arXiv preprint ·
Not All LPs Are Equal: The Active-Passive Gap in Automated Market Maker Liquidity Provision
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Liquidity provision in automated market makers is typically analyzed at the pool level, implicitly assuming LP homogeneity. This aggregate view can hide how liquidity provision outcomes differ between LP strategies, particularly as concentrated liquidity AMM designs operating on high-performance blockchains allow liquidity to be actively repositioned around trades. We develop a markout-based framework to decompose Uniswap LP profitability into active and passive components using two complementary methods: a LIFO subtraction method that matches short-lived mint-burn positions and attributes swap-level markouts by liquidity share; and an infinitesimal LP benchmark that estimates the performance of a fully passive, always-in-range marginal LP directly from the AMM price path. We apply these methods to Uniswap v2, v3, and v4 pools on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base chains, and find passive profitability can materially differ from aggregate pool profitability. In Uniswap v2, with liquidity distributed evenly and active LP behavior nearly absent, the overall and passive markouts are almost the same. In contrast, concentrated-liquidity pools have a systematic active-passive gap: passive LPs tend to underperform aggregate pool-level measures. The gap is wider on Ethereum than on L2s, consistent with active liquidity provision being more useful when block times and ordering conditions allow LPs to react to incoming flow. In general, passive LPs perform better on higher fee pools. The LIFO and infinitesimal estimates are generally consistent directionally across most pools, providing evidence of the robustness of the decomposition. The results suggest that adverse selection in AMMs is not evenly distributed among LPs, with important implications for LP strategy, fee-tier design and measurement of DEX market quality.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Trading & Market Microstructure
A Generalized Langevin Model of Latent Liquidity and Concave Price Impact
QuantCode Model: Specializing Language Models for Executable Algorithmic Trading Code
Beyond Supra-Competitive Outcomes: Collusive Behaviour in Deep Reinforcement Learning for Optimal Execution Games
Say, Echo, Do: Strategic Narratives and Revealed Positioning in Financial Markets
PPO-HRAP: Proximal Policy Optimization with a Hybrid Regime-Aware Policy for Risk-Controlled Trading
Get the few papers worth your time in Trading & Market Microstructure every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.