Premiablue V3 legacy use cases and their limits

Legacy status and ended OLM emissions

V3 was a poor fit for a plan that needed active development or fresh Options Liquidity Mining (OLM) emissions. Premia Labs stated on August 15, 2025, that development of Premia V3 had halted. The announcement also reported the end of OLM emissions. The halt concerned development, while an existing position's status depended on that position's own terms and state.

Existing pools and tailored RFQ quotes

Buying a chosen option depended on a matching contract and usable quote, whether liquidity came from a pool or the request-for-quote (RFQ) network.

Pool quotes from supplied liquidity

A pool's quote depended on trade size and the current market state. This path suited an option contract with supplied liquidity and acceptable pricing. A market's existence alone did not establish that its available quote would accommodate the desired size or cost.

RFQ responses for a specified contract

The RFQ network let a trader request a particular option contract and receive customized market-maker quotes. Market-makers could supply off-chain quotes that the exchange could then process, connecting external pricing with the options trading system.

The same time constraint applied to both routes: an urgent trade needed a usable offer before its deadline. Pool creation and quote requests described ways to obtain liquidity; neither action alone established an executed position. A request's specificity did not promise that a market-maker would respond.

Which custom option markets could V3 accommodate?

V3's Arbitrum launch design accommodated custom option markets when the token pair had a valid on-chain spot price oracle. Market creators selected the underlying and quote tokens, call or put type, strike, expiration, and initial exposure. Strike prices used round numbers, and expirations extended up to one year. Holders could exercise these European-style options only at or after expiration. ERC-20 compatibility alone did not satisfy the oracle requirement.

Seeding a pool supplied starting liquidity for that particular option. It did not create outside demand or make an unsuitable expiration fit a time-sensitive task. The useful outcome was a market with the intended specifications; a desired trade still needed an acceptable offer for those terms.

Managing exposure directly or delegating a strategy

Direct liquidity provision fitted control over a selected option market, while strategy vaults fitted delegation of options execution. Both involved exposure to the strategies being run. The appropriate choice therefore depended on the intended exposure and capacity to monitor it.

Range orders for chosen market exposure

Liquidity providers specified premium ranges for their market-making positions. Range orders changed exposure as market prices crossed those ranges, and reversals could generate further trading fees. That behavior mattered when the task required earning fees while accepting changes in option exposure.

An automatically changing position required attention to its range and exposure. The design did not fit an expectation that fee collection would leave the position's exposure unchanged.

Strategy vaults for delegated execution

Vaults automated options strategies and shared returns across depositors. The launch architecture included strategies from Premia teams and third parties, using range orders or quote-based liquidity. Delegation reduced the need to execute every strategy action personally, while leaving returns dependent on the strategy's performance and charges.

View full-size image

Costs and locks that changed the fit

A quoted premium alone did not describe every cost associated with a legacy V3 options task. Premium and notional measured different things: the option's price and the value of its underlying exposure. The September 7, 2023 V3 base-layer schedule set trading commissions at the greater of 3% of premiums paid or 0.3% of transacted notional. The notional-based amount determined that commission whenever it exceeded the premium-based amount. Settlement carried a separate fee, and governance could change the rates.

Delegated execution introduced another cost structure. The same 2023 schedule assigned in-house native vaults a yearly 2% management fee and a 20% fee on positive returns. Third-party vault fees were negotiated individually. Those distinctions affected comparisons between direct options activity and depositing into a strategy; the positive-return fee did not apply to the entire balance.

Locking PREMIA for vxPREMIA also changed access to capital. The design linked influence and associated benefits to the stake's size and lock duration. Locked tokens could not be withdrawn until the chosen period ended. The September 2023 schedule set lock periods from 10 days to four years and a minimum 10-day withdrawal period. That commitment conflicted with a requirement for immediately accessible PREMIA.

Matching a quote to the intended job

Suppose a V3 trade had both a pool quote and an RFQ response. The comparison concerned the cost of obtaining a selected option position. Both offers therefore needed the same contract terms and size, with cost determined by quoted premiums, transacted notional, and applicable fees.

View full-size image

• Match the underlying and quote tokens, option type, strike, expiration, and trade size across both offers.
• Compare quoted premiums together with the applicable trading and settlement charges.
• Rank an offer by total cost only after its terms and size match the intended trade.
• Confirm the resulting option position against the selected terms and size.

If the completed trade produced a different contract or size, it failed to match the intended exposure. A displayed quote alone did not demonstrate a completed trade.

Portfolio margin and cross-chain swaps in separate products

Portfolio margin and multi-leg trading belonged to the Kyan architecture that Premia Labs described during the August 2025 rebrand. That separate system combined options and perpetual futures. V3's launch material described partial collateralization as planned margin work, separately from Kyan's later architecture. A requirement for portfolio margin or multi-leg trading pointed toward evaluating Kyan on its own terms, rather than importing its features into the legacy exchange.

View full-size image

Archetype addressed cross-chain token swaps, a different task from V3 options trading. Shared development under Premia Labs did not make those products' positions, fees, or execution methods interchangeable.