amms vs clobs vs intents in decentralized perps trading

amms
automated market makers took defi zero-to-one by allowing trades directly from liquidity pools. but issues like impermanent loss and slippage have exposed their limitations. they work, but market maker liquidity can sit idle, and traders often face suboptimal prices.

clobs
central limit order books dominate centralized exchanges like binance. they offer real-time price discovery and transparency. however, bringing them on-chain is tough—gas fees, block times, and decentralization make them difficult to scale efficiently. clobs can also become unstable during high volatility, as they rely on finite liquidity and can struggle to fill orders if one side of the market faces large liquidations without enough opposing orders.

intents
intents are the game-changer. you tell the protocol what you want, and solvers find the best price from both on-chain and off-chain sources. in perps trading, solvers only need exposure, unlocking trillions in liquidity across venues without the need to silo capital like amms or clobs.

the bottom line
intents combine the best of amms and clobs, creating the most efficient experience for market makers and seamless experience for traders. It’s the next step in the evolution of decentralized perps trading.