Measuring Order Book vs AMM Share on the XRP Ledger
When the AMM amendment activated on the XRP Ledger in 2024, the expectation was that liquidity would migrate into pools the way it did on every smart-contract chain before it. You do not have to speculate about whether that happened. The ledger publishes both numbers. Getting the split const { H24 } = await ( await fetch ( ' https://api.xrpl.to/v1/stats ' ) ). json (); const ob = H24 .…
The XRP Ledger introduced the Automated Market Maker (AMM) amendment in 2024, leading to speculation about whether liquidity would shift from traditional order book venues to AMM pools. However, real-time data from the XRPL shows that 89.0% of the 24-hour global volume comes from the order book, while AMM pools account for only 11.0%.
While the AMM pools have a smaller trade count, the larger trade sizes are routed to the order book, suggesting that bigger orders are favored in this ecosystem. This is a unique case among smart contract chains, as most others have moved towards AMMs due to cheaper gas costs for posting and cancelling quotes. The XRPL, however, retains an on-chain central limit order book with low cancellation costs and quick confirmation times, allowing professional quoting to remain viable.
This highlights the importance of considering transaction economics rather than just costs when evaluating different market structures.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.