> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.boltliquidity.io/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Bolt vs. Traditional Models

> Head-to-head comparison of Bolt against AMMs, RFQs, intents, and CLOBs.

## How Bolt Positions

Every DeFi liquidity model in production today shares a fundamental assumption: execution quality is a function of liquidity depth. Bolt is the first model to break this dependency. The architecture decisions below illustrate how different models address the core execution problem: coupling or decoupling pricing from liquidity depth.

## Model Comparisons

<Tabs>
  <Tab title="vs. AMMs / CLAMMs">
    | Dimension           | AMMs / CLAMMs                          | Bolt                                      |
    | ------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
    | Pricing mechanism   | Bonding curve derived from pool ratios | Oracle-referenced deterministic pricing   |
    | Slippage            | Increases with trade size              | Zero, price independent of trade size     |
    | Capital requirement | Deep liquidity required                | Minimal, settlement only                  |
    | LP risk             | Impermanent loss, rebalancing costs    | Delta-neutral hedging, no IL              |
    | Composability       | Fully composable                       | Fully composable                          |
    | Integration         | Direct pool interaction                | SDK integration for aggregators and dApps |
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="vs. RFQ / Intents">
    | Dimension           | RFQs / Intents                   | Bolt                                        |
    | ------------------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
    | Execution           | Off-chain solver competition     | Fully on-chain, atomic                      |
    | Composability       | Broken by off-chain coordination | Preserved, contracts compose natively       |
    | Trust model         | Whitelisted solvers              | Oracle-referenced, permissionless execution |
    | Latency             | Solver response time delay       | Deterministic, instant                      |
    | Centralisation risk | High, solver concentration       | Low, oracle is the trust boundary           |
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="vs. Traditional Prop-AMMs">
    | Dimension         | Traditional Prop-AMMs                   | Bolt                                       |
    | ----------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |
    | Quoting           | Off-chain engine pushes prices on-chain | On-chain oracle with deterministic pricing |
    | Composability     | Limited, standalone venues              | Full SDK-based composability               |
    | Transparency      | Quoting logic is opaque                 | Oracle prices verifiable on-chain          |
    | Integration model | Mostly direct and retail                | B2B: built for aggregators and dApps       |
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="vs. CLOB">
    | Dimension          | CLOB                                        | Bolt                                                              |
    | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
    | Model              | Central Limit Order Book                    | Prop-AMM, oracle-priced settlement                                |
    | Pricing            | Determined by order book depth              | Determined by external oracle                                     |
    | Capital dependency | Requires deep order book                    | Minimal capital required                                          |
    | Strength           | Transparent price discovery, margin trading | Zero slippage, extreme capital efficiency, composable integration |
    | Best for           | Sophisticated traders, margin, limit orders | Aggregator routing, dApp integration, predictable execution       |
  </Tab>
</Tabs>

## Sui SUI/USDC Turnover by Architecture

The model comparisons above describe architectural differences in theory. The table below shows how those differences play out in practice across the Sui SUI/USDC market.

<Note>
  Turnover = daily volume / deployed capital. Figures are internally benchmarked.
</Note>

| Architecture        | Pools tracked           | Turnover (vol-weighted) |
| ------------------- | ----------------------- | ----------------------- |
| CLMM                | 11 pools, 5 protocols   | 1.29x                   |
| CLAMM               | 1 pool                  | 2.70x                   |
| CPMM                | 1 pool                  | 0.09x                   |
| Prop-AMM (peer)     | 3 pools                 | 2.04x                   |
| **Prop-AMM (Bolt)** | **1 pool**              | **29.7x**               |
| *Peer average*      | *16 pools, 8 protocols* | *1.28x*                 |

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Why Zero Slippage Matters" icon="zap" href="/zero-slippage">
    The structural advantage of deterministic pricing independent of capital depth.
  </Card>

  <Card title="How Bolt Works" icon="gears" href="/how-bolt-works">
    Technical overview of Bolt's settlement and hedging architecture.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>