Recently, there has been a lot of debate about whether the "AMM model is sustainable." Some people are skeptical, while others are optimistic. Let's break it down.

Ultimately, whether AMM can survive long-term depends on its performance in different market environments.

First, let's look at low-volatility trading pairs—such as stablecoin to stablecoin, or mainstream coin to mainstream coin. In these scenarios, the advantages of AMM are quite clear. Why? Because automated market makers can offer participants with low capital costs relatively stable returns. This can easily outperform professional market makers with higher capital costs. Simply put, if your capital cost is low, AMM can compete with you.

Next, consider high-volatility long-tail assets—such as emerging tokens and niche projects. These assets are highly volatile and risky. But this is precisely where AMM shines. Almost no professional market maker is willing to take on this work, but AMM can provide liquidity support on a large scale. This capability remains unique at present.

Therefore, instead of worrying about whether AMM can survive, it's better to look at how it performs in specific scenarios. The model itself is sound; the key is matching it appropriately to the application.