Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.05803 v2 pith:PK3J7SV5 submitted 2024-04-08 cs.DC q-fin.TR

Measuring Arbitrage Losses and Profitability of AMM Liquidity

classification cs.DC q-fin.TR
keywords lossesblockliquidityarbitragetimesuniswapacrossarbitrageurs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.