Formula Comparison Overview

📊 TTSWAP Constant Value Formula

$$\begin{align} {V_a\over Q_a}*Δa={V_b\over Q_b}*Δb&=...={V_z\over Q_z}*Δz \\ Total\ value\ before\ the\ trade&(V_a+V_b+....+V_z) \\ =Total\ value\ &after\ the\ trade(V_a+V_b+....+V_z) \\ \end{align}$$

🦄 Uniswap Constant Product Formula

x × y = k (Constant Product)
Where: x = Token A amount, y = Token B amount, k = constant

Perspective 1: Design Philosophy Comparison

🎯 TTSWAP Constant Value Formula: Value Balance Based

• Core Idea: The "trading intensity" of all tokens must be equal
• Focus: Market value and trading fairness
• Best For: Multi-token pools, complex trading scenarios

🎯 Uniswap Constant Product Formula: Quantity Product Based

• Core Idea: The product of the two token amounts remains constant
• Focus: Simple and direct supply-demand relationship
• Best For: Dual-token pools, simple and efficient trading

Perspective 2: Real Trade Example Comparison

Let's use the same initial conditions to compare both formulas:

📝 Initial State

• ETH pool: 100 ETH, market price $2,000/ETH (total value $200,000)
• USDC pool: 200,000 USDC, market price $1/USDC (total value $200,000)

Scenario: A user wants to swap 10 ETH for USDC

---

🔍 TTSWAP Constant Value Formula Calculation

Step 1: Calculate the trading intensity on the ETH side

• V_ETH = $200,000 (ETH pool total value)
• Q_ETH = 100 (ETH pool amount)
• Δ_ETH = 10 (ETH to sell)
• ETH trading intensity = (200,000 ÷ 100) × 10 = 20,000

Step 2: Calculate USDC based on the balance principle

• V_USDC = $200,000 (USDC pool total value)
• Q_USDC = 200,000 (USDC pool amount)
• Balance condition: (200,000 ÷ 200,000) × Δ_USDC = 20,000
• Required USDC = 20,000

Trade result: 10 ETH → 20,000 USDC

---

🦄 Uniswap Constant Product Formula Calculation

Constant product principle:

• Before trade: 100 ETH × 200,000 USDC = 20,000,000
• After trade: (100+10) ETH × (200,000-?) USDC = 20,000,000

Calculation:

• 110 × (200,000 - USDC out) = 20,000,000
• 200,000 - USDC out = 20,000,000 ÷ 110 ≈ 181,818
• USDC out = 200,000 - 181,818 = 18,182

Trade result: 10 ETH → 18,182 USDC

---

Perspective 3: Result Difference Analysis

📊 Data Comparison

Aspect	General AMM Formula	Uniswap Formula	Difference
USDC Received	20,000	18,182	+1,818
Actual Rate	1 ETH = 2,000 USDC	1 ETH = 1,818 USDC	General AMM is better
Slippage	0%	9.1%	No slippage in General AMM

🤔 Why the Difference?

TTSWAP Constant Value Formula Features:

• Trades based on current market value
• Truly reflects the value of each token
• Keeps trading intensity equal for all tokens
• No slippage for sub-orders

Uniswap Features:

• Adjusts price automatically based on supply-demand curve
• Cannot reflect the value of each token
• Large trades cause significant slippage
• Price discovery mechanism is built into the formula

Perspective 4: Liquidity Enhancement Strategy Comparison

🌊 Uniswap: Virtual Liquidity Enhancement

What is virtual liquidity?

• Uses algorithms to simulate a deeper liquidity pool
• Provides a better trading experience with limited capital
• Like putting a "magnifying glass" on a small pond to make it look like a lake

Example:

Real pool: 50 ETH + 100,000 USDC
Virtual effect: behaves like 100 ETH + 200,000 USDC
Result: less slippage, better user experience

🌊 TTSWAP Constant Value: Liquidity Aggregation

What is liquidity aggregation?

• Integrates multiple separate dual-token pools into a single multi-token pool
• All tokens share the same liquidity pool
• Like connecting several small reservoirs into one large system

Example:

Traditional way:
ETH-USDC pool + USDC-DAI pool + DAI-USDT pool (3 separate pools)

General AMM way:
ETH-USDC-DAI-USDT (1 unified pool)
Any two tokens can be traded directly, sharing all liquidity

Perspective 5: In-Depth Pros and Cons Comparison

📊 Liquidity Utilization Efficiency Comparison

Scenario: User wants to swap ETH for DAI

Uniswap constant product path (requires hops):

1. ETH → USDC (using ETH-USDC pool)
2. USDC → DAI (using USDC-DAI pool)

• Requires two trades, two times slippage
• Liquidity is split, efficiency is low

TTSWAP constant value path (direct trade):

1. ETH → DAI (directly in the unified pool)

• One trade completes it
• All liquidity is integrated, minimal slippage

💡 Liquidity Depth Example

Suppose the market has:

• ETH-USDC pool: $10 million
• USDC-DAI pool: $8 million
• DAI-USDT pool: $6 million
• ETH-USDT pool: $8 million

Uniswap mode:

• ETH to DAI can only use the first two pools
• Effective liquidity ≈ $8 million (limited by the smaller pool)

General AMM mode:

• ETH to DAI can use all pools' liquidity
• Effective liquidity ≈ $14 million (all integrated)

Perspective 6: In-Depth Pros and Cons Comparison

✅ Advantages of TTSWAP Constant Value Formula

1. Stronger Fairness

• Prices are formed automatically based on demand
• Trades are made at market value
• Avoids unfair slippage

2. Liquidity Aggregation Effect

• Integrates fragmented liquidity into a unified pool
• Greatly improves trading depth and efficiency
• Reduces compounded slippage from multi-hop trades

3. Multi-Asset Support

• Naturally supports multi-token pools
• Any token pair can be traded directly
• Handles complex trading scenarios well

4. Price Stability

• Reduces the impact of price volatility on trades
• More suitable for stablecoin trading

⚠️ Challenges of TTSWAP Constant Value Formula

1. New Mechanism

• Higher learning curve

✅ Advantages of Uniswap Formula

1. Virtual Liquidity Technology

• Simulates deeper liquidity through algorithms
• Improves trading experience with limited capital
• Smart slippage control

2. Self-Contained

• Does not rely on external price feeds
• Pure on-chain price discovery

3. Battle-Tested

• Proven in real-world use for years
• Mature ecosystem

4. Incentive Mechanism

• Arbitrageurs help prices return to fair value
• Self-balancing economic model

⚠️ Limitations of Uniswap Formula

1. Slippage Issues

• High cost for large trades
• Not very friendly to small traders

2. Impermanent Loss

• Liquidity providers face price fluctuation risk
• Complex yield calculation

Perspective 7: Application Scenario Analysis

🎯 General AMM Formula Is Better For:

Decentralized Trading

• Need to minimize slippage
• High price accuracy required

Multi-Asset Strategies

• Portfolio rebalancing
• Complex DeFi strategies
• Need for high liquidity aggregation

Stablecoin Trading

• Relatively stable prices
• Efficient value exchange needed

Cross-Asset Trading

• Avoids compounded costs of multi-hop trades
• Direct path trading advantage

🎯 Uniswap Formula Is Better For:

Large Trades

• Mature, high-volume flows
• Pure algorithm-driven

Virtual Liquidity Optimization

• New projects with limited capital
• Need to amplify liquidity effect

Price Discovery

• New token price exploration
• Market sentiment reflection

Simple Trades

• Everyday small swaps
• Simple, intuitive user experience

Summary: Comparison of Two Liquidity Enhancement Strategies

🔮 Technical Route Comparison

Uniswap's "Virtual Amplification" Strategy:

• Like putting a magnifying glass on a small pond
• Uses algorithms to maximize limited capital
• Best for capital-constrained but experience-focused scenarios

TTSWAP's "Integration and Aggregation" Strategy:

• Like merging several reservoirs into a lake
• Achieves real depth by integrating fragmented liquidity
• Best for optimal trade execution

🌟 Complementarity of the Two Mechanisms

These two formulas actually represent different directions in AMM development:

1. Uniswap Constant Product: Optimizes within the existing architecture (virtual liquidity)
2. TTSWAP Constant Value Model: Redesigns the architecture for fundamental improvement (liquidity aggregation)

🎯 Advice for Regular Users

According to the comparison, it's more recommended to trade on TTSWAP. (Currently, there are airdrop rewards on TTSWAP) Choose General AMM when:

• Doing regular trades
• Wanting better price execution
• Doing complex multi-asset trades
• Care about trading costs and slippage
• Want lower gas costs

Core Difference Summary:

• Uniswap: Makes a small pool look like a big pool (virtual enhancement)
• General AMM: Actually merges small pools into a big pool (real integration)

Both mechanisms have their value. Understanding their differences helps you make smarter choices in the DeFi world. As technology evolves, we may see more hybrid solutions combining the best of both.

---

Mastering this knowledge will help you better understand and use various decentralized trading protocols!

Copyright

Copyright Ownership:ttswap.exchange

License under:BUSL