Capital fragmentation in DeFi didn’t happen overnight but resulted from the split evolution of two core systems: AMMs and lending protocols. Each developed in isolation, locking liquidity into separate silos that made capital less efficient and difficult to coordinate.

Automated market-making didn’t start in crypto. It began in 2012 with HyperConomy, a Minecraft plugin that enabled algorithmic swaps using dynamic pricing. In 2017, Bancor brought the concept on-chain with the first AMM using the constant product model, but its fixed reserves and static pricing still limited capital efficiency.

In 2018, Uniswap V1 popularised \(x \times y = k\) on Ethereum, letting LPs passively earn fees. V2 extended this to token-token pairs and added routing, but capital still had to sit fully deployed across the curve - even in dead zones.

Meanwhile, Compound and Aave introduced peer-to-pool lending, where users earned yield by supplying assets to shared vaults. Utilization rates set interest, but capital remained isolated: borrowed or idle, never composable.

This created a binary tradeoff. LPs could earn fees or yield - not both. Capital stayed fragmented, and returns diluted across disconnected systems.

Finally, in 2021, Uniswap V3 brought targeted capital deployment through Concentrated Liquidity Market Making (CLMM). With CLMMs, LPs chose custom ranges, concentrating liquidity where trades occurred. Efficiency improved, but complexity spiked. Gas costs rose, active management became the norm, and over 80% of liquidity still sat unused.

Then came the patchwork with protocols like Balancer, Bunni, and Ambient wrapping lending strategies into AMMs using yield-bearing tokens and rebalancers. This made capital move more, but without adding real composability or improving its efficiency.

To better illustrate this point we took the 7-day price range of the wETH/USDC pair, and mapped how much capital was actually active within those bounds. The pool holds $115M in total TVL, yet only $12.15M sat in range, just 10.57% of the liquidity. The remaining 89.43% stayed idle, locked outside the active zone.

To broaden the view, we analysed the top 5 Uniswap V3 pools by TVL, specifically: WETH/USDC, WBTC/USDC, WBTC/WETH, WBTC/cbBTC, and ETH/USDC. We tracked how much capital was active within the 7-day price ranges for each.

Together, these pools hold a combined $357.1M in liquidity. Only $58.6M of that was in range, just 16.41% of the total. The other 83.59% sat idle.

This reflects a structural inefficiency: capital is present, but not productive. Despite the upgrades, most liquidity remains outside active price ranges, unable to respond to market demand. Wrapping AMMs with lending strategies moves capital between silos, but doesn’t unify it.

EulerSwap: The Lending-First Solution

EulerSwap flips the model, rethinking DeFi architecture from the ground up. Instead of layering AMMs over lending protocols, it merges both into a single system where all reserves live natively inside Euler’s lending vaults. Swaps, collateral, and yield are unified into one capital base, allowing LPs to benefit in three distinct ways from a single deposit: lending interest, trading fees, and usage as collateral.

Every dollar works as collateral, borrowable liquidity, and active AMM depth. LPs customise AMM curves, define risk exposure, and adapt strategies in real time with capital becoming programmable and reactive, shifting from passive storage to active deployment as market conditions evolve.

The key mechanism at work here is the Just-in-Time (JIT) liquidity that allows swaps to execute even when the pool doesn’t hold the output token in advance. In correlated pairs, a single $1M USDC deposit can support up to $50M in swap volume, by recycling borrowed assets and deploying incoming collateral in real time, forming liquidity precisely when it’s needed.

Euler Vault Connector (EVC) operator contracts orchestrate this logic. Operators manage each LP’s position, borrowing logic, and AMM curve shape using fully customisable parameters, including asymmetric concentration settings (\(c_x\) and \(c_y\)). That turns liquidity provision into a programmable, modular strategy. This unlocks a $75B+ market where DeFi liquidity remains siloed across AMMs and lending protocols. 

To get there, the protocol introduces a new stack of efficiency tools: asymmetric AMM curves, virtual reserves that simulate depth with less capital, and low-cost hedging engines. 

The result is a unified system for token launches, professional market making, and modular liquidity hubs, all with minimal capital overhead. Unlike legacy designs that stack systems, EulerSwap fuses lending and trading into one native architecture where every dollar is productive from block one.

Technical Implementation & Novel Mechanics

JIT Liquidity

At the core of EulerSwap’s capital efficiency is its Just-in-Time (JIT) liquidity, enabled by the Euler Vault Connector (EVC). Instead of requiring AMM pools to pre-hold both assets, EulerSwap dynamically borrows the output token at the moment of trade execution - using real-time collateral updates.

This system lets LPs offer deep liquidity without idle balances. The process is fully permissionless, atomic, and capital-efficient, with borrowing triggered only when needed.

Step-by-Step Example:

An LP deposits $1M USDC into Euler with a 95% LTV. A trader initiates a swap: $10M USDC → USDT. Here's how the operator handles it:

1. Trader sends $10M USDC to the LP’s operator contract.
2. The operator instantly deposits it as collateral, raising total to $11M USDC.
3. It borrows $10M USDT against that collateral.
4. The $10M USDT is sent to the trader.

The vault now holds $11M USDC and carries $10M USDT in debt. If the trader (or another) later swaps back (USDT → USDC), the operator repays the loan and resets the position to its original state: $1M USDC, no debt.

If the swap is small (e.g. $500), and the vault already holds enough output tokens, the operator skips borrowing entirely and executes using native balances - saving on interest.

The entire swap is processed as an atomic transaction, ensuring no partial execution. It is also fully permissionless, meaning anyone can trigger swaps or deploy operator contracts without needing approval. 

This setup enables (under optimal conditions) a notional swing capacity of $40M: the LP’s account can be dynamically flipped from net long USDC to net long USDT as needed to fulfill swaps.

The liquidity is virtual but fully backed by real collateral flow and debt positions managed by the operator. With a 95% LTV, the account can support $20M in USDC collateral and $19M in USDT debt. Alternatively, if the initial $1M USDC is converted to USDT, it can support $20M in USDT collateral and $19M in USDC debt.

This structure creates a swing capacity of $40M in leveraged liquidity across both directions of the market.

Note: swap outputs are not exactly 1:1 due to:

• Swap fees, retained by the LP.
• Price impact from the AMM curve, which penalizes large trades depending on the \(c_x\) and \(c_y\) concentration parameters set up by the LP at the moment of deploying the operator contract and initialising the AMM curve.

Asymmetric AMM Curve

EulerSwap’s AMM curve departs from the symmetric design of traditional AMMs like \(x \times y = k\), enabling fully customisable, asymmetric liquidity provisioning through independent concentration parameters: \(c_x\) and \(c_y\). To maintain mathematical stability and ensure precision across all input ranges, the curve is defined in piecewise form using \(y = f(x)\) on one side of the equilibrium point \((x_0, y_0)\) and \(x = f(y)\) on the other (inverse function).

This structure avoids the numerical instabilities that can occur near reserve depletion (e.g., division by near-zero values), which are common in classic AMMs. In EulerSwap:

• For trades approaching from the left of the equilibrium point \((x \leq x_0)\), the curve is expressed as \(y = f(x)\) , keeping \(x\) as the input variable is numerically stable.
• For trades approaching from the right \((x > x_0)\), the curve is defined in terms of \(x = f(y)\), using \(y\) as the input variable to avoid instability near \(x \rightarrow 0\).

This ensures precision and curve continuity at all scales, even under high-volume trading. While it may seem non-intuitive at first, since AMMs like Uniswap V2 always use \(x\) as the input, it is a deliberate and necessary mechanism to support EulerSwap’s flexible and composable liquidity architecture.

The variables \(x_0\) and \(y_ 0\) represent the reserves of each asset at the point of equilibrium, where no trading pressure exists and the exchange rate is stable. The equilibrium price is given by the ratio \(\frac{p_x}{p_y}\), where \(p_x\) and \(p_ y\) are the respective prices of assets \(X\) and \(Y\). Thus, the curve is defined as,

For \(x\leq x_0\):

\[y = y_0 + \left( \frac{p_x}{p_y} \right)(x_0 - x) \cdot \left[ c_x + (1 - c_x) \left( \frac{x_0}{x} \right) \right]\]

For \(x > x_0\), the inverse function governs behavior:

\[x = x_0 + \left( \frac{p_y}{p_x} \right)(y_0 - y) \cdot \left[ c_y + (1 - c_y) \left( \frac{y_0}{y} \right) \right]\]

Since \(c_x , c_y \in [0,1]\) govern how concentrated liquidity is on each side, then:

• \(c_x = c_y = 1\): constant-sum behavior (flat pricing).
• \(c_x = c_y = 0\): constant-product behavior (Uniswap V2 style).
• \(0 < c_x, c_y < 1\): EulerSwap asymmetric behavior with composable liquidity distribution.

Strategic Implications of Curve Shape

Understanding the math behind EulerSwap’s piecewise AMM is only half the picture. The real power emerges when that math translates into market behavior, allowing teams to align price dynamics with protocol-level objectives. EulerSwap enables this by decoupling the curvature on each side of the equilibrium point through two independent parameters: \(c_x\) and \(c_y\).

As described above, the curve operates in two segments: \(y = f(x)\) for buys \((x < x_0)\) and \(x = f(y)\) for sells \((x > x_0)\), ensuring numerical stability while enabling asymmetric slope design. This lets protocols control how liquidity responds to pressure, and how steeply price can shift under volume changes.

What matters in practice is not just the shape of the curve, but its slope near \(x = x_0\). A steep slope means price reacts aggressively to trades, amplifying volatility. A flatter slope absorbs volume with less slippage, keeping the price more stable. By tuning \(c_x\) and \(c_y\), projects can define how the curve behaves under pressure, setting clear rules for price discovery, defence, or neutrality directly into the AMM.

To see this in action, we simulate three distinct curves with different values for \(c_x\) and \(c_y\), and measure how price changes in response to a \(\pm50\%\) deviation from equilibrium. For consistency, we fix \(x_0 = y_0 = 1\) (equilibrium point), and assume \(p_x = p_y = 1\).

‍

🟣 Price Discovery Curve \((c_x = 0.99, c_y = 1)\)

This curve maximizes price acceleration on the buy side. A small drop in \(x\) triggers a steep price increase. On the sell side, price decays slowly, absorbing larger volumes before falling significantly.

A 50% reduction in base token balance pushes the price up by +200%, while a 50% increase only drops it −56%.

This curve fits tokens in early discovery or high-volatility phases, where strong price moves on buying are useful, but downside should stay controlled.

Note: equilibrium point \(x_0 = y_0 = 1\)

🔵 Floor Support Curve \((c_x = 0.8, c_y = 0.2)\)

This curve protects the price against downside volatility. When \(x\) increases, the price falls gently, giving projects a buffer against large sell-offs. On the buy side, price still moves, but at a controlled pace.

A 50% reduction in base token balance raises the price by +170%, while a 50% increase only lowers it −42%.

This curve fits projects focused on defending key price levels, softening large exits while still leaving room for upward movement.

Note: equilibrium point \(x_0 = y_0 = 1\)

🟢 Neutral Stability Curve \((c_x = 0.5, c_y = 0.5)\)

This curve applies symmetric pressure on both sides of the market. Price reacts evenly to increases or decreases in token balances, keeping volatility predictable and liquidity balanced.

A 50% reduction in base token balance increases the price by +100%, while a 50% increase decreases it −50%.
This curve fits tokens that prioritize balance and stability, making it easier to manage liquidity without favoring buyers or sellers.

Note: equilibrium point \(x_0 = y_0 = 1\)

Modular Operator System & Virtual Reserves

EulerSwap’s Modular Operator System enables liquidity providers to delegate control over their vaults to programmable smart contracts that manage collateral, debt, and swap execution.

Operator contracts also simulate Virtual Reserves using each LP’s deposited collateral and their maximum borrowable capacity under Euler’s LTV constraints. The AMM doesn't need to hold actual balances, it can quote liquidity using what the vault can borrow.

Example: an LP holds $2M ETH collateral with a 75% LTV. The operator knows it can safely borrow up to $1.5M USDC, so it configures the pool as if it held $2M ETH / $1.5M USDC. These aren’t real balances, but the liquidity is real and borrowable.

When a user initiates a swap:

• If the vault has enough output tokens, the swap completes instantly, without borrowing.
• If not, the operator executes a JIT liquidity strategy, and borrows on-demand. To do so, the input token sent by the trader is instantly deposited as collateral enabling the operator to borrow the output token safely.

Operator Modes & Pool Configurations

EulerSwap supports three liquidity provisioning modes, all configurable via operator contracts:

• 🛑 Non-borrowing pools: Use existing deposits only. Ideal for conservative LPs with - free yield generation and zero debt exposure.
  
  
• 💸 Borrowing pools: Borrow output tokens when reserves are insufficient through JIT execution. Boosts depth without requiring idle capital. LPs capture both lending yield and swap fees.
  
  
• ⚖️ Collateral swaps: If both tokens are held, swaps reallocate collateral internally, with no new debt. Useful for rebalancing or delta-neutral execution.

LPs can switch between modes by adjusting operator logic. No vault exit, no extra fees, no liquidity downtime.

Capital Multiplication Mechanics in EulerSwap

We have seen that EulerSwap allows a $1M deposit, paired with a 95% LTV configuration, to serve up to $40M in notional swap volume. This swing capacity is made possible by real-time collateral updates, atomic borrowing, and operator contracts that react to demand in both directions of the market.

Vaults turn into capital amplifiers, dynamically shifting exposure without splitting liquidity or relying on external funding.

📊 Notional Capacity vs. LTV

This chart shows how raising the Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio exponentially expands notional capacity. At 95% LTV, a $1M initial deposit enables up to $40M in total swap execution, $20M in each direction, without additional capital. Capital works harder, serving both directions without duplication.

📈 Swing Capacity vs. LTV
This curve highlights the exponential relationship between LTV and swing volume. As LTV nears 100%, swap depth increases dramatically, but so does risk. The Y-axis shows the maximum swap size supported in one direction using a $1M initial deposit.

At 95% LTV, that’s $20M of executable liquidity, achieved by leveraging operator-controlled borrowing.

Market Trading Applications & Use Cases

Launching New Tokens 

Projects launching a token, let’s call it ABC, can deploy an EulerSwap pool with asymmetric liquidity. Most capital concentrates on the stablecoin side (e.g., USDC) while the new asset side is distributed for flexibility.

Consider now, 

• \(c_x = 0.9\) concentrates USDC near the peg.
• \(c_y = 0.2\) spreads $ABC liquidity widely.

With these parameters, the AMM curve concentrates most of the liquidity on the USDC side, while letting $ABC find market-driven value. Meanwhile, the USDC collateral continues generating yield in Euler’s vaults.

Unlike traditional liquidity farming, which relies on unsustainable incentives or artificial volume, this model makes idle capital productive. The stablecoin doesn’t just sit, it enables price discovery, powers trades, and earns yield simultaneously.

Price Floors for Volatile Assets

AMM curves can also be configured to support price floor strategies. A project intentionally concentrates liquidity around a lower-bound price. This creates structural support for tokens in volatile situations, offering downside protection.

This is especially useful post-airdrop or before a TGE, when protecting early valuation ranges is crucial. Instead of spreading capital across a full curve, EulerSwap lets teams act with precision, defending key levels without overcommitting.

Advanced MM: Delta-Neutral, Funding Rate Strategies & Dynamic Hedging

EulerSwap offers a new layer of flexibility for pro LPs and market makers by removing the need to spread liquidity across a full curve. Instead, capital can be deployed with precision around high-activity zones, minimizing slippage and extracting more value from each dollar in play.

LPs can hedge exposure dynamically - for instance , a delta-neutral strategy could be depositing USDC, borrowing ETH against it using high LTV, and providing ETH/USDC liquidity. Borrowing ETH creates short exposure, while LPing ETH/USDC creates long exposure. Combined, they cancel out, forming a delta-neutral position. The result is a net-neutral position that captures swap fees without directional market risk.

The system also enables funding rate arbitrage: LPs can go long via the AMM while shorting the same asset on platforms like GMX or dYdX, capturing positive funding rates when they arise.

This flexibility is enabled by modular operator contracts. LPs can adjust key parameters like liquidity concentration \((c_x, c_y)\), toggle borrowing, or adapt pricing logic as market conditions shift. This operation executes atomically within a single transaction, which costs only ~$20-50 in gas, enables dynamic hedging without the friction or cost of layered strategies that typically incur 0.1 – 0.5% in fees across multiple protocols.

Liquidity Hubs & Multi-Pair Efficiency

A hub-based liquidity model is implemented. A single USDC vault can serve dozens, or hundreds, of pairs via JIT execution. Unlike traditional AMMs there’s no need to fragment liquidity into isolated pools.

The same USDC Vault can service multiple JIT swaps with USDT, DAI, USDe, and long-tail assets. Operator logic routes swaps, handles debt, and prices each pair independently, while capital remains unified in the same lending vault

Three use cases emerge:

• ⚖️ Correlated assets: A stablecoin yield hub, USDC/USDT, USDC/DAI, routes swaps efficiently, with minimal slippage, earning fees from all swaps.
  
• ⚠️ Long-tail assets: A prime hub for volatile tokens leverages concentrated quote-side liquidity to serve illiquid pairs without capital waste.
  
• 🚀 New token launches: Projects can enable single-sided JIT borrowing, using USDC as collateral to bootstrap token liquidity without providing both sides of the market. A project launching $EXAMPLE can list it against USDC without upfront USDC. When someone wants to buy $EXAMPLE, it’s borrowed on demand using the incoming USDC.
  
  This method offers clear advantages:
  
  • No need to provide USDC upfront.
  • Liquidity grows with demand, no idle capital.
  • Interest replaces traditional farming, aligning incentives

Together, these applications show how EulerSwap turns liquidity into a strategic asset. Whether you’re launching tokens, making markets, or optimizing vaults, its composable design unlocks more with less.

Competitive Advantage & Market Opportunity

Comparing current models with EulerSwap, the contrast is clear. Uniswap v3, Balancer, and similar models achieve only 1–5x effective depth, constrained by fixed ranges and static positions. Most liquidity sits idle, waiting.

EulerSwap flips that logic by combining its lending-native architecture with Just-in-Time execution, reaching 10–50x effective depth per dollar and activating capital precisely when trades occur.

This approach positions EulerSwap at the convergence point of DeFi’s two biggest markets: DEXs and lending protocols. 

In 2024:

• DEXs processed over $3.5 trillion in volume, generating more than $30M/month in fees.
• Lending protocols held $56B+ in TVL, with over $150M/year in yield flowing to depositors 

Together, these segments represent a market of trillions in transaction volume and tens of billions in on-chain capital. To benchmark EulerSwap’s upside, we look at Fluid, a protocol that also routes idle lending capital through DEX mechanisms. Within just eight months of adopting a hybrid architecture:

• TVL grew from $500M to $1.2B (2.4x) 
• Daily fees rose from $40K to $100K (2.5x)
• Daily protocol revenue increased from $4K to $11.5K (2.88x)

But EulerSwap takes this model further, with deeper liquidity backed by real structural advantages and four capabilities no other AMM combines today:

1. Full LP control via modular curves: LPs configure curve shape, asset pairs, exposure strategy, and capital behavior, all at deploy time. Liquidity becomes programmable, not passive.
2. Up to 50x Theoretical Leverage via JIT: Operator contracts deploy liquidity exactly when needed, creating real-time depth without idle reserves.
3. Modular Strategy Hot-Swapping: As market conditions shift, LPs update strategy on the fly, adjusting risk profiles or pricing logic, for just $20–50 in gas. No need to withdraw. No interruptions.
4. Native Uniswap v4 Compatibility: EulerSwap plugs into Uni v4 routing and MEV-aware infrastructure, bridging new mechanics with existing order flow.

Taking Fluid’s 2.4x in TVL & 2.88x in Daily Revenue growth as context, we can map potential adoption scenarios for EulerSwap over the next 6 to 12 months. Starting from a baseline of $1B in TVL, $80K in daily fees, and a 12.5% monetization rate (~$10K revenue), we apply these multipliers to estimate the Bull Case. 

A more conservative Base Case assumes a 1.3x increase in TVL with a proportional rise in fees and revenue, reflecting steady uptake without explosive breakout. In a Bear Case, we model contraction, with TVL shrinking to 0.8x and revenue dropping to 0.75x of current levels.

Even under cautious projections, EulerSwap’s model generates real yield by stacking two revenue streams within a single protocol. Its ability to unify DEX depth and lending returns creates a structurally advantaged engine for capital efficiency.

Risk Evaluations

Liquidity providers face several risks, as dynamic borrowing, real-time swap execution, and modular LP strategies demand a fundamentally different approach to risk management. In volatile conditions, precision becomes the defining factor.

JIT Liquidity & Liquidation Risks

Just-in-Time allows LPs to scale liquidity dynamically, but it also introduces liquidation risk when vault health deteriorates.

Take this case: an LP deposits $1M in wETH with an 80% LTV cap, and over time accumulates $800K in USDC debt via JIT swaps. If wETH then drops 20%, the collateral shrinks to $800K, matching the outstanding debt. The actual LTV hits 100%, triggering liquidation.

This happens when one side of the trade (e.g. wETH → USDC) executes, but the reverse swap never materializes. Without repayment, the vault remains exposed, vulnerable to sharp price moves that can tip it over the edge.

It doesn’t take constant trading to trigger it. A single swap activates borrowing, and from there, price volatility can destabilise the position. If the collateral falls in value or the debt grows, the vault’s LTV may cross its liquidation threshold, even with no further activity.

LTV Management Strategies

To reduce liquidation risk, LPs should adjust their LTV settings based on asset volatility. For stablecoin pairs a 90-95% LTV is enough. For volatile assets like WETH/USDC a 80% LTV offers better protection.

LPs can also set alerts or implement logic that disables borrowing when thresholds are reached. Lowering the configured LTV from 95% to 80% during high volatility can drastically cut the chance of liquidation.

To support LPs vault management, EulerSwap could integrate a Liquidation Risk Calculator. By adjusting variables like initial LTV, asset pair, and price shifts, LPs could simulate risk outcomes and design safer positions in real time.

Alongside that, a Health Ratio Monitoring Dashboard could visualize vault status, tracking collateral and borrowed value and the proximity to liquidation thresholds as well. For example:

• Scenario 1 — Conservative Setup (Stable-Stable, Low LTV)
  
  An LP deposits $1M in USDC and borrows $600K in DAI, configuring an initial LTV of 60%. If USDC depegs to $0.90, the collateral drops to $900K, and the effective LTV (debt-to-new-collateral ratio) rises to 66.6%.
  
  🟢 Still safe. Wide buffer before reaching risk limits.
  
  
• Scenario 2 — Balanced Setup (ETH-Stable, Mid LTV)
  
  ‍An LP deposits $1M in wETH and borrows $750K in USDC, with an initial LTV of 75%. If wETH drops 20%, the collateral drops to $800K, pushing real LTV to ~93.75%.
  
  🟡 Risk zone. Close to liquidation if the vault’s threshold is ~95%.
  ‍
  

• Scenario 3 — Aggressive Setup (ETH-Stable, High LTV)
  
  The LP borrows $900K against $1M in wETH, starting at 90% LTV. A 20% wETH drop reduces collateral to $800K, pushing real LTV to 112.5%. 
  
  🔴 Liquidation triggered. Threshold exceeded.
  
  

Note: Liquidation doesn’t wait for 100% LTV. It triggers once the vault breaches its configured limit (often 90–95%).

Interest Rate Risk 

Borrowing costs can eat into profits, especially when swap activity slows. If trading fees fall below the interest paid on borrowed funds, LPs face the risk of negative yield despite capital being deployed.

Take a vault with 90% utilisation and a 7% borrow rate: a $1M position generates $63K in annual interest costs, so swap fees must at least match that figure to break even. In low-volume or unstable markets, that margin shrinks quickly, leading LPs to protect capital by disabling JIT or shifting to non-borrowing modes when returns no longer justify the cost.

Impermanent Loss in a Leveraged Context

Here’s the twist: impermanent loss compounds under leverage.

Take a 2x LP position in wETH/USDC. If ETH pumps, you lose on the AMM curve (some ETH is sold for USDC). Simultaneously, the borrowed USDC becomes weaker vs. your ETH-denominated collateral. Double divergence, double pain.

EulerSwap gives LPs a way out. Operator contracts enable dynamic rebalancing, adjusting exposure or curve shape for ~$50 in gas, instead of 0.1–0.5% fees on traditional AMMs.

That cost-efficiency allows LPs to:

• Frequent delta-neutral hedging
• Proactive exits from risk zones
• Strategic reallocation without leaving the vault

Impermanent loss is no longer a passive cost. With operator-level control, LPs manage it actively, even in unstable market conditions.

Smart Contract & Protocol Risks

No matter how well-designed, DeFi carries smart contract risk. EulerSwap builds on Euler’s infrastructure (battle-tested with ~$1B TVL), but the new AMM-lending integration expands the attack surface.

Key vectors include:

• ⏱ Oracles (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth): Inaccurate feeds can trigger wrongful liquidations or prevent valid ones.
• 🤖 Operator contracts: Misconfigured logic can misroute swaps or miscalculate borrow exposure.
• 💵 Vault accounting: Bugs in how collateral and debt are tracked can cause cascading failures.

While Euler has passed multiple audits and weathered real conditions, the modular design of EulerSwap places more power, and responsibility, in LP hands. No system eliminates risks but LPs have the tools to understand, model, and mitigate them.

Conclusion

EulerSwap isn’t another layer in the DeFi stack, it’s a full architectural reset. Instead of splitting liquidity between DEXs and lending protocols, it merges them natively, turning every dollar into triple-purpose capital: for swaps, yield, and collateral.

Throughout this piece, we’ve broken down the core components, JIT liquidity, asymmetric AMM curves, virtual reserves, and modular operator contracts with each of them compounding efficiency and unlocking new strategies - from token launches to professional market making, EulerSwap transforms passive liquidity into programmable capital.

The potential is clear, with  over $1B already deployed through Euler’s lending vaults and a design that borrows the best from Ethereum’s evolution, EulerSwap is built to scale without relying on artificial incentives. The case of Fluid confirms it: when lending meets swaps, yield and adoption follow.

But with power comes responsibility. Leveraged strategies, real-time rebalancing, and LTV management require operational precision. EulerSwap isn’t plug-and-play, it’s a powerful tool for operators who know how to build with control.

In a cycle where capital efficiency is once again front and center, EulerSwap isn’t competing to be another AMM but redefine what it means to be an LP, a vault, and a protocol. It’s not a patch on the old system, it’s the new standard for how liquidity should move, earn, and scale.

‍