A cross-chain comparison of four landmark DEX protocols since 2022 — spanning Ethereum, Base, and Solana — across volume, fees, revenue, and market share.

**Uniswap** commands 23.5% of all DEX volume ($42.2B 30d) with $50.4M in fees, firmly the largest spot DEX by volume. **Aerodrome** has rapidly become the dominant exchange on Base with $17B 30d volume (9.5% DEX share) despite operating on a single chain since August 2023. **Curve Finance** has pivoted toward a lending+stablecoin-AMM hybrid — its 30d DEX volume stands at $3.7B (2% DEX share), but fees surged +98% MoM, reflecting crvUSD lending activity and a recovery in stablecoin pair demand. **Jupiter** (Solana) reports $947M in spot DEX volume, but functions primarily as an aggregator routing across Solana's entire liquidity; its $17M in 30d fees — on a fraction of Uniswap's volume — reflects its platform-fee model on top of underlying swap fees.

> 📍 **Key macro context:** DEX-to-CEX spot ratio reached 21.2% by late 2025, up from 6% in 2021. Solana DEX volume briefly overtook Ethereum in Jan 2026. Aerodrome's parent Dromos Labs is preparing an Ethereum mainnet launch to directly challenge Uniswap and Curve. [1][5]

DeFi20 Spot DEXs: Uniswap · Curve · Aerodrome · Jupiter

TVL measures liquidity depth — the capital LPs have committed to each protocol. Uniswap leads at $3.1B TVL despite V4's CLMM efficiency compressing required capital. Curve's $1.4B TVL is heavily stablecoin-denominated (low impermanent loss risk). Jupiter's $1.3B TVL reflects its JLP perpetuals pool, which also backs spot liquidity. Aerodrome's $318M TVL is compact relative to its volume — its veAERO emission model concentrates incentivized liquidity into the highest-volume pairs.

🔒 TVL & Liquidity

TVL Comparison (Monthly)

Uniswap's multi-chain expansion and v3/v4 CLMM upgrades drove a compounding lead over the field. Aerodrome's explosive 2023–2025 growth on Base highlights how chain-native DEXs can dominate their home ecosystem. Curve's absolute volume has declined from 2022 peaks as concentrated liquidity (CLMM) venues absorbed stablecoin flow. Jupiter's DEX-native volume reflects only its JLP pools — its aggregator routing volume is significantly larger.

📊 Volume Trends Since 2022

DEX Volume Comparison (Monthly)

Global DEX Volume Market Share (All Chains)

Global DEX Aggregator Volume Market Share % (All Chains)

Each protocol dominates its home chain. Uniswap and Curve compete on Ethereum mainnet, Aerodrome is the leading DEX on Base, and Jupiter commands the Solana aggregator market. Q1 2026 chain-level DEX volumes (per TradeAlgo): Ethereum $218B, Solana $204B, Base $142B — Base's emergence as a DEX hub is largely Aerodrome-driven. [2]

🌐 Ecosystem Volume Share

Ethereum DEX Volume — Uniswap & Curve Home Turf

Base DEX Volume — Aerodrome's Domain

Ethereum DEX Volume Market Share %

Solana DEX Aggregator Volume

Base DEX Volume Market Share %

Solana DEX Aggregator Volume Market Share %

Uniswap accrues fees to LPs (supply-side revenue); its protocol revenue is minimal (~10% of fees via governance-controlled fee switch). Aerodrome distributes fees to veAERO voters — a vote-escrow model that concentrates governance value to stakers. Curve distributes fees to veCRV holders. Jupiter retains a higher share of fees as protocol revenue (~28%) reflecting its aggregator model. The fee rate per unit of volume tells the real story: Jupiter earns ~1.8% in fees-to-volume vs Uniswap's ~0.12%.

💸 Fees Comparison Since 2022

Total Fees Comparison (Monthly)

Global DEX Fees Market Share %

Global DEX Aggregator Fees Market Share %

Drilling into each protocol's home chain reveals true competitive dominance across the fee landscape:

**Ethereum (Uniswap & Curve):** Uniswap's CLMM pools have progressively captured Ethereum DEX fee share from Curve — from rough parity in 2022 to Uniswap commanding 50–65%+ of Ethereum DEX fees by 2025–2026. Curve's share has compressed as its StableSwap moat eroded against Uniswap's 0.01% fee tier. Uniswap v4's hook architecture and singleton contract further consolidate its Ethereum fee dominance.

**Base (Aerodrome):** Aerodrome's dominance on Base in fees is near-total — capturing 70–80%+ of Base DEX fees since mid-2023. Its veAERO emission model funnels LP incentives to the highest-volume pools, creating a self-reinforcing flywheel: more fees → more veAERO demand → better emissions allocation → deeper liquidity → more fees.

**Solana (Jupiter):** Jupiter's fee share on Solana reflects its aggregator positioning — it captures fees on routed swaps layered atop underlying venues (Orca, Raydium, Lifinity). As Solana DEX volume consolidates through Jupiter's interface, its fee capture competes with and increasingly exceeds standalone DEX venues on the chain.

🌐 Fees Market Share by Ecosystem

Ethereum DEX Fees Market Share %

Base DEX Fees Market Share %

Solana DEX Aggregator Fees Market Share %

Protocol revenue (what the DAO/treasury actually keeps) reveals divergent business models. Uniswap's revenue is nascent — the fee switch was only partially enabled in 2024 and allocates ~10% of fees to governance/treasury. Aerodrome's revenue matches Uniswap's ($4.9M 30d) despite 60% less volume, reflecting its higher LP fee retention. Curve keeps ~16% of fees as protocol revenue. Jupiter is the most efficient revenue capturer at ~28% fee-to-revenue conversion.

💰 Protocol Revenue Since 2022

Protocol Revenue Comparison (Monthly)

Holder Revenue — Token Staker & veModel Returns (Monthly)

Global DEX Revenue Market Share %

Global DEX Aggregator Revenue Market Share %

Full financial breakdown — gross revenue, costs (incentives/emissions), and earnings — for each protocol. Aerodrome and Curve's ve-model means a significant share of fees flow to token stakers rather than a treasury. Uniswap's income statement reflects the early stage of its fee switch activation. Jupiter's income statement highlights its multi-product revenue stack (aggregator, perps, lending).

🧾 Protocol Income Statements

Full DEX protocol rankings — sorted by 7-day volume. Use this to contextualize where Uniswap, Aerodrome, Curve, and Jupiter sit within the broader spot DEX competitive set, and track market share shifts in real time.

📋 DEX Landscape Rankings

Jupiter spans DEX aggregation, perps, lending (Jupiter Lend), liquid staking (JupSOL), and its own stablecoin (jupUSD). This dashboard breaks down Jupiter's aggregator business vs the entire DEX-aggregator category, Jupiter's market share of Solana chain activity, plus deep dives on Jupiter Lend yields/TVL, Jupiter Perps trading pairs, and JLP/jupUSD historical yields.

Jupiter — Full Protocol Briefing

Jupiter's core aggregator line (swap routing) measured against the **entire dex-aggregator category** (all aggregators combined, Jupiter included). First 3 charts show Jupiter's own aggregator volume/fees/revenue (shown **weekly**); next 3 show Jupiter's **market share** (stacked % area, all category protocols) of category-wide volume, fees, and revenue.

Section 1 — Jupiter's DEX Aggregator Business vs the Whole Category

Jupiter Aggregator Volume (Weekly)

Jupiter's Market Share — DEX Aggregator Volume

Jupiter Aggregator Fees (Weekly)

Jupiter's Market Share — DEX Aggregator Fees

Jupiter Aggregator Revenue (Weekly)

Jupiter's Market Share — DEX Aggregator Revenue

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Volume Combined (Daily)

Jupiter's Combined Volume as % of Solana's Combined Volume (Daily)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Volume Combined (Weekly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Volume Combined (Monthly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Volume Combined (Yearly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Fees Combined (Daily)

Jupiter's Combined Fees as % of Solana's Combined Fees (Daily)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Fees Combined (Weekly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Fees Combined (Monthly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Fees Combined (Yearly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Revenue Combined (Daily)

Jupiter's Combined Revenue as % of Solana's Combined Revenue (Daily)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Revenue Combined (Weekly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Revenue Combined (Monthly)

Jupiter vs Solana: Aggregator + Perps Revenue Combined (Yearly)

Jupiter Lend's live lending markets — supply/borrow APYs per asset and total pool TVL over time.

Section 3 — Jupiter Lend: Yields & Pool TVL

Jupiter Lend — Total Pool TVL

Per-market volume on Jupiter Perpetual Exchange, plus historical yield for the two flagship Jupiter tokens: **JLP** (perps liquidity pool token, tracked here via its largest listing as collateral in Jupiter Lend) and **jupUSD** (Jupiter's native stablecoin, largest lending market).

Section 4 — Jupiter Perps Trading Pairs & JLP / jupUSD Yields

Jupiter's complete P&L: gross revenue, cost of revenue, gross profit, incentive spend, and net earnings.

Section 5 — Full Income Statement

Jupiter Lend Median APY

A deep dive into Curve's position in the DEX/stableswap landscape — volume/fee/revenue share, top pools by TVL and yield, and the veCRV mechanism that routes protocol fees to CRV lockers via crvUSD/scrvUSD flows.

Curve Finance: Market Share, Liquidity & veCRV Value Accrual

Curve's share of total DEX volume, fees, and revenue over the trailing year — computed as Curve's protocol-level flow divided by the market-wide DEX category (volume) or total DEX category (fees/revenue) each day.

Market Share vs Total DeFi DEX Activity

The absolute figures behind the share charts above — Curve's daily volume, fees, and revenue in USD terms, unnormalized by category totals.

Curve's Raw Volume, Fees & Revenue

Volume Share of Total DEX Volume

Fees Share of Total DEX Fees

Revenue Share of Total DEX Revenue

Curve pioneered the stableswap invariant and remains the dominant stablecoin-focused AMM. The charts below isolate Curve's own DEX volume alongside its share of combined volume across all DefiLlama-tagged "stableswap" DEX protocols (55 protocols including Ellipsis, Wombat, Saddle, Nerve, and others) — Curve has held roughly 90-99% of this niche's volume over the trailing year.

Curve's Position Among Stablecoin-Focused DEXs

Curve Stablecoin (Stableswap) DEX Volume, 1Y

Curve Share of Total Stableswap DEX Volume, 1Y

Daily DEX volume divided by TVL — a proxy for how hard Curve's liquidity is working. Curve's stableswap pools structurally turn over less than volatile-asset AMMs like Uniswap, since large stable/pegged-asset positions sit for yield/peg-arbitrage rather than active trading.

Capital Efficiency: Volume-to-TVL Ratio

Curve Volume/TVL Ratio (Capital Efficiency, 1Y)

Where Curve liquidity concentrates across its stableswap/crypto pools, and which active pools (TVL ≥ $1M, excluding exploited pools) currently offer the highest APY — dominated by crvUSD pairs and newer chain deployments (Monad, Fraxtal).

Pool-Level Liquidity & Yield

Top Curve Pools by TVL

Top Curve Pools by Yield (TVL ≥ $1M)

Multi-exposure stablecoin pools hold two or more distinct stablecoins in one position (peg-basket risk instead of single-asset risk) — the category tracked on DefiLlama's [stablecoin multi-exposure yields page](https://defillama.com/yields/stablecoins?attribute=multi_exposure). Ranking active, non-exploited pools by TVL, 3 of the top 10 are Curve DEX pools (DAI-USDC-USDT, USDC-RLUSD, FRAX-USDE on Ethereum) — the rest span USD AI, Re, Multipli.fi, Balancer V3, Frax, and Pendle. The largest, USD AI's SUSDAI on Arbitrum at ~$304M, and Curve's classic 3pool (DAI-USDC-USDT) at ~$160M, illustrate how basket-stablecoin liquidity has diversified well beyond Curve's original stableswap dominance — though yields on the biggest pools here are thin (Curve's 3pool APY is effectively 0%), with the higher-yielding entrants (Re's REUSD ~6.1%, Multipli.fi's RWAUSDI ~3.9%) carrying newer, less-battle-tested protocol risk.

Multi-Exposure Stablecoin Pools: Where Curve Sits Among the Largest

Top 10 Multi-Exposure Stablecoin Pools by TVL

Curve's value-accrual model long predates Uniswap's fee switch: users lock CRV for up to 4 years to receive veCRV, which grants boosted rewards, gauge-voting power, and a direct share of protocol fees (routed via crvUSD minting fees and admin fees on non-crvUSD markets). Per Curve's own weekly metrics [1][2], CRV circulating supply stands around 1.53B with roughly 853M CRV locked as veCRV (~786M veCRV total) — a lock ratio near 56% of circulating supply. veCRV holders currently earn an APR of ~5.4% (up from ~1.7% a few months earlier) [1], funded by crvUSD minting-fee distributions (~$182k in the most recent tracked week) [1] plus admin fees now also flowing in from the new Llamalend v2 non-crvUSD markets on Optimism [5]. A live DAO proposal would shift the crvUSD-fee split from 80/20 (scrvUSD/veCRV) toward 50/50, redirecting more revenue to veCRV lockers now that the crvUSD peg is holding firmly near $1.00 [3] — unverified/pending as of the article date, not confirmed as passed.

veCRV: The Vote-Escrow Fee Distribution Mechanism

Curve Holder Revenue (veCRV Distribution Proxy, 1Y)

crvUSD (Curve's overcollateralized stablecoin) and Llamalend (its lending markets) are Curve's other major growth vector. Per Curve's own reporting [1][5], crvUSD circulating supply is roughly $27-65M in mint volume swings week to week (with a broader ~$367M crvUSD supply across 93,770+ holders cited separately [5]), scrvUSD (the yield-bearing wrapper) currently yields ~3.4%, and the peg has held close to $1.00. Llamalend v2 — funded by a 17.45M CRV (~$6.7M) DAO grant to Swiss Stake AG — just launched first on Optimism with ERC-4626 vault accounting and a new admin-fee route that sends non-crvUSD market fees to the DAO treasury [5], a structural expansion beyond the original crvUSD-only lending model.

crvUSD & Llamalend: The Stablecoin/Lending Engine

Approximated as reported market cap ÷ price (CoinGecko-style methodology) — treat as directional, not exact. Curve's own weekly metrics report CRV circulating supply near 1.53B tokens [1], broadly consistent with the DefiLlama-derived series below. CRV emissions (gauge incentives) have declined sharply from the 2020-2021 launch period, and the corresponding annualized inflation rate — daily emission USD value × 365 ÷ market cap — has fallen from over 1,000% at launch to a low single/double-digit percentage today as circulating supply has matured.

CRV Supply, Emissions & Inflation

CRV Circulating Supply (All-Time)

CRV Annualized Token Inflation Rate (All-Time)

The risk curator model—pioneered by Morpho Blue—created an entirely new category of DeFi participant. By separating lending infrastructure from risk management, Morpho enabled specialized firms to compete for depositor AUM across curated vaults. The sector grew from ~$181M in June 2024 to over $10B at peak—a 55x expansion in under 18 months. Today, Morpho and its curator ecosystem operate as co-dependent engines: Morpho's multi-chain expansion powers curator AUM, while curators' institutional credibility drives deposits back into Morpho vaults.

**🚀 June 2026:** Morpho closed a **$175M raise led by a16z Crypto & Paradigm** — validating the curator-as-infrastructure thesis. This week, **Zama + Morpho + Steakhouse** launched the first confidential USDC yield vault on Ethereum, extending the institutional-grade DeFi playbook further.

Morpho's Influence on the Risk Curator Sector

Morpho and its curator ecosystem have grown in tandem—but the curator sector has emerged as a distinct, parallel capital stack. Starting from near-zero in mid-2024, curator AUM briefly exceeded Morpho's own TVL at peak before both markets corrected. The chart below illustrates how tightly linked these two ecosystems have become—and why Morpho's continued chain expansion is the single most important driver for the curator sector's next leg of growth.

TVL Race: Morpho vs The Sector It Created

Morpho TVL vs Risk Curator Sector TVL

Market structure is rapidly consolidating. **Steakhouse ($2.12B, +192% YoY)**, **Sentora ($2.0B, +27% 30d)**, and **Gauntlet ($1.47B, +119% YoY)** now dominate the sector. Steakhouse holds a ~$1B AUM lead over second place—a gap that barely existed 12 months ago. The stacked chart reveals Sentora's explosive emergence in 2025 as a new top-tier player, while early leaders like MEV Capital (-91% YoY) and Block Analitica (-42% YoY) ceded share to institutional newcomers with deeper distribution channels.

Curator Concentration: Three Firms Control 73% of AUM

Top 8 Risk Curator TVL Growth (18 Months, Stacked)

Current Curator TVL Rankings

Curator Annualized Revenue (Net Income Proxy)

Each top curator has a distinct playbook: **Steakhouse** built on institutional RWA across 48 vaults with deep MakerDAO/Sky integration. **Sentora** scaled fast in 2025 targeting institutional allocators. **Gauntlet** applies algorithmic risk optimization with a low-fee, high-volume strategy. **MEV Capital** leveraged active MEV strategies for premium fees but shed TVL sharply (-91% YoY). **K3 Capital** (+25% YoY) and **RE7 Labs** (-81% YoY) show the extremes of curator growth divergence—incumbents with legacy positioning losing out to well-capitalized institutional challengers.

Individual Curator TVL: Six Distinct Growth Trajectories

Revenue economics vary sharply across curators. **Steakhouse** leads with ~$3.9M annualized revenue on $2.1B AUM (0.18% management yield). **Gauntlet** earns only ~$325K annualized on $1.47B AUM (0.02%)—reflecting their low-fee algorithmic approach. **MEV Capital** generates the highest fee-to-AUM ratio (~$3.1M annualized on $52.7M TVL, 5.9%)—premium rates for active MEV-integrated strategy despite major TVL loss. **Sentora** runs $41M annualized fees at scale, suggesting a highly scalable fee structure. Revenue trends and full income statements for the two largest curators follow.

Curator Net Income: Thin Margins, High Stakes

The curator sector's growth is inseparable from Morpho's multi-chain expansion. Base has been the biggest growth catalyst—rising from $604M to $2.8B—while Ethereum mainnet anchors at $7.5B+ combined. The chain TVL breakdown and borrowed distribution below reveal which deployments drive the most lending utilization and therefore curator fee generation. Morpho's income statement shows the protocol's own take above and below the curator layer.

Morpho Infrastructure: The Foundation Enabling Curator Growth

All 30 tracked risk curators ranked by TVL with revenue, fees, and growth metrics. Includes 30d, 90d, and 1Y TVL change for growth trend analysis alongside daily and 30d revenue figures.

Full Risk Curator Sector Leaderboard

A deep dive into Uniswap's dominance in the DEX landscape — volume/fee/revenue share, top pools by TVL and yield, and the new **UNIfication** fee-switch/burn mechanism that turns protocol usage into deflationary UNI value accrual. Figures below combine all Uniswap deployments (V1/V2/V3/V4/Auctions).

Uniswap: Market Share, Liquidity & UNI Value Accrual

Uniswap's (all versions combined) share of total DEX volume, fees, and revenue over the trailing year — computed as Uniswap's protocol-level flow divided by the market-wide DEX category total each day.

The absolute figures behind the share charts above — Uniswap's monthly volume, fees, and revenue in USD terms, unnormalized by category totals, aggregated across all Uniswap deployments since launch.

Uniswap's Raw Volume, Fees & Revenue

Uniswap Monthly DEX Volume (All-Time)

Uniswap Monthly Fees (All-Time)

Uniswap Monthly Revenue (All-Time)

Daily DEX volume divided by TVL — a proxy for how hard Uniswap's liquidity (across all versions) is working.

Uniswap Volume/TVL Ratio (Capital Efficiency, 1Y)

Where liquidity concentrates across Uniswap V2/V3/V4 deployments, and which active pools (TVL ≥ $1M, excluding exploited pools) currently offer the highest APY.

Top Uniswap Pools by TVL

Top Uniswap Pools by Yield (TVL ≥ $1M)

Uniswap TVL (All-Time)

Uniswap's TVL trend above is the cleanest available proxy for net capital inflows/outflows at this time — a token-level net-flow decomposition hit data-quality issues on a subset of long-tail pool tokens during recent weeks (extreme outlier deltas from thin/illiquid pairs), so we're showing the stock (TVL) rather than a noisy derived flow series.

Note on Inflows

In November 2025, Uniswap governance approved **UNIfication** [1][3] — a proposal to finally turn on the long-dormant Uniswap protocol fee switch and route captured fees into a **programmatic UNI burn**. Mechanics: a share of LP fees is diverted into an on-chain **'TokenJar'**; UNI holders can only withdraw their proportional share by permanently burning an equivalent amount of UNI in a companion contract called **'Firepit'** — directly linking protocol usage to UNI supply reduction. The proposal also included a one-off **retroactive burn of 100M UNI** from the treasury (~10% of original 1B supply), estimating what would have burned had the switch been on since launch [4]. Rollout started with Ethereum mainnet v2/v3 pools, then expanded: by mid-June 2026 the fee switch went live across eight Layer 2s including Base, Arbitrum and OP Mainnet [5], adding an estimated ~$27M in annualized burn-eligible revenue — UNI rallied roughly 15-22% intraday on the L2 expansion news [5]. As of mid-January 2026, cumulative burns (ex. the 100M retroactive burn) had reached ~100.17M UNI (~$557M) [4], with post-UNIfication organic burns tracking an annualized pace of ~4-5M UNI/year [4].

UNI Buybacks: The 'UNIfication' Fee Switch & Burn Mechanism

Uniswap Holder Revenue / Buybacks (All-Time)

Approximated as reported market cap ÷ price (CoinGecko methodology) — treat as directional, not exact, since circulating-supply classification methodology can shift over time. Total UNI supply currently stands around 893M tokens, with ~550M scheduled-unlock tokens fully vested per DefiLlama's tracked unlock schedule.

Circulating UNI Supply

UNI Circulating Supply (All-Time)

Side-by-side comparison of the five major lending protocols across TVL, lending deposits, active loans, fees, revenue, and holder revenue. Each chart aggregates all sub-versions (e.g. Aave v1/v2/v3/v4, Morpho Blue + Optimizers, Sky Lending/Money/RWA, Kamino Lend + Liquidity, Euler v1/v2). **Note:** Sky does not track active loans (borrowed); Morpho and Kamino do not track holder revenue — those protocols will not appear in the respective charts. The Lending Deposits chart uses each protocol's TVL metric (DefiLlama's convention for gross supplied assets in lending markets). TVL, Lending Deposits, and Active Loans charts are shown as bar charts and support customizable time frames (daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly grouping) plus a cumulative-totals toggle via the controls on each chart.

Lending Protocol Comparison — All Versions

Total Fees (All Versions)

Protocol Revenue (All Versions)

Holder Revenue — Aave, Sky, Euler

TVL Comparison

Aave TVL By Platform

Aave Fees By Platform

Median APY By Platform

| Protocol | Circulating Supply* | Total Supply | % In Circulation* | Final Unlock Date* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aave (AAVE) | 13.00M | 16.00M | 81.3% | 2019-06-09 |
| Euler (EUL) | 27.18M | 27.18M | 100.0% | 2026-01-01 |
| Kamino (KMNO) | 7.71B | 10.00B | 77.1% | 2027-04-30 |
| Morpho (MORPHO) | 593.34M | 1.00B | 59.3% | 2031-01-02 |
| Sky (SKY) | n/a (no schedule tracked) | 23.46B | n/a | n/a |

*Circulating supply, % in circulation, and final unlock date are derived from DefiLlama's tracked unlock/vesting schedule (tokens unlocked-to-date vs. the last scheduled unlock event), not a CoinGecko-reported circulating supply. For Aave, scheduled events reconcile to only ~81% of total supply (older/undocumented allocations sit outside the tracked schedule), so the figure is a lower bound. Sky has no active unlock schedule tracked in this dataset.

Token Supply & Unlock Overview

Individual token unlock/vesting timelines for each protocol's native token, where tracked.

Token Unlock Schedules

Detailed P&L financials for each protocol — fees, revenue, incentive spend, and net earnings.

Income Statements

A deep dive into Aerodrome's position in the Base DEX landscape — volume/fee/revenue share, top pools by TVL and yield, and veAERO fee-capture mechanics that route staked-LP swap fees to lockers. Figures below combine all Aerodrome deployments (V1 + Slipstream + Ignition).

Aerodrome: Market Share, Liquidity & veAERO Fee Capture

Aerodrome's (all deployments combined) share of total SPOT DEX volume, fees, and revenue over the trailing year — computed as Aerodrome's protocol-level flow divided by the spot-DEX category total each day (excludes derivatives/perps and aggregator volume).

Market Share vs Total Spot DEX Activity

The absolute figures behind the share charts above — Aerodrome's monthly volume, fees, and revenue in USD terms, unnormalized by category totals, aggregated across all Aerodrome deployments since launch.

Aerodrome's Raw Volume, Fees & Revenue

Volume Share of Total Spot DEX Volume

Aerodrome Monthly DEX Volume (All-Time)

Fees Share of Total Spot DEX Fees

Aerodrome Monthly Fees (All-Time)

Revenue Share of Total Spot DEX Revenue

Aerodrome Monthly Revenue (All-Time)

Daily DEX volume divided by TVL — a proxy for how hard Aerodrome's liquidity (across all deployments) is working.

Aerodrome TVL (All-Time)

Aerodrome Volume/TVL Ratio (Capital Efficiency, 1Y)

Aerodrome's ve(3,3) model routes swap fees earned by staked LPs to veAERO lockers via weekly distribution — this is Aerodrome's Revenue metric (staked-LP fee share plus external bribes), shown below across the combined Aerodrome family (V1 + Slipstream + Ignition), not any single deployment.

veAERO: Fee Capture & Buybacks

Aerodrome Holder Revenue / Buybacks (All-Time)

Approximated as reported market cap ÷ price (CoinGecko-style methodology) — treat as directional, not exact, since circulating-supply classification can shift over time and early pre-liquidity days show zero/noisy readings.

IMD

DeFi20 Spot DEXs

Public dashboard library

DeFi20: Jupiter

DeFi20: Curve

Morpho's Influence on Risk Curator Sector

DeFi20: Uniswap

DeFi20 Lending

DeFi20: Aerodrome