Impermanent Loss

Optimal Exit Time for Liquidity Providers in Automated Market Makers ArXiv ID: 2509.06510 “View on arXiv” Authors: Philippe Bergault, Sébastien Bieber, Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt Abstract We study the problem of optimal liquidity withdrawal for a representative liquidity provider (LP) in an automated market maker (AMM). LPs earn fees from trading activity but are exposed to impermanent loss (IL) due to price fluctuations. While existing work has focused on static provision and exogenous exit strategies, we characterise the optimal exit time as the solution to a stochastic control problem with an endogenous stopping time. Mathematically, the LP’s value function is shown to satisfy a Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman quasi-variational inequality, for which we establish uniqueness in the viscosity sense. To solve the problem numerically, we develop two complementary approaches: a Euler scheme based on operator splitting and a Longstaff-Schwartz regression method. Calibrated simulations highlight how the LP’s optimal exit strategy depends on the oracle price volatility, fee levels, and the behaviour of arbitrageurs and noise traders. Our results show that while arbitrage generates both fees and IL, the LP’s optimal decision balances these opposing effects based on the pool state variables and price misalignments. Lastly, we find the optimal fee level for the representative LP when they play the exit strategy we derived. This work contributes to a deeper understanding of dynamic liquidity provision in AMMs and provides insights into the sustainability of passive LP strategies under different market regimes. ...

QubitSwap: The Informational Edge in Decentralised Exchanges ArXiv ID: 2504.06281 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Decentralised exchanges (DEXs) have transformed trading by enabling trustless, permissionless transactions, yet they face significant challenges such as impermanent loss and slippage, which undermine profitability for liquidity providers and traders. In this paper, we introduce QubitSwap, an innovative DEX model designed to tackle these issues through a hybrid approach that integrates an external oracle price with internal pool dynamics. This is achieved via a parameter $z$, which governs the balance between these price sources, creating a flexible and adaptive pricing mechanism. Through rigorous mathematical analysis, we derive a novel reserve function and pricing model that substantially reduces impermanent loss and slippage compared to traditional DEX frameworks. Notably, our results show that as $z$ approaches 1, slippage approaches zero, enhancing trading stability. QubitSwap marks a novel approach in DEX design, delivering a more efficient and resilient platform. This work not only advances the theoretical foundations of decentralised finance but also provides actionable solutions for the broader DeFi ecosystem. ...

Better market Maker Algorithm to Save Impermanent Loss with High Liquidity Retention ArXiv ID: 2502.20001 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) face persistent challenges in liquidity retention and user engagement due to inefficiencies in conventional automated market maker (AMM) designs. This work proposes a dual-mechanism framework to address these limitations: a ``Better Market Maker (BMM)’’, which is a liquidity-optimized AMM based on a power-law invariant ($X^nY = K$, $n = 4$), and a dynamic rebate system (DRS) for redistributing transaction fees. The segment-specific BMM reduces impermanent loss by 36% compared to traditional constant-product ($XY = K$) models, while retaining 3.98x more liquidity during price volatility. The DRS allocates fees ($γV$, $γ\in {“0.003, 0.005, 0.01"}$) with a rebate ratio $ρ\in [“0.3, 0.4”]$ to incentivize trader participation and maintain continuous capital injection. Simulations under high-volatility conditions demonstrate impermanent loss reductions of 36.0% and 40% higher user engagement compared to static fee models. By segmenting markets into high-, mid-, and low-volatility regimes, the framework achieves liquidity depth comparable to centralized exchanges (CEXs) while maintaining decentralized governance and retaining value within the cryptocurrency ecosystem. ...

Impermanent loss and Loss-vs-Rebalancing II ArXiv ID: 2502.04097 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This paper examines the relationship between impermanent loss (IL) and loss-versus-rebalancing (LVR) in automated market makers (AMMs). Our main focus is on statistical properties, the impact of fees, the role of block times, and, related to the latter, the continuous time limit. We find there are three relevant regimes: (i) very short times where LVR and IL are identical; (ii) intermediate time where LVR and IL show distinct distribution functions but are connected via the central limit theorem exhibiting the same expectation value; (iii) long time behavior where both the distribution functions and averages are distinct. Subsequently, we study how fees change this dynamics with a special focus on competing time scales like block times and ‘arbitrage times’. ...

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. ...

Automated Market Makers: Toward More Profitable Liquidity Provisioning Strategies ArXiv ID: 2501.07828 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract To trade tokens in cryptoeconomic systems, automated market makers (AMMs) typically rely on liquidity providers (LPs) that deposit tokens in exchange for rewards. To profit from such rewards, LPs must use effective liquidity provisioning strategies. However, LPs lack guidance for developing such strategies, which often leads them to financial losses. We developed a measurement model based on impermanent loss to analyze the influences of key parameters (i.e., liquidity pool type, position duration, position range size, and position size) of liquidity provisioning strategies on LPs’ returns. To reveal the influences of those key parameters on LPs’ profits, we used the measurement model to analyze 700 days of historical liquidity provision data of Uniswap v3. By uncovering the influences of key parameters of liquidity provisioning strategies on profitability, this work supports LPs in developing more profitable strategies. ...

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. ...

Improving Capital Efficiency and Impermanent Loss: Multi-Token Proactive Market Maker ArXiv ID: 2309.00632 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Current approaches to the cryptocurrency automated market makers result in poor impermanent loss and capital efficiency. We analyze the mechanics underlying DODO Exchange’s proactive market maker (PMM) to probe for solutions to these issues, leading to our key insight of multi-token trading pools. We explore this paradigm primarily through the construction of a generalization of PMM, the multi-token token proactive market maker (MPMM). We show via simulations that MPMM has better impermanent loss and capital efficiency than comparable market makers under a variety of market scenarios. We also test multi-token generalizations of other common 2-token pool market makers. Overall, this work demonstrates several advantages of multi-token pools and introduces a novel multi-token pool market maker. ...

UAMM: Price-oracle based Automated Market Maker ArXiv ID: 2308.06375 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Automated market makers (AMMs) are pricing mechanisms utilized by decentralized exchanges (DEX). Traditional AMM approaches are constrained by pricing solely based on their own liquidity pool, without consideration of external markets or risk management for liquidity providers. In this paper, we propose a new approach known as UBET AMM (UAMM), which calculates prices by considering external market prices and the impermanent loss of the liquidity pool. Despite relying on external market prices, our method maintains the desired properties of a constant product curve when computing slippages. The key element of UAMM is determining the appropriate slippage amount based on the desired target balance, which encourages the liquidity pool to minimize impermanent loss. We demonstrate that our approach eliminates arbitrage opportunities when external market prices are efficient. ...