A matched-overlap event-study DiD of Uniswap’s protocol-fee switch finds no large short-run average LP liquidity, depth, or participation response to take-rate cuts.
What drives liquidity on decentralized exchanges? evidence from the uniswap protocol
2 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
We study liquidity on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), identifying factors at the platform, blockchain, token pair, and liquidity pool levels with predictive power for market depth metrics. We introduce the v2 counterfactual spread metric, a novel criterion which assesses the degree of liquidity concentration in pools using the ``concentrated liquidity'' mechanism, allowing us to decompose the effect of a factor on market depth into two channels: total value locked (TVL) and concentration. We further explore how external liquidity from competing DEXs and private inventory on DEX aggregators influence market depth. We find that (i) gas prices, returns, and a DEX's share of trading volume affect liquidity through concentration, (ii) internalization of order flow by private market makers affects TVL but not the overall market depth, and (iii) volatility, fee revenue, and markout affect liquidity through both channels.
years
2026 2representative citing papers
The paper proves geometric ergodicity of AMM price tracking error under block-level arbitrage correction and derives explicit one-step bounds connecting tracking quality to liquidity and execution quality.
citing papers explorer
-
Causal Effects of Protocol-Fee Changes on Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers
A matched-overlap event-study DiD of Uniswap’s protocol-fee switch finds no large short-run average LP liquidity, depth, or participation response to take-rate cuts.
-
Arbitrage and the Stability of AMM Price Tracking
The paper proves geometric ergodicity of AMM price tracking error under block-level arbitrage correction and derives explicit one-step bounds connecting tracking quality to liquidity and execution quality.