Confusing building the machine with being good at using the machine is one of the easiest mistakes to make in market making. Let's say you're a market maker on Solana. Your actual edge might come from how well you: - pricing an asset - managing inventory - controlling your risk - adjusting your spreads - responding to market conditions - competing for flow Those are the things that can actually make your desk better than someone else's. But if you decide to build your own prop AMM, you suddenly inherit another job of... building the infrastructure itself. And that's where things get pretty interesting. ————————————————— The problem with building everything yourself. ————————————————— Building a proprietary AMM is more than just deploying a smart contract and start quoting. You have to build and maintain the system around it, you need the on-chain exchange logic and so much more. Every hour your engineers spend solving those problems is an hour they aren't spending improving the thing that actually makes your market-making strategy competitive. This is the part that clicked for me when I started looking into @flint_trade_ ————————————————— Why build the road when your business is driving on it? ————————————————— This is where you see how interesting Flint become. Flint is an on-chain, multi-maker prop AMM for USDC-quoted spot markets on Solana. Flint gives you an AMM, however what's more important is, what Flint lets you keep control of. A maker can bring its own quoting strategy, risk parameters and market specific logic while Flint provides the infrastructure underneath. So instead of building an entire trading venue from scratch, your focus can move back to what you're actually good at, (quoting) Flint supports different quoting models, including a CEX style OrderList model and models built around continuously pricing from a fair value. It's very important because market makers don't all think about markets the same way. You shouldn't have to completely redesign your strategy just because you're using someone else's infrastructure. ————————————————— And then there's the multi-maker design. ————————————————— This is probably the most interesting part of Flint to me. Instead of one market maker, one system, one liquidity venue. Flint takes a different approach where, multiple proprietary market makers can quote through the same on-chain infrastructure. Each maker maintains its own quoting logic. When a trader comes in, Flint effectively builds a virtual orderbook by combining the quoting intentions of the different makers and fills against the available liquidity. I need you to think about what that means. You don't necessarily need every market making firm to build its own complete venue just to compete for flow. because your proprietary pricing model remains your edge while the underlying infra becomes something you don't have to recreate from 0. ————————————————— This doesn't mean Flint does everything for you. ————————————————— I think it's important I say this, Flint isn't magic. You still bring the strategy, inventory and risk management. You decide what to quote, where to quote and how aggressively to quote. Flint simply removes much of the infra burden underneath it. And that's important because building your own AMM doesn't end when you deploy it. You also inherit the maintenance, upgrades, integrations and optimization that come with it. Can you build your own prop AMM? Of course you can. But should you? If your edge is building infrastructure, go ahead. But if your edge is your pricing, risk management and ability to capture flow, why spend your resources rebuilding the machine? That's ultimately what makes Flint interesting to me. Shared infrastructure. Independent strategies. Competing for flow. You bring the strategy. Flint brings the rails..

Tldr: here's an easier illustration of what @flint_trade_ is. Let's saw we have 2 different market making teams. Team A, spend months building: > AMM infrastructure > quote infrastructure > transaction systems > market-data systems > monitoring > integrations > maintenance Then they finally get to work on their actual strategy. While, Team B, plug their existing quoting logic into Flint. > They still control their strategy. > They still control their risk. > They still decide how they want to quote. The difference now is they don't have to rebuild the entire venue underneath their strategy. Instead, they can spend their time on the important questions - Where should we price? - How much inventory should we hold? - How wide should our spread be? - How should we react to volatility? - Which markets are worth quoting? - How do we capture more flow? That's basically the difference, One team is building the machine. The other is focused on getting better at using it. The latter is Flint.

morning darlings Have a great day ahead

it's September & I'm hungry, you might want to turn on notis.

morning darlings, It's the last day of august what are you grearful for ?