When STONfi launched cross-chain, a choice had to be made about the execution model for swaps between networks. They could have gone the AMM route, like in regular pools, but they chose RFQ - requesting quotes from market makers. And that decision shaped how the protocol works today.

AMM is an automated market maker. A model where the price is determined by a formula based on the token balance in a pool. It works perfectly inside one network because liquidity can be gathered in one place and managed through a smart contract. But in cross-chain a problem arises, tokens are in different networks, and gathering them into one pool is technically impossible without a bridge.

RFQ solves this problem differently. The protocol does not try to create a shared pool. Instead it sends requests to market makers who hold liquidity in different networks. They provide quotes accounting for current rates, commissions, and their own risks. Omniston collects the responses and picks the best offer for the user.

This approach has several advantages. First, there is no bridge and no associated risks. Tokens are not locked in an intermediate contract, they are delivered directly to the recipient. Second, there is no slippage issue typical for AMM with large volumes. The market maker sets the price themselves and takes responsibility for executing it.

The downside is that RFQ depends on the number of active market makers. The more there are, the more precise the rate and the smaller the spread. But with the cross-chain network expanding from five to seven blockchains, the number of participants is growing, and competition between them works in the user's favor. Omniston chose RFQ because cross-chain requires flexibility that AMM cannot provide. And so far this model is delivering.

$GRAM