PropAMM Weekly · Ethereum
POL is studying the on-chain PropAMM landscape. Figures are sourced and pulled live; corrections welcome.
POL tracks the on-chain PropAMM landscape on Ethereum week by week. Every figure below comes from the router's own indexed data. Edition 1 sets the baseline with totals to date; from edition 2 the figures move to week over week.
The idea of these newsletter is to answer the question: how much on-chain propAMM volume actually settled this week, who is winning the visible router fills, and which maker leads by trade share?
State of the week (factual): the Fermi vault settles the large majority of on-chain propAMM volume, followed by Metric. Bebop is dormant; Kipseli quotes but does not settle on Ethereum.
1. The router to date
The PropAMM router aggregates eight market makers behind one contract. A taker sends an order, the router picks the maker with the best quote at execution time, and it falls back to a Uniswap V3 pool only when no maker meets the required output.
| metric | value |
|---|---|
| USD volume | $441.4M (lower bound, priced on the stablecoin leg) |
| swaps | 46,255 |
| unique accounts | 1,261 |
| direct swaps | 501 (1.1%) |
| Uniswap V3 fallback rate (by swap count) | 20.8% |
| maker price updates on-chain | 287,812 transactions (318,429 updates) |
| fees collected | $0.29 total, across 47 charges (twenty-nine cents, not a missing million) |
Three numbers frame the rest. Direct swaps are 1.1 percent of the total, so this is not a retail venue, it is infrastructure that other applications and aggregators route through. The router collected twenty-nine cents in fees, across 47 charges, on that $441M of volume, so it does not monetize at the contract level: the makers earn on the spread, not on a router fee. And makers sent 287,812 on-chain update transactions to keep their prices fresh, about six for every swap, so they transact far more to quote than takers do to trade.
2. Who is winning the flow
Ranked by USD volume settled through the router.
| maker | USD volume | swaps | share |
|---|---|---|---|
| FermiSwap | $184.2M | 20,053 | 42% |
| Metric | $145.0M | 7,001 | 33% |
| Uniswap V3 (fallback) | $64.9M | 9,606 | 15% |
| Tempest | $34.3M | 6,670 | 8% |
| Kipseli | $10.8M | 2,058 | 2% |
| Bebop | $2.0M | 612 | under 1% |
| TaurusFi | $0.09M | 198 | small |
| elzorro | $0.03M | 57 | small |
FermiSwap and Metric together carry three quarters of the volume. The Uniswap V3 fallback sits third by dollars, but it only fires when no maker meets the required output, so its 15 percent is the share the PropAMMs did not win. On the other 85 percent a maker beat the plain pool, which is the number that matters for a venue whose whole job is to route to makers. Note that the fallback is 20.8 percent of orders (section 1) but only 15 percent of dollars, because it fires on smaller than average trades: its average fill is $6.8k against the router's $9.5k.
3. Best and worst maker, and why
The best maker this period is FermiSwap. It leads on both dollars ($184.2M) and swaps (20,053), the only maker on top of both. Metric is close on dollars ($145.0M) on far fewer swaps: its average fill is about $20.7k against FermiSwap's $9.2k, so Metric wins the large tickets while FermiSwap wins on breadth.
The worst among the active makers is Bebop. It settled $2.0M across 612 swaps with zero direct swaps, a fraction of a percent of the router and well below where an established maker should sit. It is present but has effectively pulled back. TaurusFi and elzorro are smaller still, but they are new and ramping rather than retreating, which is a different story from Bebop's.
4. What is trading
Stablecoins carry the dollars, ETH carries the count.
- USDC: 26,487 swaps, about $162.3M traded.
- USDT: 24,105 swaps, about $138.6M traded.
- WETH: 38,610 swaps, the most-traded token by count.
- WBTC is present but thinner at 3,172 swaps, and cbBTC and USDe are marginal.
Top pairs by USD volume: USDC/USDT at $160.1M on 4,339 swaps, USDC/WETH at $157.5M on 20,401 swaps, and WETH/USDT at $103.4M on 18,208 swaps. The stablecoin pair moves the most dollars on the fewest swaps, an average near $37k a trade, while USDC/WETH does similar volume across five times as many smaller trades.
5. Who is sending the orders
The 1,261 accounts are concentrated at the very top.
| caller | swaps | USD volume |
|---|---|---|
| 0x9c2e…c48c | 33,229 | $130.2M |
| 0x9008…ab41 (CoW Protocol) | 518 | $44.0M |
| 0xb82a…97d4 | 1,146 | $29.7M |
| 0x8de0…8de9 | 2,297 | $22.2M |
| 0x9640…c426 | 736 | $13.3M |
One contract, 0x9c2e…c48c, sent 33,229 of the 46,255 swaps, about 72 percent of all activity, and $130M of the volume. Add CoW Protocol settlement at $44M and the shape is clear: this router runs on a handful of integrators, not a broad base of takers. CoW routing to the router as a settlement venue is a concrete case of an intent solver using PropAMMs as liquidity.
6. Where the blocks are built
The router's swaps landed across several builders.
| builder | swaps | USD volume |
|---|---|---|
| Titan | 29,266 | $313.2M |
| BuilderNet | 6,703 | $66.9M |
| Quasar | 6,482 | $36.7M |
| Eureka | 2,637 | $17.6M |
Titan builds about 71 percent of the router's volume, but it is not alone: BuilderNet and Quasar each take a real share. Eureka is a special case, since nearly all of its swaps, 2,570 of 2,637, are fallback swaps rather than maker fills.
7. Sources and method
Source: the PropAMM router's indexed database on Ethereum, current to 2026-09-14. USD volume is priced on the stablecoin leg where available and is reported as a lower bound; swap, account, transaction and gas counts are exact.
The router aggregates eight makers and falls back to Uniswap V3 when no maker meets the required output. Native ETH legs are not separately priced.