Liquidity providers in concentrated AMMs face a trade-off between fee income and impermanent loss, with optimal range selection depending on volatility, tradingLiquidity providers in concentrated AMMs face a trade-off between fee income and impermanent loss, with optimal range selection depending on volatility, trading

Liquidity Providers Face a Trade-Off Between Fees and Loss in Concentrated AMMs

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Constant function markets and concentrated liquidity

  • Constant function markets
  • Concentrated liquidity market

3. The wealth of liquidity providers in CL pools

  • Position value
  • Fee income
  • Fee income: pool fee rate
  • Fee income: spread and concentration risk
  • Fee income: drift and asymmetry
  • Rebalancing costs and gas fees

4. Optimal liquidity provision in CL pools

  • The problem
  • The optimal strategy
  • Discussion: profitability, PL, and concentration risk
  • Discussion: drift and position skew

5. Performance of strategy

  • Methodology
  • Benchmark
  • Performance results

6. Discussion: modelling assumptions

  • Discussion: related work

7. Conclusions And References

\

Conclusions

We studied the dynamics of the wealth of an LP in a CPM with CL who implements a selffinancing strategy that dynamically adjusts the range of liquidity. The wealth of the LP consists of the position value and fee revenue. We showed that the position value depreciates due to PL and the LP widens her liquidity range to minimise her exposure to PL. On the other hand, the fee revenue is higher for narrow ranges, but narrow ranges also increase concentration risk. We derived the optimal strategy to provide liquidity in a CPM with CL when the LP maximises expected utility of terminal wealth. This strategy is found in closed-form for log-utility of wealth, and it shows that liquidity provision is subject to a profitability condition. In particular, the potential gains from fees, net of gas fees and concentration costs, must exceed PL. Our model shows that the LP strategically adjusts the spread of her position around the reference exchange rate; the spread depends on various market features including tthe volatility of the rate, the liquidity taking activity in the pool, and the drift of the rate.

\

References

Adams, H., Zinsmeister, N., Salem, M., Keefer, R., Robinson, D., 2021. Uniswap v3 core. Technical Report.

Angeris, G., Chitra, T., Evans, A., 2022. When does the tail wag the dog? curvature and market making .

Angeris, G., Kao, H.T., Chiang, R., Noyes, C., Chitra, T., 2021. An analysis of uniswap markets.

Avellaneda, M., Stoikov, S., 2008. High frequency trading in a limit order book. Quantitative Finance 8, 217–224. doi:10.1080/14697680701381228.

Barger, W., Lorig, M., 2019. Optimal liquidation under stochastic price impact. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance 22, 1850059.

Bergault, P., Bertucci, L., Bouba, D., Gueant, O., Guilbert, J., 2024. Price-aware automated market makers: Models ´ beyond brownian prices and static liquidity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03496 .

Bergault, P., Drissi, F., Gueant, O., 2022. Multi-asset optimal execution and statistical arbitrage strategies un- ´ der Ornstein–Uhlenbeck dynamics. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics 13, 353–390. doi:10.1137/ 21M1407756.

Bergault, P., Evangelista, D., Gueant, O., Vieira, D., 2021. Closed-form approximations in multi-asset market making. ´ Applied Mathematical Finance 28, 101–142. doi:10.1080/1350486X.2021.1949359.

Biais, B., 1993. Price formation and equilibrium liquidity in fragmented and centralized markets. The Journal of Finance 48, 157–185.

Biais, B., Capponi, A., Cong, L.W., Gaur, V., Giesecke, K., 2023. Advances in blockchain and crypto economics. Management Science 69, 6417–6426.

Capponi, A., Jia, R., 2021. The adoption of blockchain-based decentralized exchanges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.08842 .

Capponi, A., Jia, R., Yu, S., 2023a. Price discovery on decentralized exchanges. Available at SSRN 4236993 .

Capponi, A., Jia, R., Zhu, B., 2023b. The paradox of just-in-time liquidity in decentralized exchanges: More providers can sometimes mean less liquidity. Available at SSRN .

Cartea, A., Donnelly, R., Jaimungal, S., 2017. Algorithmic trading with model uncertainty. SIAM Journal on Financial ´ Mathematics 8, 635–671. Cartea, A., Donnelly, R., Jaimungal, S., 2018. Enhancing trading strategies with order book signals. Applied Mathe- ´ matical Finance 25, 1–35. Cartea, A., Drissi, F., Monga, M., 2022. Decentralised finance and automated market making: Execution and specu- ´ lation. Available at SSRN 4144743 .

Cartea, A., Drissi, F., Monga, M., 2023a. Execution and statistical arbitrage with signals in multiple automated market ´ makers, in: 2023 IEEE 43rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW), IEEE. pp. 37–42.

Cartea, A., Drissi, F., Monga, M., 2023b. Predictable losses of liquidity provision in constant function markets and ´ concentrated liquidity markets. Applied Mathematical Finance 30, 69–93.

Cartea, A., Drissi, F., S ´ anchez-Betancourt, L., Siska, D., Szpruch, L., 2023c. Automated market makers designs ´ beyond constant functions. Available at SSRN 4459177 .

Cartea, A., Jaimungal, S., Penalva, J., 2015. Algorithmic and high-frequency trading. Cambridge University Press.

Cartea, A., Jaimungal, S., Ricci, J., 2014. Buy low, sell high: A high frequency trading perspective. SIAM Journal on ´ Financial Mathematics 5, 415–444.

Cartea, A., Jaimungal, S., S ´ anchez-Betancourt, L., 2021. Latency and liquidity risk. International Journal of Theoret- ´ ical and Applied Finance 24, 2150035.

Cartea, A., S ´ anchez-Betancourt, L., 2021. The shadow price of latency: Improving intraday fill ratios in foreign ´ exchange markets. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics 12, 254–294.

Cartea, A., Wang, Y., 2020. Market making with alpha signals. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied ´ Finance 23, 2050016.

Chiu, J., Koeppl, T.V., 2019. Blockchain-based settlement for asset trading. The Review of Financial Studies 32, 1716–1753.

Donnelly, R., 2022. Optimal execution: A review. Applied Mathematical Finance 29, 181–212.

Donnelly, R., Lorig, M., 2020. Optimal trading with differing trade signals. Applied Mathematical Finance 27, 317–344. Drissi, F., 2022. Solvability of differential riccati equations and applications to algorithmic trading with signals. Applied Mathematical Finance 29, 457–493. doi:10.1080/1350486X.2023.2241130.

Drissi, F., 2023. Models of market liquidity: Applications to traditional markets and automated market makers. Available at SSRN 4424010 . Engel, D., Herlihy, M., 2021a. Composing networks of automated market makers, in: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pp. 15–28.

Engel, D., Herlihy, M., 2021b. Presentation and publication: Loss and slippage in networks of automated market makers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09872 .

Fan, Z., Marmolejo-Cossio, F., Moroz, D.J., Neuder, M., Rao, R., Parkes, D.C., 2021. Strategic liquidity provision in uniswap v3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.12033 .

Fan, Z., Marmolejo-Coss´ıo, F.J., Altschuler, B., Sun, H., Wang, X., Parkes, D., 2022. Differential liquidity provision in uniswap v3 and implications for contract design, in: Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, pp. 9–17.

Forde, M., Sanchez-Betancourt, L., Smith, B., 2022. Optimal trade execution for Gaussian signals with power-law ´ resilience. Quantitative Finance 22, 585–596.

Fukasawa, M., Maire, B., Wunsch, M., 2023. Model-free hedging of impermanent loss in geometric mean market makers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11118 .

Goyal, M., Ramseyer, G., Goel, A., Mazieres, D., 2023. Finding the right curve: Optimal design of constant function ` market makers, in: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pp. 783–812.

Gueant, O., 2016. The Financial Mathematics of Market Liquidity: From optimal execution to market making. ´ volume 33. CRC Press.

Gueant, O., 2017. Optimal market making. Applied Mathematical Finance 24, 112–154. doi: ´ 10.1080/1350486X. 2017.1342552.

He, X.D., Yang, C., Zhou, Y., 2024. Liquidity pool design on automated market makers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13291 .

Heimbach, L., Schertenleib, E., Wattenhofer, R., 2022. Risks and returns of Uniswap v3 liquidity providers.

Ho, T.S., Stoll, H.R., 1983. The dynamics of dealer markets under competition. The Journal of Finance 38, 1053– 1074.

Lı, T., Naik, S., Papanicolaou, A., Schonleber, L., 2023. Yield farming for liquidity provision . ¨

Lipton, A., Treccani, A., 2021. Blockchain and Distributed Ledgers: Mathematics, Technology, and Economics. World Scientific.

Lommers, K., Kim, J., Skidan, B., 2023. The case for stochastically dynamic AMMs. Preprint.

Milionis, J., Moallemi, C.C., Roughgarden, T., 2023. Automated market making and arbitrage profits in the presence of fees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14604 .

Milionis, J., Moallemi, C.C., Roughgarden, T., Zhang, A.L., 2022. Automated market making and loss-versusrebalancing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.06046 .

:::info Authors:

  1. Alvaro Cartea ´
  2. Fayc¸al Drissia
  3. Marcello Monga

:::

:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC0 1.0 Universal license.

:::

\

Market Opportunity
Polytrade Logo
Polytrade Price(TRADE)
$0.0554
$0.0554$0.0554
+2.66%
USD
Polytrade (TRADE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Shiba Inu Price Stalls Near Lows – What Could Matter in 2026 For SHIB To Takeoff?

Shiba Inu Price Stalls Near Lows – What Could Matter in 2026 For SHIB To Takeoff?

Shiba Inu has had a tough year, and its not hiding on the chart. TheCryptoBasic shared on X that the SHIB price has printed its first-ever weekly death cross in
Share
Coinstats2025/12/25 06:00
Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets

Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets

The post Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Notes A new report from Dune and RWA.xyz highlights Polygon’s role in the growing RWA sector. Polygon PoS currently holds $1.13 billion in RWA Total Value Locked (TVL) across 269 assets. The network holds a 62% market share of tokenized global bonds, driven by European money market funds. The Polygon POL $0.25 24h volatility: 1.4% Market cap: $2.64 B Vol. 24h: $106.17 M network is securing a significant position in the rapidly growing tokenization space, now holding over $1.13 billion in total value locked (TVL) from Real World Assets (RWAs). This development comes as the network continues to evolve, recently deploying its major “Rio” upgrade on the Amoy testnet to enhance future scaling capabilities. This information comes from a new joint report on the state of the RWA market published on Sept. 17 by blockchain analytics firm Dune and data platform RWA.xyz. The focus on RWAs is intensifying across the industry, coinciding with events like the ongoing Real-World Asset Summit in New York. Sandeep Nailwal, CEO of the Polygon Foundation, highlighted the findings via a post on X, noting that the TVL is spread across 269 assets and 2,900 holders on the Polygon PoS chain. The Dune and https://t.co/W6WSFlHoQF report on RWA is out and it shows that RWA is happening on Polygon. Here are a few highlights: – Leading in Global Bonds: Polygon holds 62% share of tokenized global bonds (driven by Spiko’s euro MMF and Cashlink euro issues) – Spiko U.S.… — Sandeep | CEO, Polygon Foundation (※,※) (@sandeepnailwal) September 17, 2025 Key Trends From the 2025 RWA Report The joint publication, titled “RWA REPORT 2025,” offers a comprehensive look into the tokenized asset landscape, which it states has grown 224% since the start of 2024. The report identifies several key trends driving this expansion. According to…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:40
Grayscale ETF Tracking XRP, Solana and Cardano to Hit Wall Street After SEC Pause

Grayscale ETF Tracking XRP, Solana and Cardano to Hit Wall Street After SEC Pause

The post Grayscale ETF Tracking XRP, Solana and Cardano to Hit Wall Street After SEC Pause appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In brief The SEC said that Grayscale’s Digital Large Cap Fund conversion into an ETF is approved for listing and trading. The fund tracks the price of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, and Cardano. Other ETFs tracking XRP and Dogecoin began trading on Thursday. An exchange-traded fund from crypto asset manager Grayscale that tracks the price of XRP, Solana, and Cardano—along with Bitcoin and Ethereum—was primed for its debut on the New York Stock Exchange, following long-sought approval from the SEC.  In an order on Wednesday, the regulator permitted the listing and trading of Grayscale’s Digital Large Cap Fund (GDLC), following an indefinite pause in July. The SEC meanwhile approved of generic listing standards for commodity-based products, paving the way for other crypto ETFs. A person familiar with the matter told Decrypt that GDLC is expected to begin trading on Friday. Unlike spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs that debuted in the U.S. last year, GDLC is modeled on an index tracking the five largest and most liquid digital assets. Bitcoin represents 72% of the fund’s weighting, while Ethereum makes up 17%, according to Grayscale’s website. XRP, Solana, and Cardano account for 5.6%, 4%, and 1% of the fund’s exposure, respectively.  “The Grayscale team is working expeditiously to bring the FIRST multi-crypto asset ETP to market,” CEO Peter Mintzberg said on X on Wednesday, thanking the SEC for its “unmatched efforts in bringing the regulatory clarity our industry deserves.” Decrypt reached out to Grayscale for comment but did not immediately receive a response. Meanwhile, Dogecoin and XRP ETFs from Rex Shares and Osprey funds began trading on Thursday. The funds are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, a distinct set of rules compared to the process most asset managers have sought approval for crypto-focused products under. Not long ago,…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 04:19