PropAMMs are quietly changing who makes money from onchain trading. 💰 A recent study across Solana, Base and Monad found that propAMMs accounted for more than half of SOL/USDC volume on Solana by 2026. The economics are interesting: – Solana: propAMMs earned +0.37 bps two seconds after fills, while traditional AMMs lost 0.22 bps. – Base: propAMMs earned +1.19 bps, while AMMs lost 0.62 bps. Here is what I find interesting. ▸ Traditional AMMs largely depend on trades to update pool prices. When the external market moves first, their quotes can become stale, allowing arbitrageurs to capture the difference before the pool adjusts. ▸ PropAMMs approach this differently. They actively reprice without waiting for a trade, manage inventory and adjust execution prices based on the risk of each incoming order. The result is a different liquidity model. Instead of simply providing capital and collecting fees, liquidity operators are increasingly competing on pricing, execution and information. The research also found that propAMMs offered better prices for relatively quiet trades on Solana, with a 0.26 bps half-spread against 2.59 bps for traditional AMMs. So this isn’t simply a story about propAMMs winning and traders losing. The market structure itself is changing. The question I care about most: Can passive LPs still earn competitive returns when active liquidity providers are continuously repricing around them? I don’t think traditional AMMs become obsolete overnight. They still serve long-tail assets and permissionless markets that centralized liquidity operators may not support. But I do think liquidity provision is becoming more competitive, and passive LPs may need to rethink where their returns actually come from.