This grant covers the integration of CoW AMM’s and the trading of CoW AMM LP tokens in Tycho, an open source swap indexer.
By integrating CoW AMM’s and the trading of CoW AMM LP tokens any solver that uses Tycho will we able to immediately support trading user orders with CoW AMM’s and buying/selling CoW AMM LP tokens, without any additional technical implementation required from the solvers.
Type of Grant:
Milestone based.
Milestones:
| Milestones | Title | | Due date (*) | Funding request
| Milestone 1 | Support for CoW AMM’s and CoW AMM LP tokens in Tycho | 2025.03.30 | |
| Milestone 2 | Solvers support CoW AMM LP tokens (see below)| | 2025.04.30 | | $10,000 xDAI|
The technical specifications for milestone 1 are:
Provide a summary on how CowAMM contracts call each other
Create a Solidity Adapter Contract for CoW AMM’s that supports both regular swaps and token ↔ CoW AMM LP token swaps (and thus minting/burning the LP token)
90% of sell quote orders involving CoW AMM LP tokens receive a response from at least 1 solver over the course of a month
90% of user orders involving a CoW AMM LP token (i.e. buying or selling a CoW AMM LP token) receive a response from at least 1 solver over the course of a month. These are filtered by orders that respect the quote and set a reasonable slippage price.
Length:
Four weeks for the technical integration, with another four weeks for monitoring and solver integrations.
Funding request:
$10,000 xDAI.
Terms and Conditions
By submitting this grant application, I acknowledge and agree to be bound by the CoW DAO Participation Agreement and the CoW Grant Terms and Conditions
I like the sound of this bounty, allowing users to trade CoW AMM LP tokens would be a great benefit to CoW Protocol. Also adding the support for CoW AMM’s in Tycho would make it much easier for solvers to add support for CoW AMM’s. I be happy to see this bounty come to fruition and would be happy to help with the reviewing/evaluation of this bounty if that’s needed.
Hey @mfw78 – Tycho is already integrated with several CowSwao solvers (including one run by our team).
Once CowAMM is integrated into Tycho – it’s simple for solvers using Tycho to support all CowAMM pools and swaps in and out of LP tokens (basically a 10 min change of a config).
In regards to this Grant Request, given the mechanics of the solver competition, IMO it’s prudent that Grants are not biased to one, or a handful of solvers, but instead apply Grants / Bounties that are available for all solvers to compete in, otherwise it feels that it is unfairly favouring specific solvers - tilting competition market mechanics.
The root problem seems to be lack of solvers integrating CoW AMMs - there was a suggested bounty (Bounty For Quoting With CoW AMM's - #2 by solver_cow), which I’d be more a fan of in that it creates a competitive unbiased landscape - save resolving the issues that I raised on that grant.
Hi @markus - after some robust internal debate, it would be good to also please have the full context as to the breadth of solvers that this integration would assist.
@mfw78 There are actually 3 separate issues (and by “issue” I mean “development that many of us would like to see in order to enhance CoW AMMs’ performance”):
More solvers settling trades using CoW AMM liquidity
More solvers quoting using CoW AMM liquidity
Solvers supporting swapping LP tokens (in order to allow users to “swap & deposit” or “withdraw & swap” in a single transaction)
The bounty you linked addresses Issue #2.
This grant would address Issues #1 and #3.
Re: sticking to unbiased, open bounties to resolve these issues, there actually already is an internal solver bounty to reward solvers who settle against CoW AMM liquidity (Issue #1). However, feedback from solvers suggests that integrating CoW AMM is a non-trivial task that would hinder their other existing priorities as a business; the existing bounty is not sufficient to make up for that. This proposal is actually a step towards leveling the playing field by making it easier for solvers to integrate CoW AMM without compromising their other existing priorities.
I believe there is also (or has been) an open bounty for LP tokens, and it hasn’t been successful. (@solver_cow can correct me if I’m wrong.)
These was a bounty, which was the one that I cited, but you can see my comments on it.
Nonetheless, I think we’re deviating from the grant at hand. @markus are you able to please address two questions:
How many solvers currently implement Tycho?
The integration that this grant references - will solvers be able to reasonably run the integration in a self-sovereign manner without any API dependencies etc?
Since Tycho is an open source library I believe that this is equally accessible to all solvers and is a reasonable alternative to make the integration of swapping CoW AMM LP tokens easier for solvers and to create a baseline level of support for CoW AMM LP tokens.
@markus can give a better answer to points #1 and #2. I believe there are currently 3 solvers who currently implement Tycho and I’m not sure about any external dependencies.
Hi @markus , thanks kindly for the information. As you can see, I’m quite adamant about Grants remaining impartial in the solver competition. Given the full openness and accessibility of the utility produced by this Grant to all solvers, I signal my support in favour of this grant.
I signal my support to this proposal, as it seems to provide meaningful utility for CoW AMM and remains open-source and accessible to all solvers. Thanks to @mfw78 for the solid questions, @markus for addressing them thoroughly, and @Silver_Queen for adding valuable context.
I think there is enough positiv signalling to move to Snapshot for the committee to vote. Ideally, if you move it still today makes sense with the committee available tomorrow (Friday) to review and decide, else (with the three day voting period), it makes sense to pre-schedule to commence on Monday.
Not sure why @Chim9 's response has been hidden in discourse (visible only to moderators). @markus can you please ensure that the grant application complies with the template. A notable omission is the location to which to send funds
As such, please kindly remove the previous snapshot and start a snapshot vote again with the correct template
