Onchain RFQ vs AMM: How Large Crypto Trades Find Liquidity

Big crypto orders don’t just hit a pool and hope. They hunt for liquidity across AMMs, RFQ market makers, and sometimes private lanes most people never see. If you’ve ever tried to move size onchain and watched price wiggle away from you, this is for you.

We’ll break down how onchain RFQ actually works, how it stacks up against AMMs, where aggregators source fills, and the traps that clip big orders. I’ll also point to fresh datasets that trace the exact path your swap took, so you can verify where size really came from.

Why now? Onchain liquidity is maturing fast. Tokenized Treasuries and money market funds are now a huge footprint on public chains, a sign that bigger players are comfortable parking size onchain — and they expect pro-grade execution when they trade.

Large traders increasingly use onchain RFQ (request-for-quote) to get firm quotes from market makers and minimize price impact, while AMMs remain the default for smaller or long-tail tokens. Aggregators route between the two based on size, depth, and slippage settings, often splitting the order. In short: AMMs price continuously, RFQ quotes discretely; whales blend both.

… Continue reading the full article at the original source below.