Constant Function Market Maker

Optimal Dynamic Fees in Automated Market Makers ArXiv ID: 2506.02869 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Automated Market Makers (AMMs) are emerging as a popular decentralised trading platform. In this work, we determine the optimal dynamic fees in a constant function market maker. We find approximate closed-form solutions to the control problem and study the optimal fee structure. We find that there are two distinct fee regimes: one in which the AMM imposes higher fees to deter arbitrageurs, and another where fees are lowered to increase volatility and attract noise traders. Our results also show that dynamic fees that are linear in inventory and are sensitive to changes in the external price are a good approximation of the optimal fee structure and thus constitute suitable candidates when designing fees for AMMs. ...

Liquidity provision of utility indifference type in decentralized exchanges ArXiv ID: 2502.01931 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract We present a mathematical formulation of liquidity provision in decentralized exchanges. We focus on constant function market makers of utility indifference type, which include constant product market makers with concentrated liquidity as a special case. First, we examine no-arbitrage conditions for a liquidity pool and compute an optimal arbitrage strategy when there is an external liquid market. Second, we show that liquidity provision suffers from impermanent loss unless a transaction fee is levied under the general framework with concentrated liquidity. Third, we establish the well-definedness of arbitrage-free reserve processes of a liquidity pool in continuous-time and show that there is no loss-versus-rebalancing under a nonzero fee if the external market price is continuous. We then argue that liquidity provision by multiple liquidity providers can be understood as liquidity provision by a representative liquidity provider, meaning that the analysis boils down to that for a single liquidity provider. Last, but not least, we give an answer to the fundamental question in which sense the very construction of constant function market makers with concentrated liquidity in the popular platform Uniswap v3 is optimal. ...

Impermanent loss and loss-vs-rebalancing I: some statistical properties ArXiv ID: 2410.00854 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract There are two predominant metrics to assess the performance of automated market makers and their profitability for liquidity providers: ‘impermanent loss’ (IL) and ’loss-versus-rebalance’ (LVR). In this short paper we shed light on the statistical aspects of both concepts and show that they are more similar than conventionally appreciated. Our analysis uses the properties of a random walk and some analytical properties of the statistical integral combined with the mechanics of a constant function market maker (CFMM). We consider non-toxic or rather unspecific trading in this paper. Our main finding can be summarized in one sentence: For Brownian motion with a given volatility, IL and LVR have identical expectation values but vastly differing distribution functions. ...

All AMMs are CFMMs. All DeFi markets have invariants. A DeFi market is arbitrage-free if and only if it has an increasing invariant ArXiv ID: 2310.09782 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract In a universal framework that expresses any market system in terms of state transition rules, we prove that every DeFi market system has an invariant function and is thus by definition a CFMM; indeed, all automated market makers (AMMs) are CFMMs. Invariants connect directly to arbitrage and to completeness, according to two fundamental equivalences. First, a DeFi market system is, we prove, arbitrage-free if and only if it has a strictly increasing invariant, where arbitrage-free means that no state can be transformed into a dominated state by any sequence of transactions. Second, the invariant is, we prove, unique if and only if the market system is complete, meaning that it allows transitions between all pairs of states in the state space, in at least one direction. Thus a necessary and sufficient condition for no-arbitrage (respectively, for completeness) is the existence of the increasing (respectively, the uniqueness of the) invariant, which, therefore, fulfills in nonlinear DeFi theory the foundational role parallel to the existence (respectively, uniqueness) of the pricing measure in the Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing for linear markets. Moreover, a market system is recoverable by its invariant if and only if it is complete; and in all cases, complete or incomplete, every market system has, and is recoverable by, a multi-invariant. A market system is arbitrage-free if and only if its multi-invariant is increasing. Our examples illustrate (non)existence of various specific types of arbitrage in the context of various specific types of market systems – with or without fees, with or without liquidity operations, and with or without coordination among multiple pools – but the fundamental theorems have full generality, applicable to any DeFi market system and to any notion of arbitrage expressible as a strict partial order. ...