Bots, Solvers, and Aggregators: Unveiling Stabull’s Trading Ecosystem

Bots, Solvers, and Aggregators: Who Is Actually Trading Through Stabull?

By Jamie McCormick, Co-CMO, Stabull Labs

The thirteenth article in the 15 part “Deconstructing DeFi” Series.

⸻

It’s not just one type of user, but rather a variety of people – each using Stabull in a unique way and contributing a specific function to how DeFi works.

In this article, we break down the three most important actors we observed:

bots
solvers
aggregators

As a crypto investor, I’ve been looking into why Stabull is seeing increasing trading volume that doesn’t seem to be just short-term spikes. Figuring out *how* their systems work really explains where that consistent volume is coming from – it’s not just people trying to quickly make a buck, it seems to be more sustained activity.

Bots: the first layer of execution

Bots are often the earliest adopters of new liquidity venues.

These systems run constantly, monitoring prices from both blockchain data and traditional sources. They automatically make trades when specific, pre-set rules are triggered – these rules are typically very precise and straightforward.

price discrepancies
FX misalignments
small arbitrage windows
inventory rebalancing

When a bot routes through a Stabull pool, it is typically because:

the pool’s pricing closely tracks off-chain reference rates
slippage is predictable for the trade size
execution can complete atomically

Bots aren’t concerned with things like brand image, user experience, or rewards. Their only focus is on successfully completing tasks and making a profit.

Since Stabull pools rely on external price feeds (oracles), traders often use them to fine-tune prices as part of a larger trade. This leads to the following outcomes:

frequent, small trades
consistent fee generation
minimal directional exposure

From an LP perspective, bot activity is usually the first signal that liquidity is “working.”

Solvers: optimising entire transactions

Solvers sit one layer above bots.

Instead of just carrying out one specific trade, modern systems try to find the best way to complete a transaction – often by looking at many different markets – while also considering limitations like budget or time.

best execution
gas efficiency
atomic settlement
failure minimisation

When trying to find a solution, a program might consider different options before settling on one. Choosing a Stabull pool involves a deliberate trade-off:

choosing reliability over raw depth
prioritising price alignment over speculative liquidity
valuing deterministic execution inside an atomic transaction

In the Base transactions we traced, solvers frequently used Stabull pools as:

intermediate conversion steps
stable FX anchors
execution legs that reduced overall failure risk

Solvers are key because when they approve a liquidity pool, that approval is automatically applied to many future transactions, saving time and effort.

This is how volume compounds quietly.

Aggregators: abstracting everything away

Aggregators are the most noticeable players, despite often being the most removed from where transactions actually happen.

For users, an aggregator simply locates the best option. However, it actually does much more behind the scenes:

queries many pools
evaluates slippage and gas
assembles multi-leg routes
submits atomic transactions

Stabull pools are showing up more often when calculating the best trading routes, and it’s not always because they have the most funds available. Instead, they offer benefits because:

price stably
fail less often
integrate cleanly into complex paths

OpenOcean successfully integrated with Base and is now routing orders live through Stabull pools, demonstrating how well this system works.

Once an aggregator integration is live, flow becomes:

continuous
UI-agnostic
driven by external demand

From that point onward, volume is no longer tied to Stabull’s own user acquisition efforts.

How these actors interact

It’s important to note that bots, solvers, and aggregators are not isolated.

In practice:

aggregators rely on solvers
solvers deploy bots
bots test and validate liquidity

Stabull sits beneath all three, providing a stable execution surface they can rely on.

This layered interaction explains why non-UI volume tends to arrive gradually, then accelerate:

bots test the pools
solvers begin including them
aggregators route flow automatically

By the time volume becomes visible on dashboards, much of the groundwork has already been laid.

Why this matters for Stabull

This pattern reinforces an important point:

Stabull isn’t growing through quick marketing tricks or risky investments. Its growth comes from building essential, long-term tools and services.

After pools are integrated into how a system operates, they keep running even if the market changes, fewer people use the interface, or the rewards aren’t as appealing.

That is why non-UI volume is often:

steadier
more durable
more closely tied to real economic activity

Looking ahead

Our next article will explain exactly how atomic swaps function from start to finish, and why the way Stabull is designed is well-suited for handling them.

About the Author

Jamie McCormick is a Co-Chief Marketing Officer at Stabull Finance. He’s been with the company for over two years, focusing on how the protocol fits into the changing world of DeFi.

He also founded Bitcoin Marketing Team in 2014, which is known as Europe’s longest-running crypto marketing agency. For the past ten years, the agency has partnered with many different projects in the digital asset and Web3 spaces.

Jamie started following cryptocurrency back in 2013, and has always been particularly interested in Bitcoin and Ethereum. More recently, over the past two years, he’s become increasingly focused on decentralized finance – specifically, how it actually works in practice, not just as a concept.

2026-04-06 23:05