Sudoswap: nft marketplaces rating breakdown
AMM for NFTs · 4 chains
The most intellectually interesting design in the category: an automated market maker for NFTs, where liquidity sits in bonding-curve pools rather than in listings, so a floor sweep executes against a curve instead of against somebody’s patience. Fully on-chain, minimal, and it works exactly as described.
The most intellectually interesting design in the category: an automated market maker for NFTs, where liquidity sits in bonding-curve pools rather than in listings, so a floor sweep executes against a curve instead of against somebody’s patience. Fully on-chain, minimal, and it works exactly as described.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What the venue takes | — | 28% | 8 | 6.5 | 2 of 8 | +0.42 |
| What the creator actually gets | not enforced creator royalties · published · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 2 | 6 | 8 of 8 | -1.00 |
| Is anyone actually trading here? | $196 30-day fees collected · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 1 | 5.5 | 6 of 8 | -0.99 |
| Custody and approvals | — | 15% | 8 | 7 | 1 of 8 | +0.15 |
| Chains and collections | — | 10% | 5 | 3.5 | 3 of 8 | +0.15 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by what the creator actually gets, worth -1.00 points against the median
What the venue takes: 8/10
The published marketplace fee, quoted from the venue’s own documentation, alongside thirty days of fees actually collected from public data — because a headline of “0%” and a business that still needs revenue is a combination worth examining. Where a venue charges differently for its own drops or its own chain, that is recorded separately.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 2nd of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 28% weight that is 0.42 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
What the creator actually gets: 2/10
Whether creator royalties are enforced, optional, or capped, per the venue’s own documentation. This is the category’s defining change: royalties used to be enforced by marketplaces as a courtesy, and the fee war ended that almost everywhere. A buyer should know whether the artist is being paid, and a creator should know before they mint.
Scored 2 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 8th of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 1.00 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 2.
Is anyone actually trading here?: 1/10
Thirty days of fees collected and value held in on-platform bidding pools, from public data at a stated timestamp. In a collapsed market this is the criterion that separates a venue from a website: a marketplace collecting four figures a month has an interface, not a market.
Scored 1 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 6th of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.99 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Custody and approvals: 8/10
Whether listing requires granting a contract approval over your collection, what that approval can do, and the venue’s incident history — including phishing and front-end attacks, which have cost NFT holders far more than contract exploits ever have.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 1st of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is 0.15 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 6.
Chains and collections: 5/10
Chains supported with real activity, and whether the venue is the primary market for the collections on them.
Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 3.5, which places it 3rd of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.15 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 2.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | What the creator actually gets | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Magic Eden | 6 | Ahead by 4 on what the creator actually gets. |
| 5 | Tensor | 5 | Ahead by 3 on what the creator actually gets. |
| 7 | JPG Store | 7 | Ahead by 5 on what the creator actually gets. |
| 8 | Foundation | 7 | Ahead by 5 on what the creator actually gets. |
Questions about this score
How does an NFT AMM work?
+
Liquidity providers deposit NFTs, tokens, or both into a pool with a bonding curve that sets the price as items are bought and sold. Buying pushes the price up along the curve, selling pushes it down, and trades execute instantly against the pool rather than waiting for a counterparty to accept a listing. It solves the matching problem elegantly; it requires liquidity providers willing to hold inventory, which is where it stalled.