Paper detail

Generalizing Impermanent Loss on Decentralized Exchanges with Constant Function Market Makers

Liquidity providers are essential for the function of decentralized exchanges to ensure liquidity takers can be guaranteed a counterparty for their trades. However, liquidity providers investing in liquidity pools face many risks, the most prominent of which is impermanent loss. Currently, analysis of this metric is difficult to conduct due to different market maker algorithms, fee structures and concentrated liquidity dynamics across the various exchanges. To this end, we provide a framework to generalize impermanent loss for multiple asset pools obeying any constant function market maker with optional concentrated liquidity. We also discuss how pool fees fit into the framework, and identify the condition for which liquidity provisioning becomes profitable when earnings from trading fees exceed impermanent loss. Finally, we demonstrate the utility and generalizability of this framework with simulations in BalancerV2 and UniswapV3.

preprint2023arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.