DeFi's Concentrated Liquidity From Scratch
Authors:
Mark B. Richardson,
Stefan Loesch
Abstract:
The scope of this article includes the three preeminent descriptions of concentrated liquidity from Bancor (2020 and 2022), and Uniswap (2021), as well as three additional descriptions informed by trigonometric analysis of the same. The purpose of this contribution is to organize the seminal and derivative forms of this cornerstone DeFi technology, and algebraically and geometrically elaborate the…
▽ More
The scope of this article includes the three preeminent descriptions of concentrated liquidity from Bancor (2020 and 2022), and Uniswap (2021), as well as three additional descriptions informed by trigonometric analysis of the same. The purpose of this contribution is to organize the seminal and derivative forms of this cornerstone DeFi technology, and algebraically and geometrically elaborate these descriptions to achieve an authoritative and near-exhaustive overview of the underlying theory powering the current state-of-the-art in decentralized exchange infrastructure.
This material was created for the Token Engineering Academy Study Season 2024, a cohort-based online program scheduled for April-July 2024. The Study Season offers access to a bachelor-level online learning program, and complementary live tracks with the most influential practitioners and researchers in the sector - all provided as free, public goods.
△ Less
Submitted 30 April, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
Impermanent Loss in Uniswap v3
Authors:
Stefan Loesch,
Nate Hindman,
Mark B Richardson,
Nicholas Welch
Abstract:
AMMs are autonomous smart contracts deployed on a blockchain that make markets between different assets that live on that chain. In this paper we are examining a specific class of AMMs called Constant Function Market Makers whose trading profile, ignoring fees, is determined by their bonding curve. This class of AMM suffers from what is commonly referred to as Impermanent Loss, which we have previ…
▽ More
AMMs are autonomous smart contracts deployed on a blockchain that make markets between different assets that live on that chain. In this paper we are examining a specific class of AMMs called Constant Function Market Makers whose trading profile, ignoring fees, is determined by their bonding curve. This class of AMM suffers from what is commonly referred to as Impermanent Loss, which we have previously identified as the Gamma component of the associated self-financing trading strategy and which is the risk that LP providers wager against potential fee earnings.
The recent Uniswap v3 release has popularized the concept of leveraged liquidity provision - wherein the trading range in which liquidity is provided is reduced and achieves a higher degree of capital efficiency through elimination of unused collateral. This leverage increases the fees earned, but it also increases the risk taken, ie the IL. Fee levels on Uniswap v3 are well publicized so, in this paper, we focus on calculating the IL.
We found that for the 17 pools we analyzed, covering 43% of TVL and chosen by size, composite tokens and data availability, total fees earned since inception until the cut-off date was $199.3m. We also found that the total IL suffered by LPs during this period was USD 260.1m, meaning that in aggregate those LPs would have been better off by USD 60.8m had they simply HODLd.
△ Less
Submitted 17 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
