Liquidity Provisioning

Bootstrapping Liquidity in BTC-Denominated Prediction Markets ArXiv ID: 2509.11990 “View on arXiv” Authors: Fedor Shabashev Abstract Prediction markets have gained adoption as on-chain mechanisms for aggregating information, with platforms such as Polymarket demonstrating demand for stablecoin-denominated markets. However, denominating in non-interest-bearing stablecoins introduces inefficiencies: participants face opportunity costs relative to the fiat risk-free rate, and Bitcoin holders in particular lose exposure to BTC appreciation when converting into stablecoins. This paper explores the case for prediction markets denominated in Bitcoin, treating BTC as a deflationary settlement asset analogous to gold under the classical gold standard. We analyse three methods of supplying liquidity to a newly created BTC-denominated prediction market: cross-market making against existing stablecoin venues, automated market making, and DeFi-based redirection of user trades. For each approach we evaluate execution mechanics, risks (slippage, exchange-rate risk, and liquidation risk), and capital efficiency. Our analysis shows that cross-market making provides the most user-friendly risk profile, though it requires active professional makers or platform-subsidised liquidity. DeFi redirection offers rapid bootstrapping and reuse of existing USDC liquidity, but exposes users to liquidation thresholds and exchange-rate volatility, reducing capital efficiency. Automated market making is simple to deploy but capital-inefficient and exposes liquidity providers to permanent loss. The results suggest that BTC-denominated prediction markets are feasible, but their success depends critically on the choice of liquidity provisioning mechanism and the trade-off between user safety and deployment convenience. ...

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. ...