Measuring Arbitrage Losses and Profitability of AMM Liquidity
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines the profitability and arbitrage losses associated with Automated Market Makers (AMMs) in decentralized finance (DeFi)
- Compares the fees charged by AMMs and the potential losses from arbitrage opportunities
- Proposes a model to measure the trade-off between fees and arbitrage losses for AMM liquidity providers
Plain English Explanation
This research paper looks at the financial dynamics of Automated Market Makers (AMMs) in decentralized finance (DeFi). AMMs are algorithms that facilitate cryptocurrency trading by automatically adjusting prices based on supply and demand. The paper examines the fees charged by AMMs and the potential losses that can occur due to arbitrage opportunities.
Arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of price differences between markets to make a profit. In the context of AMMs, arbitrageurs can exploit price discrepancies to make money, but this also results in losses for the AMM's liquidity providers. The paper proposes a model to measure the trade-off between the fees earned by liquidity providers and the arbitrage losses they may incur.
By understanding this trade-off, the research aims to help AMM designers and liquidity providers make more informed decisions about the profitability and sustainability of their operations. This is particularly important as DeFi continues to grow and evolve.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by discussing the key features of AMMs, such as their use of automated pricing algorithms and the role of liquidity providers. It then examines the existing literature on arbitrage in DeFi markets and the potential trade-offs between fees and arbitrage losses.
The researchers propose a model to quantify the relationship between AMM fees and arbitrage losses. This model takes into account factors such as trading volume, price volatility, and the size of the AMM's liquidity pool. Using this model, the researchers analyze real-world data from various AMM platforms to compare their fee structures and the resulting arbitrage losses.
The findings suggest that there is a significant trade-off between the fees charged by AMMs and the arbitrage losses experienced by liquidity providers. Some AMMs may offer higher fees but also face higher arbitrage losses, while others may have lower fees but lower arbitrage risks. The researchers also explore how different AMM design choices, such as the specific pricing formula or the size of the liquidity pool, can impact this trade-off.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of AMM dynamics and the challenges faced by liquidity providers. By quantifying the relationship between fees and arbitrage losses, the researchers offer a more nuanced perspective on the profitability of AMM participation.
However, the paper does not address some potential limitations of the model, such as the assumptions made about market behavior or the availability of reliable data on real-world AMM operations. Additionally, the analysis is primarily focused on the trade-off between fees and arbitrage losses, and it may be helpful to also consider other factors that can affect the overall profitability and sustainability of AMM liquidity, such as the fairness and efficiency of the underlying market or the accessibility and inclusiveness of the DeFi ecosystem.
Conclusion
This research paper offers a detailed examination of the financial dynamics of Automated Market Makers in decentralized finance. By proposing a model to measure the trade-off between AMM fees and arbitrage losses, the researchers provide valuable insights that can help AMM designers, liquidity providers, and DeFi users better understand the profitability and sustainability of these platforms. As the DeFi space continues to evolve, this type of research will be crucial for ensuring the long-term viability and equitability of these innovative financial technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Measuring Arbitrage Losses and Profitability of AMM Liquidity
Robin Fritsch, Andrea Canidio
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive empirical study of losses to arbitrageurs (following the formalization of loss-versus-rebalancing by [Milionis et al., 2022]) incurred by liquidity providers on automated market makers (AMMs). We show that those losses exceed the fees earned by liquidity providers across many of the largest AMM liquidity pools (on Uniswap). Remarkably, we also find that the Uniswap v2 pools are more profitable for passive LPs than their Uniswap v3 counterparts. We also investigate how arbitrage losses change with block times. As expected, arbitrage losses decrease when block production is faster. However, the rate of the decline varies significantly across different trading pairs. For instance, when comparing 100ms block times to Ethereum's current 12-second block times, the decrease in losses to arbitrageurs ranges between 20% to 70%, depending on the specific trading pair.
Read more4/23/2024
0
ZeroSwap: Data-driven Optimal Market Making in DeFi
Viraj Nadkarni, Jiachen Hu, Ranvir Rana, Chi Jin, Sanjeev Kulkarni, Pramod Viswanath
Automated Market Makers (AMMs) are major centers of matching liquidity supply and demand in Decentralized Finance. Their functioning relies primarily on the presence of liquidity providers (LPs) incentivized to invest their assets into a liquidity pool. However, the prices at which a pooled asset is traded is often more stale than the prices on centralized and more liquid exchanges. This leads to the LPs suffering losses to arbitrage. This problem is addressed by adapting market prices to trader behavior, captured via the classical market microstructure model of Glosten and Milgrom. In this paper, we propose the first optimal Bayesian and the first model-free data-driven algorithm to optimally track the external price of the asset. The notion of optimality that we use enforces a zero-profit condition on the prices of the market maker, hence the name ZeroSwap. This ensures that the market maker balances losses to informed traders with profits from noise traders. The key property of our approach is the ability to estimate the external market price without the need for price oracles or loss oracles. Our theoretical guarantees on the performance of both these algorithms, ensuring the stability and convergence of their price recommendations, are of independent interest in the theory of reinforcement learning. We empirically demonstrate the robustness of our algorithms to changing market conditions.
Read more4/30/2024
🤿
0
UAMM: Price-oracle based Automated Market Maker
Daniel Jiwoong Im, Alexander Kondratskiy, Vincent Harvey, Hsuan-Wei Fu
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.
Read more8/27/2024
0
SAMM: Sharded Automated Market Makers
Hongyin Chen, Amit Vaisman, Ittay Eyal
Automated Market Makers (AMMs) are a cornerstone of decentralized finance. They are smart contracts (stateful programs) running on blockchains. They enable virtual token exchange: Traders swap tokens with the AMM for a fee, while liquidity providers supply liquidity and earn these fees. Demand for AMMs is growing rapidly, but our experiment-based estimates show that current architectures cannot meet the projected demand by 2029. This is because the execution of existing AMMs is non-parallelizable. We present SAMM, an AMM comprising multiple shards. All shards are AMMs running on the same chain, but their independence enables parallel execution. Unlike classical sharding solutions, here security relies on incentive compatibility. Therefore, SAMM introduces a novel fee design. Through analysis of Subgame-Perfect Nash Equilibria (SPNE), we show that SAMM incentivizes the desired behavior: Liquidity providers balance liquidity among all shards, overcoming destabilization attacks, and trades are evenly distributed. We validate our game-theoretic analysis with a simulation using real-world data. We evaluate SAMM by implementing and deploying it on local testnets of the Sui and Solana blockchains. To our knowledge, this is the first quantification of ``hot-contract'' performance. SAMM improves throughput by 5x and 16x, respectively, potentially more with better parallelization of the underlying blockchains. It is directly deployable, mitigating the upcoming scaling bottleneck.
Read more9/11/2024