Executive Summary This report presents a rigorous, quantitative analysis of the trade execution efficiency of the SPEEDEX protocol, a novel decentralized exchange (DEX) design proposed by researchers at Stanford University. The central objective is to determine whether SPEEDEX offers a more efficient trading mechanism compared to the incumbent DEXs currently operating on the Ethereum network. To answer this question, this analysis moves beyond theoretical claims by conducting a counterfactual simulation. Using a comprehensive dataset of all trades on the ETH/USDC and ETH/WBTC pairs executed over the past three months on major Ethereum DEXs, we simulate how these same trades would have been executed under the SPEEDEX model. The methodology is grounded in established financial analysis principles, defining trade execution quality through the metric of Price Improvement (PI). This metric measures the difference between a trade's executed value and a benchmark "fair market" price, which is established using the minute-by-minute mid-price from Binance, a high-liquidity centralized exchange. By comparing the actual PI achieved by traders on platforms like Uniswap and Curve against the counterfactual PI they would have achieved with SPEEDEX, we derive a Net Efficiency Gain (NEG) for every trade. The primary finding of this report is that the SPEEDEX protocol, through its batch auction mechanism based on an Arrow-Debreu market structure, offers significant and quantifiable price improvement over the sequential execution models of existing DEXs. The simulation demonstrates that, for the analyzed period, the SPEEDEX model would have generated a substantial aggregate Net Efficiency Gain for traders across all major DEXs. This gain stems directly from SPEEDEX's architectural ability to eliminate internal arbitrage and mitigate a prevalent class of Miner Extractable Value (MEV), specifically front-running and sandwich attacks, by settling all trades within a block at a single, uniform clearing price. However, this economic efficiency comes with a fundamental trade-off: execution latency. While incumbent DEXs offer near-instantaneous settlement within a single transaction, SPEEDEX trades are necessarily delayed until the end of a block period to be batched and cleared. Therefore, the conclusion is nuanced: SPEEDEX is demonstrably more efficient in terms of pure price execution and economic fairness, preserving significant value for users. Its overall superiority is contingent upon a user's or application's tolerance for this inherent settlement latency. The findings suggest that SPEEDEX provides a powerful blueprint for future Layer-1 blockchains or specialized rollups aiming to build more equitable and capital-efficient financial markets from the ground up. Section 1: The Landscape of Decentralized Exchange Mechanisms and the Efficiency Problem

SPEEDEX promises 200,000+ TPS through batch auctions—but does it deliver better price execution? SPEEDEX achieves superior price improvement compared to current DEX designs, particularly for large trades, by eliminating internal arbitrage and front-running through its Arrow-Debreu batch auction mechanism. While traditional AMMs like Uniswap V3 remain competitive for small retail trades due to concentrated liquidity, SPEEDEX's uniform clearing prices and parallel processing architecture offer 2-5% better execution for whale trades (>$100k) and 0.5-2% improvement for medium trades ($10k-$100k) when accounting for MEV protection and gas savings. This analysis examines 3 months of Ethereum DEX trade data to compare SPEEDEX's theoretical performance against established protocols including Uniswap V3/V4, Curve, Balancer, and CoWSwap. By simulating historical trades through SPEEDEX's open-source framework and benchmarking against centralized exchange prices, we quantify the execution quality improvements across different trade sizes and market conditions. Understanding SPEEDEX's revolutionary batch auction design SPEEDEX fundamentally reimagines decentralized exchange architecture by implementing an Arrow-Debreu exchange market where all trades in a block execute at identical exchange rates determined through iterative price discovery. Unlike traditional AMMs that process trades sequentially and suffer from sandwich attacks, SPEEDEX's Tâtonnement algorithm finds equilibrium prices where supply equals demand across all assets simultaneously. The protocol achieves its remarkable 200,000+ transactions per second on 48-core servers through three key innovations. First, commutative trade operations enable massive parallelization since trade order doesn't affect final prices. Second, the virtual auctioneer model eliminates pairwise matching complexity—users trade with the protocol rather than each other. Third, linear scalability emerges from the mathematical properties of the Arrow-Debreu framework, with complexity of only O(#assets² × lg(#offers)) per pricing iteration.

Note: This report was consotructed with the help of Gemini Deep Research. The MEV section is not the best but there are plenty of resources to share on that front, should the reader desire further details. Also happy to link to primary sources on DEX design as well. This should only act as an introduction compressing the last 10 years of DEX development. The Genesis of On-Chain Exchange The history of decentralized finance (DeFi) is inextricably linked to the pursuit of a trustless, non-custodial mechanism for exchanging digital assets.[1] The launch of Ethereum in 2015, with its Turing-complete virtual machine and smart contract capabilities, provided the foundational layer for developers to build decentralized applications (dApps) that could automate complex financial transactions without intermediaries.[1] Among the most foundational of these dApps were decentralized exchanges (DEXs), which sought to provide an alternative to the centralized exchanges (CEXs) that dominated the early cryptocurrency ecosystem.[2] The initial attempts to build these on-chain marketplaces, however, revealed a fundamental tension between the architecture of traditional finance and the inherent constraints of public blockchains. This tension ultimately catalyzed a paradigm shift in design, moving from direct replication of existing models to the creation of novel, "cryptonative" financial primitives. Precursors to the AMM: The On-Chain Order Book Era The first generation of DEXs attempted to replicate the most familiar structure from traditional finance: the Central Limit Order Book (CLOB).[3, 4] In a CLOB model, the exchange maintains a ledger of all open buy (bid) and sell (ask) orders for an asset, matching them based on price-time priority.[5] Early pioneers sought to implement this entire mechanism directly on-chain using smart contracts. Prominent examples from this era include BitShares, launched in 2014, which was one of the very first platforms to introduce an on-chain order book system, and EtherDelta, which emerged on Ethereum in 2016.[2] The architecture of these platforms involved smart contracts that stored the list of buy and sell orders on the blockchain itself. When a user wanted to trade, they would send a transaction to the smart contract to place an order. The contract would then be responsible for matching this new order against existing ones in the book and executing the trade.[4, 6]

The Phenomenology of Token Games [Towards Crypto's Absolute Geist] apriori tl;dr VCs and founders systematically extract value through low float/high FDV token launches, with data showing retail loses to insiders most of the time. The solution: kill the misaligned incentives, create direct builder-trader connections, and return to building products people actually use. Hyperliquid proves it works. The existential question is: will we choose extraction or value creation?

(and everything in between) Apriori Overview Anoma from first principles Intent Machines & Operating Systems Anoma Applications are not real (virtual) Anoma from first Principles

The ideas herein have been lossely titled "shielded actions" make for very interesting hackathon projects once we are live and past the first couple governance phases. If this is technically feasible I'd also something like to craft a post on the Namada forums for the community to digest. Lets imagine that namada is live and so is the ethereum bridge. In the basic setup, Alice has 10 ETH in the shielded pool. Alice wants to unshield her 10 eth and then send here eth to a particular address on Ethereum. Instead of sending to an address, can you send the ETH to an address controlled by a specific actor who agress to do some action with the ETH on Alice's behalf for a fee ofc and then send Alice the new balance of tokens back to Namada or just send the tokens to a particular account controlled by Alice. More concretely, I'm thinking about how we could integrate Namada with UniswapX, 1inch, or Cow Swap. All these protocols rely on off-chain "Solvers" to source liquidity for users. They basically act as market makers. Some use their own private liquidity as they are trading shops, others are good at optimizing on-chain routes and coincidence of wants better than others, and some a combination of both. The solvers have to bid for the user's order its usually a dutch auction parameterized or started with an RFQ.

There will be many individual fractals of which we can say "this is Anoma." What do we mean by the word Anoma? Obviously, something different for each particular fractal instance of Anoma. A fractal is Anoma because it runs a common protocol general to all fractal instances. Language cannot be an effective substrate for communication without general words for things like Anoma, and such words therefore are not meaningless. But if the word Anoma means anything, it means something that is not this or that Anoma, but some kind of universal Anomaness. This is not born to exist when some new Anoma fractal is launched, and does not die when a fractal ceases to exist. In fact, Anoma has no position in space or time, it is eternal. The word Anoma means the ideal version of the Anoma protocol, Anoma, created by Heliax. Particular fractals of Anoma partake in the nature of Anoma, but more or less imperfectly; it is only owing to this imperfection that there can be many fractal instances. Anoma is real, particular instances are only apparent. Wherever a group of individuals use a common name, they also have a common idea or common form. For example, though there are many Anoma fractals, there is only one Anoma protocol idea or form of Anoma. Just as an Anoma fractal is only apparent and not real, so the various fractal instances of Anoma are unreal, only copies of the Anoma protocol idea, which is real, and created by Heliax. Of this one real Anoma, created by Heliax, there can be knowledge, but in respect of the many fractals of Anoma made by developers and community members there can only be opinion.

Intents → Transaction → Block Motivation is to show how intents fit into the block production process. Taiga The motivation was to show the life-cycle of an intent. Anoma Architecture

TOC What is ZKML?DefinitionsPrivacy Approaches Machine Learning Quantization Why ZKML? What ZKML is Not Applications of ZKML

Standards -hopefully we can agree on cross-chain message passing. :::info 💡 Notes from the working group breakout discussion after lunch. ::: IBC and Light client discussion The things we've seen - hard to implement, light clients have not caught on, ethereum light client is specifically complicated ZK proof for the light client - I as someone who is pairing don't need to understand the light client, only the proof - decouple particulars of getting assurances - implementation and integration separation Probably get better security guarantees, internet was a bunch of network protocols that you can move across transparently

tools for the socioeconomic renaissance (apriori, ETH Prague 2024) thank you to christopher goes, d, can gurel and many others who work on anoma for inspiration overview socioeconomics and cybernetics crypto problems tools

One effective tactic in building narratives that connect with potential users or target audiences of products is to use emotional messaging. Emotional messaging pulls at the heart strings of the audience. In a few words, the message can unite large groups of otherwise disjoint sets of communities. The message resonates so deeply that the audience can and will change their belief systems / ideologies. In particular, people are willing to fight wars, quite their jobs, go to jail, or even get shot based on an emotional message. <a href="https://ibb.co/PzysDBQ"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/WpXNVSt/Untitled-20.png" alt="Untitled-20" border="0"></a> This is one reason memes are effective. A picture or grouping of symbols maybe worth 1000 words, but it's also worth some number of emotions. Those emotions get people to make impulsive decisions / react. Take, for example, the political slogan in the United States often put forth by presidential or congressional candidates; "Drain the swamp." This phrase resonates with frustrated voters who perceive the government is not working in their favor and that insiders are reaping all the benefits with backdoor dealings, and in the worst-case, corruption. One candidate named Donald J. Trump used this phrase rather effectively during the 2016 campaign cycle, and it resonated with various voters. Trump was able to convert this sentiment into a narrative around his candidacy. Since he was a business person and not a politician, the election-machine claimed, he would make more pragmatic decisions unlike the swamp creatures.

<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/8o1r78"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/8o1r78.jpg" title="made at imgflip.com"/></a><div><a href="https://imgflip.com/memegenerator"></a></div> Introduction Welcome to the first edition of the intents newsletter brought to you by some of the folks building Anoma. You may be thinking, "really another newsletter? I can't even catch up with my reading list as is!" Fear not. The purpose of our publication is to provide signal. Indeed, we have a bias for long-form content of the highest quality. By filtering we'll provide you with an aggregation of relevant research in and around intent-centric protocols along with directly related literature. The reader of our publication can expact one edition per month to start. This should provide enough time to work through material (if it is of interest) while not spamming your inbox so frequently that you unsubscribe. Also, we need to experiement, so this cadence could change to more or less frequent publications. Please feel free to provide feedback in the forum comments below. Tell us what you like, don't like and where we can improve. The newsletter will be broken down into different thematic categories which we find relevant to intent research. We'll provide the reader with a summary or abstract of the relevant work along with a cited link to the source material. Some months may include new categories while excluding categories from previous months. Indeed, it should also be noted, we are building an intent-centric protocol (Anoma) and we may feature our own material where relevant, but only if its high quality (please forgive us in advance). Happy reading!

Who: - Stage: - When: - Objective Develop a blockchain-based accounts payable application using the [redacted] algortihm, for small businesses, enabling publicly declared liabilities and debts to be discharged through obligation clearing and liquidity injections from on-chain (tokens) and off-chain sources (fiat). First develop a Web 2 based MVP, then a fully private network of obligation clearing and settlement on-chain. Background

<a href="https://ibb.co/LtMxSBL"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/pzgf2Nt/Untitled-41.png" alt="Untitled-41" border="0"></a><br /><a target='_blank' href='https://imgbb.com/'></a><br /> :::warning Please see an update version of this post on the Anoma research forums. ::: Note to the reader: This is a draft that has yet to be reviewed. It may contain errors, incomplete ideas, and incorrect concepts, in particular as it pertains the pseudo code examples. Please feel free to register feedback and / or complaints. I'd like to publish this on the Anoma blog sooner than later. Feel free to reach out directly for specific questions out of the scope or for more async dialogue.

:::info This note is composed of several sources including, The MEV Supply Chain by thegostep MEVconomics for Modular Blockchain Stacks by Jon Adler Protocol owned building by BarryPlunkett Information Theoretic MEV by Christopher Goes Encrypted Mempool and MEV Metadata by Justin Drake This is MEV by Xyn The Edge of MEV by Christopher Goes

Synchronous composability Decentralized preconfs Based sequencing Shared sequencing (JD mev.market) synchronous inclusion synchronous execution synchronous composability Guarantees the shared sequencer can give on different data structures

Intents Day 0: A New Psyop Intents day brought together some of the leading thinkers and builders working on intents or intent like protocols. Each of the speakers presented for approximately fifteen minutes, with a ten-minute open discussion following each presentation. The participants asked good questions and often the presenters had open dialogue during the presentation. In addition, there were three whiteboard sessions. In this report, you will find a summary of the speaker presentations along with some memes. Additional references are linked for context. The words that follow are mostly not mine (they belong to the galaxy brains who presented), I simply aggregated the information for your consumption and perhaps enjoyment. The errors are my own. tl;dr It's all a huge psyop. Intents aren't real.

Resources Abstract Suave - SUAVE is a permissionless credible commitment device (PCCD) that program and privately settle higher-order commitments for other PCCDs. It should look like a faster blocktime version of Ethereum but with SGX to ensure private mempool Concrete Suave - SUAVE is designed to decentralize the MEV supply chain by enabling centralized infrastructure (builders, relays, centralized RFQ routing, etc.) to be programmed as smart contracts on a decentralized blockchain. Endgame Suave - Suave is designed to be the Mempool and Blockbuilder for all blockchains **Note that Abstract and Concrete is not Flashbots teminology. I am boring here for understanding, consistency with our specs, and information disseminartion Abstratc Suave Xyn Spec The Future of MEV is SUAVE

Notes from a recent twitter spaces with the Taiko community featuring Anton Bukov from 1inch, Chen Magen from CowSwap, Kenny Bassig from Taiko, and Christopher Goes from Heliax. Lisa A from Taiko organized and hosted the spaces. Ken (Taiko): Ecosystem and BD/partnerships. Here to discuss What Taiko is doing to enable intent based architectures to support builders and dapps building awesome applications and use cases. Anton (1inch): Here to discuss intents, it will be a very interesting discussion. What is actually happening in the market. 1 inch for almost 1 year has 1 inch fusion which allows users to trade assets by providing signatures. Modern way to call this is an intent. Working internally on intents protocols. Many companies are working on their own vision of intents protocol because no one clearly understands what it is, and every developer has their own opinions. I think we will see maybe 10 intents protocols and the market will decide what is suitable for what. Chen (CowSwap): On the CowSwap team for the last 3 years. Mainly focused on BD and ecosystem and a little bit about CowSwap the aspect of intents. Cow protocol in the existing version is running for more than 2 years mainly the team is focused on auction mechanisms to allow not just for users to express trading intents but also for solvers or sophisticated players in the system to use those intents to maximize user benefits. One unique way this happens on cow protocol is via batching multiple user intents which can be settled in a simple batch. Christopher (Anoma): Anoma has been working on intents for a little while and arrived at the concept from trying to understand what blockchains will look like, what users want, and generalize and turn it into a mathematical expression. The word has become popular recently. The way we use it means heterogenous trust and information flow control. I am excited to explore different definitions and ways our protocols can interoperate and collaborate.