competing for flow in moments of low volatility. You can increase the amount of liquidity you have available relative to them and then charge higher rates when the volatility hits. So it's almost more like order books now where you're actually correctly internalizing the value relative to the flow.

Slipstream V3 will have a new upgraded dynamic fee mechanism. It'll have things like payment for order flow Robin Hood Citadel style. If we know that every bit of flow coming out of coinbase.com or the Base app or in the future Robin Hood things like that is non-toxic then we can offer a preferred fee rate for that flow because you don't need to charge as much and in doing so we can ensure that we win the vast majority of that flow completely organically not by cutting a deal not by having not by being privileged But just knowing that those are better rates that we can offer. This is also very important by the way with the expansion of FX because if you think about like payments processors, service providers, we know right now like on EURC USDC we're giving a rate like 500x better than Wells Fargo gives on a euro to dollar conversion. We're giving like 20x better than even like Wise can often give on these types of transactions and you need payments processors who are also going to be non-toxic to be able to get that kind of preferred rate on their flows as well. We think this is really important.

The other big thing in Slipstream V3 is this verification stack. We can plug into Coinbase verifications, we can plug into like world verifications, any of these sort of KYC like things which we think will continue to sort of be a slow burn but it is a really important thing to have the ability to build in as more institutions come on chain and the need to validate who is trading or at least that they are not baddies in these pools and that's another big important part of it.

I it's all very exciting. I have one with regard to the Euro C USDC thing. I've always wondered how has the I think oftentimes we hear a lot about like order books bringing in new forms of equity or FX trading, but it's not as like discussed within AMMs or in the MM space. Have you guys seen like a significant change in activity in terms of like real world assets or is it is it not has it not hit the level that you would have expected yet? Maybe like a follow on to that is V3 and like the verification you guys' attempt at making sure that more and more activity can come on.

The verification I mean anything that is composable and permissionless is going to be able to attract liquidity and activity in a far more capital efficient way we'll say right now right until there are major institutions that are going to come in and you could give them all the KYC liquidity that they want but if they're not going to generate enough activity to sustain it it's not going to be very useful and I think that's like what you've seen on the like verified pools that Coinbase launch on Uni V4 is almost no activity yet, right? Because we haven't solved that cold start problem quite yet. Just as an example on the EURC USDC pool, I can't remember when it was sometime last year, Circle came to us and they were like this is the only FX pool that we have found anywhere on chain where there is real organic activity that we can't attribute. Somebody is using these pools for something versus this is just like a pool that's got bootstrap sort of static liquidity and occasionally catches some arbs and so I think it is happening I think that is only going to accelerate.

I think that is again why I think ARC is very very interesting because what happens when you pair the best onchain ERC pool plus a bunch of global issuers of other you know local currency stables that are very very high quality and you have an onchain sort of FX market that can also tap into lending markets to leverage up and sort of do these things like I think it's only going to accelerate but yeah we've been like I think blown away because there's no extra incentives or anything on top of the EURC pool. That thing has been self-sustaining for quite some time.

I imagine Circle was a little bit concerned if they don't know exactly who was doing it and why they're doing it though, right? Like they must have at least had some thoughts. We need to understand who is doing this.

I don't think that hits them because if they are just the ones issuing the USDC and EURC tokens and then you know obviously you can't go in and redeem those if you're just anybody. They're very very happy for widespread permissionless distribution and access of those things.

Is the MEV internalization going live with V Slipstream V3 or is that a separate additional product on top of it?

That is part of the V3 launch and that's a big one because the if you think about the total addressable market the amount of revenue that MEV creates for sequencers I mean it's more than like Aerodrome and Aerodrome combined made in revenue the past year as again the leading indexes in the space so for us to have the opportunity to internalize that revenue, right? By doing this sort of MEV auction at the AMM level versus doing it at the sequencer level and and intercepting it. That is like a massive new revenue stream that we're able to internalize to the token, which means of course that token that we're emitting into the active tickle liquidity represents now even more than trading fees plus launch payments plus everything else, right? We are just increasing the rate at which we can reward over a feebased DEX for a liquidity provider which I think compounds our moat and that's all the more significant in this period where we now have competing economic models in the sense of Uniswap actually pulling back a bit on how much they're able to reward liquidity providers at a moment where we're actually trying to increase over swap fees the amount that we can reward liquidity providers.

I have one more thing, Daniel, and then you can go ahead. I assume the MEV inter Well, I think the ME internalization can only be for Ethereum. Then it's kind of a janky segue, but Uniswap is very very dominant on Ethereum. Now do you think that is mostly because there are no good competitors out there or do you think it's just it's going to be a struggle for you guys? Now you've done very very well on Base and on Velodrome and on like wherever you guys have watched. So I'm not I don't mean this in like a way like oh are you going to be compete but more like what is the strategy to compete? Because in my mind that is their well that's like their biggest thing, right? They don't have a lot of other areas that they're very competitive in right now.

Our answer is very much intrinsic to that. We have tested now Metadex O2 against Uniswap in I can't remember every chain but let's just say it's six seven chains and in almost all conditions the Metadex model takes not just like a winning share but like a dominant share versus Uniswap and so I think we're very confident that bringing the same model that has shown an ability to compete and win against Uniswap to Mainnet Ethereum will allow us to capture a significant amount of share especially with the upgrades that we're bringing in in metadata 3 but in some ways it's interesting that we've been able to take that sort of 3:1 dominance against Uniswap in a period where they were still heavily able to subsidize their costs with the token, right? So, they were rewarding LPS with 100% of fees because the token didn't get anything. If we've been that competitive against them passing through all the value that they're generating, if you cut fees to LPS by 25%. which is the average I think of what they are doing right right now that makes our competitive advantage I think all the more significant because if you go back to the Sushi Swap vampire attack which was I think the last time Uniswap really got tested on Mainnet Ethereum what did Sushi Swap do they just provided some degree of additional value on top of LP rewards sufficient to attract mercenary LPS over to them and Sushi Swap took 50% of Uniswap's share in about a week.

We think as they're dropping yields and we're increasing them and we're taking a model that is already very very competitive and extending it into their home market, we're very bullish, I think, on our potential. By the way, it's like it's a very interesting thing because last time I looked at the numbers, if we just captured 30% of Mainnet, we're the largest DEX anywhere, period. I think it's an open question, what has kind of held up Uniswap's extreme premium in the market. I guess I would believe that it's probably because they have still remained kind of number one. If we only need 30% of Mainnet and then folks have to start asking the question is Arrow now going to be this number one exchange and what does it mean for Uniswap if they are not I think you could get some pretty crazy flywheel effects both positive and negative but I also just love the let's make Mainnet fun again let's make DeFi fun again I mean when's the last time we had a good good exciting battle you know, like the old days.

I like your viewpoint there. I think maybe interestingly to talk about Mainnet a little bit, it's not necessarily the case that they haven't been losing share. Fluid has had quite a run this year on Mainnet. Something like 15% of market share now, I think, from the last time I checked the data. I think it does maybe showcase the point that there's potential to sort of break into that market. It's not like they have an iron grip on all the activity there. So probably to your point there there's opportunity to compete. That said I guess I'm curious like maybe your general thoughts on kind of the EVM DEX landscape going forward given the competition we're seeing even on Base. I think you know like Pancake Swap has seen a rise there. Is this is it productled? Is it rewards? Is it who do you think are going to be like the winners going forward and and how and why in the VM tech space?

When I think about think about who will be the winners I think you have to start with like what does winning mean right? When you're evaluating a DEX, you have to take into consideration the core metrics of a DEX. TVL matters but not in isolation. Volume matters but not in isolation. Fees matter but not in isolation. Revenue matters, but not in isolation. You take those four together and you get a very different view of the DEX landscape. This will be like one of the times it's it's rare, but it happens. I'll defend Uniswap. Fluid I don't think has actually cut into Uniswap's fee share on Mainnet they have cut into their volume share by charging very very low fees on stable swaps that don't produce a lot of value and so I would assume that Uniswap share of fees on Mainnet has remained pretty healthy and then there's been some noise about Curve but you have to isolate Curve fees from yield basis fees and same thing I think Uniswap share fees remains pretty constant. You can get distorted if you're looking at volume. That's the same thing for like Pancake on Base. Pancake has grown a lot of volume on incentivizing pairs that don't generate fees. We don't worry much about them because there's not really any value to necessarily be captured there.

The competition is definitely going to be fierce. It's going to be a lot of fun but I think if you look across those metrics it'll be very very clear who is actually winning right how much net new value is being created how much volume flow that that's winning and how much capital flows into those systems and I think there should be a pretty clear undisputed number one winner across all those four key metrics in pretty short order I think what we've seen so as far as it's distorted by the fact that not everybody's competing everywhere. I think Fluid Uniswap have been competing everywhere for a long time. I think the Metadex model has not but it's really clear anywhere competes across those four. It wins hands down against all of them combined. That is I think what makes us very very bullish on the model especially knowing it's getting a massive upgrade even from where it is now with significantly more value coming into the system less going out and then all these other technology and UX upgrades.

As a followup to that, what do you think about well on Ethereum this should be fine, but what do how like on L2 if for doing order books on prop AMM systems? What do you think about I guess a traditional AMM seems a bit weird to say about you know what I mean?

Orderbook like experiences, the prop AMM, they're all going to have their kind of like niches and value and things that they serve. Permissionless AMMs, the composability, the distribution, the reliability, the transparency of them, you can't beat those network effects. This is actually another thing I saw Hayden go to bat for AMMs recently and I think he was absolutely right. If you look at the prop AMMs on Salana, it's servicing, of course, soul USDC volume greatly, but it's not servicing much else and it's not very transparent. We all remember what happened on like October 10th when that liquidity was needed, it was gone. There are trade-offs like there are niches. Continuing to build upon the economics of permissionless DEXes, continuing to internalize, verticalize more value, use it to reward liquidity providers, ensure that that liquidity is constant. It is available, it is transparent, it is permissionless. the networks of effects of this will continue to grow. Which is by the way why folks like OKX like Coinbase are directly integrating DEXes into their core products and now distributing this infrastructure.

I always think the contrast for like a onchain order book or even some of the prop AMMs or even some of the like KYC pool stuff is well just go on a centralized exchange. They're great. They are great at doing a lot of those things if that's what you're looking for. What we need to do is build something better on chain. I think we're doing it. That's why centralized exchanges are integrating and distributing these products and that as the industry continues to grow that will be where most of the economic activity is created.

I'm curious I think you make a great point that we're seeing centralized exchanges route orders to DEXes. I think that's a trend we'll continue to see grow. I'm curious if you have an opinion there on whether we see Binance make that move in broad fashion like in 2026 or if they kind of try to hold on to like their kind kind of crown or mantle longer.

We've already seen them do a bit of this right in how they've integrated in with Pancake Swap, right? Binance Alpha and things like that. I think it's clear that there's like a very close relationship between Pancake and and Binance. They'll do it as long as there's a net benefit to them. I do think as permissionless distribution of assets continues, it's harder and harder for any centralized entity to keep up with it because the life cycle and number of tokens is just going to keep the life cycles are going to keep getting shorter and shorter and the number is going to keep going up and up and so why would you leave any money on the table and not distributing that to your customers charging some sort of fee and things like that? Binance was probably earlier to some degree of integrating between these two than than Mini. Whether or not they go for sort of the full stack integration, we'll see. I would I think it's inevitable for kind of any forward- facing consumer crypto company to distribute coin sorry, DeFi products generally.

With the Coinbase app integration, how has have the flows been different to what I don't know if you guys do this. So I guess like I should have first asked if you look into the data of what you get for your front end, what you get through like API or contract integrations and what you get for the Base app. Is that different? You could do dynamic fees for that as well. Is that something you guys are considering?

That's the whole idea behind having this sort of dynamic fee and payment for order flow is that most DEXes I believe is pretty standard in the industry. It's like 10 to 20% via the front end. Everything else is aggregator programmatic sort of stuff hitting the contracts or routers directly. It's a pretty big split. If you go into where those flows are coming from something like fee rebates or dynamic fees associated with that ensures that of that 80% the programmatic stuff you can win more and more right and so yeah we would want to win every single trade originating from a Coinbase every single trade originating from a Robin Hood every single trade originating from the Base app just by giving them the best And our system allows us to do that by the way without fragmenting liquidity. This is a big difference between our sort of modular approach to building the AMM versus the hook style in UniV4 because if you wanted to build a UNV4 AMM that does something similar you could do that with hooks but now you're talking about bootstrapping that pool itself. If that's a Rap Eth USDC pool, if it's a creator coin pool, it's competing against the other pools with that. How do you get that pool to maintain that? We can do it basically without fragmenting liquidity. We can modular adapt the mechanisms of dynamic fees. can modular plug in new flow providers like Coinbase or Robin Hood directly in there and we will just win on execution and execution alone and it's not a bad deal for LPS because it's non-toxic flow.

I imagine a lot of crypto is going to be moving towards this both on the AMM side or I guess the deck side as well as on other protocol. Danny, unless you have something as a followup, I'm going to Do you have anything as a follow-up?

Alex, one thing that I think is on I guess liquid investors minds about Arrow, and we won't approach it from that angle, but is the emissions. You guys also recognize that the emissions can be a little bit difficult. You have something that is changing with Metadex 03. I guess like you can run over that a little bit, but in general, was emissions like a necessary evil initially that you're going to taper off of completely eventually, or is it more so that we'll always need them, but eventually we're going to be making revenues that will just emissions won't matter anymore? Is that the viewpoint?

It's super interesting because in my mind, emissions haven't been much of a