Constant-utility market makers were proposed in the seminal paper "A Utility Framework for Bounded-Loss Market Makers" by Chen, Pennock 2007
I don't really get it, but the paper in /Austin/m500-bounty-to-summarize-this-cfmm cites it a few times
1,000Repeating comment from below: Maniswap is and has always been a constant-utility market maker. Market should resolve N/A @Sinclair
Skimmed the paper, not completely enough that I think I can produce a useful summary but enough to put a bet. I think it only applies in cases where you really care about how much of your AMM subsidy is returned.
I don't even know what the current rules for that on manifold are, but new trader bonuses seem to eclipse the initial subsidy anyway.
Plausibly it might matter for someone creating tons and tons of markets, but at that scale you probably have ~linear utility anyway. Maybe someone who puts a massive subsidy on a single market, or highly correlated markets, might be slightly more comfortable with a bespoke AMM curve. But that feels really niche.
@CarsonGale Hey homie. You bet on the fact that you think Magnus Carlsen will win the next 3 World Champs, but he isn't even competing in the 2023 competition. Best update your bet lmao (I didn't realize until after making the market)