Fomo Includes AMM Fees in Expected Receivable Amounts
Paul Lange, head of Fomo products, stated that the platform will include AMM fees in the expected receivable amounts users see before transactions.
The controversy arises from the external characterization of Fomo's trading costs as low as $0.10, which may not cover automated market maker pool fees, routing fees, and on-chain execution costs.
Fomo chooses to display AMM fees at the quote level, rather than just showing a single low fee at the application or network layer; users see the expected output after fees before confirming the transaction.
AMM fees are typically earned by liquidity providers and belong to a different cost layer than platform interface fees, protocol fees, and blockchain gas fees; the actual amount received is also affected by slippage and on-chain conditions.
Fomo currently discloses 30-day fees of approximately $2.25 million, with about $2.16 million from Solana and approximately $96,800 from Hyperliquid; total fees amount to about $20.07 million.
In market mechanisms, trading users bear both explicit and implicit transaction costs, liquidity providers earn AMM fees, and Fomo generates application layer trading revenue. The upfront display of fees does not reduce costs but shifts the competitive focus from "lowest nominal fee rate" to "final receivable amount" competition.
Source: Public information
ABAB AI Insight
Fomo is continuing to follow the route of productizing complex on-chain costs through aggregated trading products. Jupiter's Ultra Swap has integrated real-time slippage estimates and dynamic priority fees into the trading experience, charging 0.05% or 0.1% fees for different trades; its underlying swap default protocol fee is zero, but connecting parties can set their own platform fees.
On the capital path, Fomo completed a $75 million Series B financing led by Index Ventures in 2026, with a valuation of approximately $550 million. The funding supports its integration of wallets, cross-chain routing, and social trading as entry points, with fee transparency directly serving to improve trading conversion rates, retention, and revenue per user, rather than just interface design.
Historically, Uniswap Labs charged a 0.15% interface fee on some trades on the web and wallet sides, deducted from the output tokens; its official explanation also clearly distinguishes between interface fees and protocol fees. Fomo's strategy is closer to merging multi-layer costs into the final quote, rather than requiring users to dissect each fee entity.
This represents a shift in pricing power: when routing, liquidity, gas, and slippage are bundled into a single "expected receivable amount," users no longer primarily compare a specific fee rate but rather compare the net outputs offered by different entry points. Applications that control the quoting interface will gain order flow access, while liquidity pools, validators, and routers will participate in distributing this transaction cost in the background.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
Low rates do not equal low costs; the receivable amount is the price.
The quoting interface controls users, and order flow controls pricing power.
Transparency will not eliminate fees; it will only rewrite comparison standards.