Automated Market Makers (AMMs) are a foundational innovation within decentralized finance (DeFi), enabling permissionless and continuous trading without relying on traditional intermediaries. By replacing centralized order books with algorithmic pricing mechanisms, AMMs have transformed how digital assets are exchanged, making liquidity more accessible and markets more efficient

How AMMs Replace Traditional Order Books

In traditional financial markets, trading is facilitated through order books, where buyers and sellers submit bids and asks at specific prices. A trade occurs only when these orders match. While effective, this system depends on active participants and can suffer from low liquidity, especially for less popular assets.

AMMs eliminate the need for matching counterparties. Instead of waiting for a buyer or seller, users trade directly against a liquidity pool—a smart contract containing pairs of tokens supplied by liquidity providers (LPs).

This shift introduces several key advantages:

• Always-available liquidity (as long as funds exist in the pool)
• Permissionless participation (anyone can provide liquidity or trade)
• Elimination of intermediaries (reducing reliance on centralized exchanges)

The x * y = k Model Explained Simply

At the core of most AMMs lies a mathematical formula that governs pricing. The most widely used is the constant product formula:

$x\cdot y=k$

Where:

• x = quantity of Token A in the pool
• y = quantity of Token B in the pool
• k = constant (must remain unchanged after trades)

How it works:

• When a trader buys Token A, they remove some of it from the pool.
• To maintain the constant (k), the pool requires more Token B to be added.
• This adjustment changes the ratio between x and y, which in turn alters the price automatically.

In simple terms:
The more you buy, the more expensive it gets. The more you sell, the cheaper it becomes.

This dynamic pricing mechanism ensures continuous liquidity—but it comes with trade-offs.

Slippage and Price Impact

Because AMMs rely on pool ratios rather than fixed prices, large trades can significantly shift the balance of assets. This leads to two important concepts:

1. Slippage

Slippage is the difference between the expected price of a trade and the actual executed price.
It occurs because the price moves during the transaction.

• Small trades → minimal slippage
• Large trades → higher slippage

2. Price Impact

Price impact refers to how much a trade changes the market price within the pool.

For example:

• If a liquidity pool is shallow (low funds), even a moderate trade can cause a large price swing.
• In deep pools (high liquidity), the same trade has a much smaller effect.

Bottom line:
Liquidity depth determines how stable prices are during trading.

Why Uniswap Changed Trading Forever

The launch of Uniswap marked a turning point in crypto markets. Before AMMs, decentralized exchanges struggled with low liquidity and poor user experience.

Uniswap introduced:

• Simple, elegant AMM design based on x * y = k
• Permissionless liquidity provision, allowing anyone to earn fees
• Seamless token swaps directly from wallets
• Trustless execution via smart contracts

This model unlocked a wave of innovation:

• Yield farming
• Liquidity mining
• Decentralized trading ecosystems

More importantly, it removed gatekeepers. Anyone with a token could create a market for it instantly—no approvals, no listings, no centralized control.

Conclusion

Automated Market Makers are more than just a trading mechanism—they are the core infrastructure of DeFi. By replacing order books with mathematical models and liquidity pools, AMMs enable open, efficient, and decentralized markets.

Understanding how AMMs function—from the constant product formula to slippage dynamics—provides a deeper insight into how value flows across decentralized ecosystems.

👉 Mastering AMMs isn’t optional in DeFi—it’s the difference between guessing and actually understanding how the system works.

NASHVILLE, TN, April 28, 2026 — BTC Inc., a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) (“the Company”) and the organizer of the world’s largest Bitcoin conference, today announced that Bitcoin 2027 will take place in Nashville, Tennessee on July 15–17, 2027. The conference returns to Nashville following two consecutive years at The Venetian in Las Vegas.

A Return to Nashville

Nashville holds particular significance for BTC Inc. The Company was founded and is headquartered in Nashville, and Bitcoin Magazine has operated out of the city throughout its growth as a global publication. In 2026, BTC Inc. opened BMAG, the Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery, a cultural institution dedicated to art, research, and the preservation of Bitcoin’s history, which operates out of the Company’s Nashville office. Bitcoin 2027 reflects the company’s continued investment in the city.

Nashville was also the site of Bitcoin Conference 2024, held at Music City Center, where then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump delivered a keynote address to more than 22,000 attendees. This marked the first time a major U.S. presidential candidate had addressed the global Bitcoin community from the conference stage.

“Nashville is where BTC Inc. was built and where Bitcoin Magazine has grown into a global institution. The Bitcoin Conference travels. That is part of what makes it special, but returning to Nashville in 2027 carries real significance. This is where the organization started, and we are proud to bring the world’s largest Bitcoin gathering back to the city that has always believed in what we are building.”
— Brandon Green, CEO, BTC Inc.

Conference History

The Bitcoin Conference launched in San Francisco in June 2019, drawing approximately 2,000 attendees for what the Company billed as “A Peer-to-Peer Conference.” This was a deliberate effort to reunite the Bitcoin community around a shared vision.

A planned 2020 edition was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Bitcoin 2021 became the first major in-person cryptocurrency conference of the post-pandemic era, relocating to Miami and drawing over 16,000 attendees. The event introduced Jack Dorsey, Michael Saylor, and Senator Cynthia Lummis as recurring voices on the main stage.

The 2022 and 2023 editions in Miami drew an average of 21,000 attendees, with speakers including Adam Back, Saifedean Ammous, Jack Mallers, and Elizabeth Stark. U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also delivered a keynote address in 2023.

Bitcoin 2024 in Nashville drew over 22,000 attendees to Music City Center, where then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump became the first major U.S. presidential candidate to address the conference. Bitcoin 2025 and 2026 were held at The Venetian in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Las Vegas hosted the Bitcoin Conference for two consecutive years at The Venetian, continuing to command over 20,000 attendees annually. U.S. Vice President JD Vance addressed attendees from the main stage, the first sitting Vice President to do so at the conference. Nevada proved a natural fit for an event of this scale, and The Venetian’s facilities set a high bar for production and experience. BTC Inc. is grateful for the partnership and looks forward to carrying that momentum into Nashville.

About BTC Inc.

BTC Inc. is the world’s leading Bitcoin media enterprise, operating Bitcoin Magazine, the Bitcoin Conference, and Bitcoin for Corporations. Through its media, events, and educational platforms, BTC Inc. delivers trusted news, research, and experiences that advance Bitcoin adoption among individuals, institutions, and enterprises worldwide.

BTC Inc. is a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA), a publicly held Bitcoin company that owns and operates a global portfolio of Bitcoin-native enterprises.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements, as defined under U.S. federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “plan,” “will,” “seek,” “target,” or similar expressions.

Forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding BTC Inc.’s business plans and strategies, projected audience size, reach, impressions, expected launch dates, production schedules, and anticipated growth of Bitcoin-related media, events, and services.

These forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and involve numerous assumptions and risks, including Bitcoin price volatility, changes in audience engagement, platform dependency, regulatory developments, competition, and general economic conditions.

Additional details can be found in Nakamoto Inc.’s filings available at www.nakamoto.com and www.sec.gov.

Because Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) is the parent company of BTC Inc., investors should be aware that the performance and risks of BTC Inc.’s operations may affect Nakamoto Inc.’s overall results.

Andre Cronje, the founder of Flying Tulip, argues that a large swath of what many call decentralized finance is no longer DeFi in the strict sense. In an interview with Cointelegraph, Cronje said many protocols have evolved into “teams running for-profit businesses” with upgradeable contracts, off-chain infrastructure, and formal operational controls rather than purely immutable on-chain code.

The shift, Cronje contends, alters the very security model of the space. Where early DeFi hinged on immutable smart contracts, newer systems increasingly rely on proxy upgrades, multisignature controls, infrastructure providers, and human response protocols. “I think what we have today, Flying Tulip included, is no longer DeFi. It’s not decentralized finance. It’s teams running for-profit businesses,” Cronje declared.

The remarks come as the industry confronts a wave of April exploits that broaden the security conversation beyond code audits to questions of operational risk. Flying Tulip itself recently introduced a withdrawal circuit breaker intended to delay or queue withdrawals during abnormal outflows. The move followed high-profile incidents involving Drift Protocol and a related restaking platform, Kelp, which together highlighted the scale of losses in the tens of hundreds of millions of dollars.

According to Cointelegraph’s coverage, the DeFi sector has grappled with losses estimated around $280 million for Drift Protocol and roughly $293 million tied to the Kelp scenario. These figures, while not the sole measure of risk, contributed to a broader debate about how to secure user funds in environments that blend on-chain mechanics with off-chain dependencies.

Crucially, the discussion centers not only on code but on governance, upgrade paths, and the resilience of the entire threat model—encompassing people, processes, and technology stacks that support deployed contracts.

Key takeaways

• DeFi’s security paradigm is expanding from immutable on-chain code to include upgrade processes, multisignature governance, and off-chain infrastructure as critical risk factors.
• Emergency controls such as circuit breakers are increasingly viewed as potential safety nets, but they raise concerns about centralization risk and the possibility of introducing new attack surfaces.
• Industry voices diverge on the right balance between automated safeguards and human intervention; the goal remains to minimize human-centric weaknesses while maintaining funds safety.
• Regulators and traditional finance observers see the evolution as a training ground for resilience, with upgrades and cross-project collaborations shaping a more robust DeFi ecosystem.
• Practically, users and builders should watch how governance, timelocks, and upgrade controls are implemented, and how these mechanisms interact with cross-chain interoperability and bridge security.

The evolving security landscape: from code to controls

In Cronje’s assessment, the DeFi world has shifted from a singular focus on auditing immutable contracts to considering who can alter code, how changes are approved, and whether timelocks or multisig approvals exist to guard against rash or malicious upgrades. He emphasized that audit checks are still essential but insufficient if a system’s governance and upgrade mechanisms can be exploited or manipulated by a compromised actor.

“The focus over all of the industry is still very much on the contract side and not sort of the more TradFi side,” Cronje told Cointelegraph. He pointed to recent exploits that leveraged traditional Web2-style weaknesses—infra access, social engineering, and other human-centered vectors—as evidence that security must extend beyond code audits.

To address upgrade risk, Cronje described Flying Tulip’s circuit breaker as a strategic pause rather than a permanent block. The aim is to “give us time to react” to abnormal capital outflows. The system is designed to pause withdrawals for a window—about six hours for Flying Tulip’s configuration, potentially longer for smaller teams with limited geographic distribution. He framed the circuit breaker as one layer in a multi-layered defense, alongside audits, timelocks, and distributed multisignature controls.

Still, industry voices varied on the desirability and design of emergency controls. Michael Egorov, founder of Curve Finance and Yield Basis, told Cointelegraph that recent incidents illustrate centralization risks and off-chain dependencies rather than pure contract bugs. He warned that a circuit breaker could itself become a vulnerability if the mechanism grants signers the power to alter code or freeze withdrawals in a compromised state.

Egorov argued for DeFi designs that can withstand shocks without requiring manual intervention. “The goal of DeFi design should be to minimize human-centric points of failure, not add to them,” he said. In his view, a resilient system should keep operating safely even when some actors are compromised, reducing reliance on privileged intervention.

Industry reactions: resilience, centralization, and the road ahead

The April incidents have also drawn involvement from traditional financial institutions. Standard Chartered published a note framing the Kelp episode as a signal of DeFi’s growing pains rather than a fatal flaw. The bank highlighted how the total lift in liquidity from the DeFi United coalition surpassed $300 million and noted ongoing upgrades—such as Aave V4 and the Ethereum Economic Zone—that aim to harden the ecosystem and reduce reliance on bridge-based cross-chain flows.

The bank characterized the heightened attention to decentralization and off-chain dependencies as a natural evolution for a space that remains early in its maturation. By incorporating these lessons, proponents argue, DeFi can improve operational resilience and user protection over time, even as the core codebase remains a critical focal point.

DeFi United’s fundraising activity—reported as over $321 million raised or committed according to the coalition’s site—illustrates a broader push to coordinate capital and governance in ways that strengthen defenses and liquidity for recovery scenarios. The big-picture takeaway for builders and investors is clear: risk management in DeFi is transitioning from a purely code-centric problem to a holistic program that blends on-chain security with robust governance, incident response, and cross-chain reliability.

What this means for builders and users

The shift Cronje describes has practical implications for developers, investors, and users. First, upgradeability introduces a new category of risk that must be mitigated with transparent governance, clear upgrade paths, and stringent access controls. Projects that rely on proxy patterns or admin keys will need to demonstrate robust disclosure and rigorous security reviews of their upgrade processes.

Second, the growing emphasis on operational risk elevates the importance of off-chain infrastructure and third-party dependencies. Audits can verify code correctness, but a compromised infrastructure provider or a successful social-engineering campaign can still endanger funds. This reality argues for diversified infrastructure, strict access management, and redundant systems to reduce single points of failure.

Third, the debate about circuit breakers highlights a tension between safety and centralization. While pause mechanisms can prevent cascading losses during extreme events, they also introduce a centralized layer that could be politicized or misused if not designed carefully. The consensus among many builders remains that any emergency control should be transparent, auditable, and have clear, time-bound constraints that limit abuse vectors.

For investors, these dynamics imply a recalibration of risk models. The strongest DeFi projects in the coming years may be those that demonstrate comprehensive governance architectures, robust migration and upgrade protocols, and explicit plans for incident response that minimize human-centric vulnerabilities while preserving user access and trust.

What to watch next

As the industry absorbs these lessons, observers will be watching how new security frameworks evolve. Expect continued experimentation with circuit breakers, time-locked upgrades, and multi-party governance, all aimed at reducing both on-chain and off-chain risk. Regulators and traditional financial actors will likely scrutinize governance processes and operational controls, seeking to codify best practices that can scale with the sector’s growth.

Readers should monitor how major DeFi protocols balance upgradeability with immutability, and how bridges and cross-chain infrastructure evolve to minimize single points of failure. The ongoing dialogue around resilience—covering code, governance, and operational risk—will shape which projects gain broader adoption and how quickly the sector can recover from future shocks.

• The ApeCoin token has shed 12% of its price value in the past 24 hours.
• Pudgy Penguins and Blur have also dipped as NFT sector tokens suffer profit-taking.
• APE faces potential deeper losses to $0.081 unless fresh catalysts emerge.

ApeCoin (APE), the governance token powering the ApeCoin ecosystem tied to the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFTs, has seen a sharp reversal.

After riding a brief NFT sector rally, APE plunged 12% over the past 24 hours and was trading around $0.14 at the time of writing.

The decline erased much of its intraday gains, during which the token briefly surged above $0.18. The losses highlight the volatile nature of meme and NFT-linked tokens amid broader market profit-taking.

APE pares gains after sector rally fades

ApeCoin’s downturn follows a broader NFT sector rally that lifted several related tokens before momentum faded. The token surged over the past week alongside peers such as Pudgy Penguins’ PENGU and Blur’s BLUR, driven by renewed hype around non-fungible tokens.

PENGU, for instance, climbed as the Pudgy Penguins NFT collection’s floor price spiked, drawing speculative inflows into the ecosystem. BAYC floor prices also rose during the rally.

However, the momentum proved short-lived. Both PENGU and APE have since given up a significant portion of their gains, with PENGU’s daily trading volume dropping 50% to $132 million.

The pullback reflects profit-taking after NFT-linked assets briefly outperformed the broader market.

APE’s retreat mirrors this trend, as traders exited positions amid fading enthusiasm.

Data from CoinMarketCap shows APE’s 24-hour trading volume surged to nearly $300 million at the peak before normalizing as selling pressure increased.

The token’s failure to hold above the key $0.18 resistance level points to weakening buyer conviction, further accelerating the decline.

What next for APE token?

Like most meme and NFT-related tokens, ApeCoin faces an uncertain near-term outlook, largely tied to cooling sentiment in the NFT market.

While spikes in NFT activity often support tokens like APE, the broader market’s lack of sustained momentum has limited upside.

Analysts point to ongoing weakness in NFT fundamentals, with sales volumes and transaction activity failing to match the hype-driven price surges seen in recent weeks.

Data from platforms such as OpenSea and Blur indicate a decline in overall NFT sales over the past seven days, putting additional pressure on ecosystem tokens.

From a technical perspective, indicators suggest the possibility of further downside. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) has pulled back from overbought levels and is trending around 68. While not yet bearish, a move toward 50 or lower could open the door for a retest of the all-time low near $0.081.

On the upside, a recovery in sentiment could push APE toward the $0.20 and $0.30 levels, though that would likely require renewed strength in the broader NFT market.

 

Andre Cronje says much of decentralized finance is “no longer DeFi” in the strict sense, as builders debate whether circuit breakers and other emergency controls are now necessary to protect users from exploits.

The Flying Tulip founder told Cointelegraph in an interview that many protocols are no longer immutable public goods, but rather “teams running for-profit businesses” with upgradeable contracts, offchain infrastructure and operational controls.

That shift changes the security model, he said. While early DeFi protocols were mostly defined by immutable smart contracts, newer systems often depend on proxy upgrades, multisigs, infrastructure providers, admin processes and human response teams, according to Cronje. 

“I think what we have today, Flying Tulip included, is no longer DeFi. It’s not decentralized finance. It’s not immutable code,” Cronje said. “It’s teams running for-profit businesses.” 

The comments come as April’s DeFi exploits pushed security narratives beyond smart contract audits and into questions of operational risk. On Thursday, Flying Tulip added a withdrawal circuit breaker designed to delay or queue withdrawals during abnormal outflows. The move follows major incidents involving decentralized exchange Drift Protocol and restaking platform Kelp, with estimated losses of about $280 million and $293 million, respectively. 

Flying Tulip’s Andre Cronje (left) and Cointelegraph’s Ezra Reguerra (right). Source: Cointelegraph

DeFi risks move beyond smart contracts

Cronje said the industry focuses on audits when many systems can be changed by developers or controlled through administrative processes. 

“The focus over all of the industry is still very much so on the contract side and not sort of the more TradFi side,” Cronje told Cointelegraph, adding that many recent exploits have involved “traditional Web2 stuff” such as infrastructure access, compromises and social engineering.

He said protocols with upgradeable contracts need traditional checks and balances around who can upgrade code, who approves changes and whether there are proper timelocks and multisig controls. 

Related: Ethereum backers pledge up to 30,000 ETH to rsETH recovery after bridge incident

Curve Finance and Yield Basis founder Michael Egorov shared the view that recent incidents show the risks are increasingly tied to centralization and offchain dependencies rather than only smart contract bugs.

“The vast majority of the most recent DeFi exploits happened not due to errors in code,” Egorov told Cointelegraph. “They happened because of centralization risks — single points of failure which live off-chain.”

Egorov said Aave, Kelp and LayerZero smart contracts were not hacked in the recent rsETH incident, arguing that the compromise came from offchain infrastructure. He said DeFi protocols can be exposed to “a whole tree of risks,” with the largest risks often tied to humans rather than code. 

Circuit breakers divide DeFi builders

Cronje said Flying Tulip’s circuit breaker is not designed to permanently block withdrawals, but to create a response window when outflows exceed normal parameters. “Our circuit breaker isn’t actually designed so that we can stop or prevent anything from happening,” he said. “It’s to give us time to react.”

Flying Tulip’s system gives the team about six hours, although Cronje said smaller or less geographically distributed teams may need 12 to 24 hours, or even longer. He said the tool makes sense for contracts that hold user funds, but should be viewed as one layer among audits, distributed multisigs, timelocks and other controls.

“Security is always a layered approach,” Cronje said. “It’s never a ‘this is the one thing’ that makes you invulnerable.”

Related: Aave asks Arbitrum to send 30K ETH from Kelp exploiter to ‘DeFi United’

Egorov was more cautious. He said circuit breakers can make sense in theory, but only if they are implemented in a way that does not create a new privileged attack surface. “The circuit breakers are controlled by humans, which means they could become a potential vulnerability themselves,” Egorov told Cointelegraph. 

He warned that if emergency controls allow signers to change contract code or block withdrawals, compromised signers could turn the safeguard into a drainer or a centralized freeze mechanism. In his view, the better long-term answer is to design systems that can keep running safely without manual intervention. 

“The goal of DeFi design should be to minimize human-centric points of failure, not add to them,” Egorov said. “DeFi needs to be safe, and safety comes from decentralization.” 

Standard Chartered says Kelp episode shows DeFi resilience 

Standard Chartered framed the Kelp episode as a sign of DeFi’s growing pains rather than a fatal failure. 

In a Wednesday research note seen by Cointelegraph, the bank said the April 18 theft exposed systemic risks after the impact spread to Aave, but said the more than $300 million raised by the DeFi United coalition and structural changes such as Aave V4 and the Ethereum Economic Zone suggest the sector is developing stronger defenses. 

DeFi United site shows over $321 million raised or committed. Source: DeFi United

The bank said those upgrades could reduce reliance on bridges, which it described as a major attack vector in recent crypto hacks.

Magazine: AI-driven hacks could kill DeFi — unless projects act now

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

• AAVE price consolidates as market awaits recovery clarity.
• rsETH recovery plan addresses $246M bad debt from the Kelp DAO exploit.
• The immediate resistance sits at $100 as governance execution drives the outlook.

AAVE token is currently priced at $97.13, down 0.3% over the past 24 hours, while the broader market has remained slightly positive.

That difference has kept AAVE in focus, not because of broad weakness, but because traders are waiting to see whether the proposed recovery plan designed to restore rsETH collateral after the Kelp DAO exploit can be executed cleanly.

The key question is whether the recovery effort can remove uncertainty fast enough to allow the token to reclaim the $100 mark and hold above it.

rsETH collateral recovery plan takes centre stage

The main driver behind AAVE’s current setup is the technical plan proposed to rebuild rsETH collateral after the exploit linked to Kelp DAO.

The exploit left about $246 million in bad debt across Aave and Compound, creating pressure for a coordinated solution rather than a simple market fix.

The proposed plan is designed to restore backing for rsETH and reduce the fallout without spreading the losses across users.

https://t.co/9eUfrt0ESE

— Aave (@aave) April 28, 2026

At the centre of the proposal is a governance-led process across Ethereum and Arbitrum.

The plan calls for temporary oracle adjustments and the liquidation of the attacker’s positions in a controlled way. That makes the recovery effort more structured, but also more dependent on execution.

Advertisement

Traders are now watching the proposal as a practical test of whether Aave Protocol can repair collateral damage without introducing more risk.

In the short term, that uncertainty has kept sentiment measured, even though the plan itself is aimed at stabilising the system.

AAVE price outlook

AAVE’s near-term outlook now depends heavily on how the recovery plan unfolds.

On a technical standpoint, the immediate support is near $96. The token has already spent time close to that area, and a failure to hold it could shift the market tone back toward caution.

Advertisement

A drop below $94 would be more concerning because it would suggest the market is no longer treating the recovery effort as a near-term stabilising force.

The broader technical picture also shows that AAVE is consolidating rather than trending aggressively.

Its current level is close to the 30-day simple moving average of $96.95, which supports the idea that the market is waiting for confirmation before committing to a stronger directional move.

What matters next

Market participants will be looking for approval of the temporary changes needed to support the recovery, as well as signs that collateral restoration is progressing without delays.

If those milestones are reached, AAVE could gain enough confidence to challenge the $100 level again.

Advertisement

Trading volume also shows that the market is engaged but not yet convinced.

The latest 24-hour volume of $254.39 million reflects active participation, but not a broad rush into the token. That usually means the market is waiting for a clearer signal before taking stronger positions.

---

Share this article

---

Categories

---

Tags

Advertisement