The historical SOL/USDC comparison matched opposite-side fills within the same pools; wallet fees and current net execution costs are separate measures.
A September study found wider realized round-trip spreads for Solana trades routed outside aggregators at five of six major proprietary liquidity venues, suggesting that access to the same pool did not mean access to comparable trading terms.
The result puts the route into the center of the price comparison. A pool can settle trades on a public blockchain while a single operator controls its quotes. Comparing pool addresses alone therefore leaves out an important part of the transaction: how the order arrived.
The preprint by Ozan Solmaz, Lioba Heimbach and Jason Milionis, posted Sept. 29, examined proprietary automated market makers, or propAMMs, on Solana, Base and Monad. Its observations run from Sept. 1, 2025, through Aug. 31, 2026, with later starts for newer deployments. The Solana finding is a historical association between routing class and realized spreads, rather than a measurement of what every interface delivers today.
An aggregator searches across liquidity venues and can split an order among them. Jupiter is one such routing provider on Solana. A propAMM is the venue supplying liquidity: one operator provides inventory and can update prices directly, without waiting for a trade to change the pool's reserves.
The study compared aggregator and non-aggregator flow within the six largest measured Solana propAMMs for SOL/USDC. To estimate a realized round-trip spread, it paired consecutive fills on opposite sides of the same pool, within 25 slots and with trade sizes within a factor of two.
Source link







