Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Split the Yield, Share the Risk: Pricing, Hedging and Fixed rates in DeFi

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the fair price of a DeFi yield token equals the risk-neutral expectation of all future discounted yield payments, and that this pricing rule supports hedging and fixed-rate lending in decentralized lending pools.

desk verdict Genuine formal results for yield tokenization, but the main pricing theorem is unconnected to the lending-pool application the paper claims to serve. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22784 v3 pith:M3GTCSNA submitted 2025-05-28 econ.TH cs.SYeess.SY

Viraj Nadkarni , Pramod Viswanath This is my paper
classification econ.THcs.SYeess.SY MSC 91G2091G3091B26
keywords yieldtokenizationDeFino-arbitragepricingrisk-neutralvaluationdecentralizedlendingautomatedmarketmakerfixed-ratefutures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that yield tokenization—splitting a yield-bearing deposit into a principal token and a tradeable yield token—is a coherent financial primitive with a classical pricing rule. Its central theorem says the fair price of a yield token is the risk-neutral expectation of all future discounted yield payments, so a liquid market in these tokens would reveal what traders believe future interest rates will be. From there the paper argues that in DeFi lending pools, lenders can sell and borrowers can buy yield tokens to hedge interest rate volatility, that this strictly improves participant welfare, and that a properly designed market maker can aggregate liquidity from providers with different risk preferences and make the hedging practical. It then combines these pieces into a modular fixed-rate lending protocol in which quotes come from simulated trades of yield futures. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper turns ad-hoc DeFi yield markets into a framework with stated prices, hedges, and welfare predictions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamic hedging portfolio from the proof of Theorem 1: one unit of the yield token offset by a short position of $\partial P_T^Y/\partial X_t^i$ units of each underlying token. The stochastic terms cancel, leaving a linear PDE whose terminal condition is that the yield token is worthless at maturity, and Girsanov's theorem rewrites the solution as the risk-neutral expectation in Theorem 1. The paper's second mechanism is the utility-based market maker of Section 4, where a liquidity provider with concave utility and a belief distribution over future yield payments turns her indifference condition into an optimally efficient bonding curve; a menu of such curves, one per remaining payment, is utility-maximizing for the provider exactly when it makes the trader indifferent about when to sell. Concentrated-liquidity positions then approximate the menu, which is what lets the authors assemble a fixed-rate lending protocol from a lending pool, a yield tokenizer, and a yield-futures market.

What would settle it

Simulate the hedging portfolio from the proof of Theorem 1 under a known SDE for a yield-bearing token and check whether the discretely rebalanced portfolio's excess return over the risk-free rate converges to zero as the rebalancing interval shrinks; if it does not, the arbitrage argument behind the pricing formula fails. On the market side, find two yield tokens of different maturities minted on the same lending pool whose price difference persistently permits a self-financing arbitrage after costs, which would contradict the no-arbitrage-across-maturities corollary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1: for a yield-bearing token whose yield is a deterministic function $Y(t,X_t)$ of tradable underlying price processes $X_t$ following a vector stochastic differential equation, the fair price of a yield token with maturity $T$ is $P_T^Y(t,X_t) = E^*[\int_t^T e^{-\int_t^s r(u)\,du} Y(s,X_s)\cdot X_s\,ds \mid X_t]$, where the expectation is taken under the measure that replaces the drift of $X_t$ by the risk-free rate $r(t)$. The proof holds one yield token against a portfolio of the underlying tokens chosen so that all stochastic terms cancel, then equates the portfolio's growth to the risk-free rate; Girsanov's theorem turns the resulting pricing PDE into the expectation above. The same logic gives a no-arbitrage consistency condition across maturities and prices for shorter-dated yield futures, so yield token prices become a market readout of probability beliefs about future yield.

Load-bearing premise

The pricing formula assumes that future yield is a known function of tradable underlying token prices and that those positions can be continuously rebalanced to hedge the yield token; for DeFi lending pools, the paper's main application, interest rates are set endogenously by the pool's utilization, and Section 3.1 says these rates cannot be directly modeled by traditional interest-rate models, leaving the central pricing framework unconnected to its primary example.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under Theorem 1, a liquid market in yield tokens of several maturities reveals the market's implied forecast of future yield, since the price is the discounted expected yield under the pricing measure.
  • In a lending pool, all lenders and borrowers can fully hedge their positions at the fair price $E[Y]$, and Theorem 2 states that complete hedging raises the welfare of pool participants compared with remaining exposed to interest rate movements.
  • An adaptive lending pool paired with a yield tokenizer is protected against adversarial interest-rate manipulation for hedged participants, and speculators can arbitrage a manipulated rate back toward equilibrium.
  • The indifference-menu construction gives liquidity providers a recipe: estimate trader risk aversion, build the menu of bonding curves from Lemma 5, and Theorem 4 guarantees the menu maximizes the provider's expected utility.
  • A lending pool, a yield tokenizer, and a liquid yield-futures AMM are sufficient components for a fixed-rate lending protocol, with quoted fixed rates obtained by simulating buy and sell orders on the yield-future market.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test this, but the maturity additivity implied by Theorem 1 could be checked on existing yield-token markets: a long-maturity yield token should trade at the sum of the prices of its constituent yield futures, up to transaction costs.
  • The welfare result carries an unstated policy corollary: because welfare decreases as the borrow-lend gap increases, a lending protocol choosing a wide spread as a manipulation buffer is implicitly trading away the hedging benefits of yield tokens, and the welfare formula quantifies that cost.
  • The slashing-insurance calculation for staked tokens could be tested empirically by comparing principal-token prices across liquid staking providers with different slashing histories; systematic price differences would indicate that the market prices slashing risk through the channel the paper models.
  • A natural extension is to treat the pool's utilization ratio itself as a traded state variable and derive yield token prices from a supply-demand stochastic model, which would connect Theorem 1 to the endogenous interest-rate setting the paper concedes is out of its core model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a continuous-time model of yield tokenization, derives a no-arbitrage pricing formula for yield tokens as the risk-neutral expected discounted value of future yield payments, and applies this framework to hedging in DeFi lending pools. It then designs AMMs with menus of bonding curves derived from indifference pricing, proposes yield-futures to aggregate liquidity across maturities, and sketches a fixed-rate lending protocol built on these components. Appendices contain proofs and additional results for liquid staking.

Significance. If the central derivation and the connection to lending pools were put on a solid footing, the paper would address a genuinely important problem in DeFi: risk transfer and price discovery for yield-bearing positions. Theorem 4's characterization of utility-maximizing menus via indifference menus is a clean and potentially useful result, and the idea of using yield futures to unify liquidity across maturities is appealing. However, the proof of the main pricing theorem contains internal inconsistencies, and the paper explicitly concedes that its main application area (lending pools) has an endogenously determined interest rate that is not modeled as a hedgeable function of tradable prices. The stress-test concern therefore lands: as written, the unique price in Eq. (2) is not connected to the primary use case.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (16)-(23); Appendix B, Eq. (28)] The proof of Theorem 1 as written does not establish Eq. (2). In Eq. (16) the portfolio holds one unit of the yield token and a short position of size ∂P/∂X^i in each underlying token, yet the cash-flow term Σ Y^i X^i dt is added as if the short positions generated no yield liability; if the tokens A_i are yield-bearing, the correct term should include a liability of the form -∇P·(Y·X)dt (or an analogous expression), and if they are assumed not to be yield-bearing, that assumption is never stated and it excludes the staking and LP-token applications advertised in the paper. In addition, Eq. (28) in Appendix B is not the Ito expansion of P under the dynamics in Eq. (1): the drift contains an unexplained -Y X ∂P/∂X term. The appendix therefore needs either a corrected hedge construction or a clear statement of the no-dividend assumption before Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 can be regarded as proven.
  2. [Section 3.1; Section 5] Section 3.1 explicitly concedes that the DeFi lending interest rate "cannot be directly modeled via the traditional models mentioned above, since it is, to a large extent, set endogenously" through the utilization ratio. Theorem 1, however, requires the yield Y(t,X_t) to be a function of tradable price processes X_t that can be dynamically hedged. The manuscript supplies no model of utilization as a function of tradable X, no traded claim on utilization, and no completeness argument. Under unspanned utilization risk, the no-arbitrage condition determines only an interval of possible yield-token prices, not the point expectation in Eq. (2). Because the hedging results in Section 3 and the fixed-rate quotes in Section 5 are built on Theorem 1, this is a load-bearing gap: either a model connecting utilization to tradable state variables must be provided, or the claims about lending pools must be weakened.
  3. [Appendix K, Lemmas 7-8 and Eqs. (41)-(44)] Equations (41)-(44) price principal and yield tokens as p_P = 1/E[Π_i(1+Y_i)] and p_Y = 1 - p_P without discounting at the numeraire rate r(t) and without an explicit risk-neutral measure. This is inconsistent with the framework of Theorem 1 and with the paper's own numeraire setup: for deterministic Y and r, these formulas do not reduce to the discounted expectation in Eq. (2) unless r equals Y. Since Section 1 advertises these appendix results as part of the paper's contributions, they should either be derived within the same no-arbitrage framework or be explicitly labeled as a separate heuristic that is not covered by the paper's main pricing model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4] The statement of Theorem 4 should explicitly assume that the LP knows the trader's utility function U_S; currently this knowledge appears only in the prose "recipe for LPs" rather than as a formal hypothesis of the theorem.
  2. [References] The reference list is unreliable: [42] is used for Aave, Supernova, Uniswap v3/v4, and several other distinct claims, while Aave's governance page is [1]; "Supernova" appears to have no corresponding reference. All citations should be re-checked and corrected.
  3. [Section 2.1] The notation \bar Y · \bar X is ambiguous when the yield is described as scalar (as in the lending example); the paper should define whether \bar Y is a vector of the same dimension as \bar X or a scalar multiplied into the vector.
  4. [Appendix H, Lemma 5] The uniqueness argument for the indifference menu requires strict monotonicity of U_S in the relevant argument; "increasing" should be stated as "strictly increasing" to justify the unique solution for p_t^*(Δ).
  5. [Throughout] The text contains typos such as "utililization ratio" (Section 3.1) and "equilibirum" (Section 3.2); a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The core no-arbitrage pricing derivation is self-contained; the only definitional circularity is the 'optimally efficient' label on the Theorem 3 indifference curve, which is true by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, 'Optimally efficient bonding curve', Theorem 3 and Eqs. (6)-(9); Corollary 4]
    "This curve is also optimally efficient, in the sense that the LP does not expect any change in expected utility if the trader interacts with it as per the bonding curve. ... pS(∆) = inf{p ≥ 0 : E[UP (x + yY )] ≤ E[UP (x + yY + ∆(Y − p))]}, (8) ... Then, the curve ψ(x0, y0, UP , Y) = ψS ∪ ψB represents the optimally efficient bonding curve for the liquidity provider."

    Equations (8)-(9) define pS(Δ), pB(Δ) as the trade prices that leave the LP's expected utility unchanged relative to no trade. The paragraph before Theorem 3 defines 'optimally efficient' by exactly that no-expected-utility-change condition. Theorem 3 then states that ψ = ψS ∪ ψB 'represents the optimally efficient bonding curve.' Thus the optimal-efficiency claim is the construction of ψ, not a derived property; Corollary 4 repeats it. Theorem 4's utility-maximization equivalence is proven separately via Lemma 6, so this is a local definitional circularity, not a collapse of the pricing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's main pricing result, Theorem 1/Eq. (2), is derived in Appendix A by a standard hedging-and-no-arbitrage argument: it assumes the yield-token price is a smooth function of traded underlyings X_t, forms a delta-neutral portfolio, equates its riskless return to the numeraire rate, obtains the PDE (23), and applies Girsanov to reach the risk-neutral expectation. This derivation does not assume its conclusion. Theorem 4's menu optimality is also argued from utility maximization (Lemma 6), not assumed. The paper's self-citations ([8], [9], [61], [62]) are used for adaptive-rate models and data-driven tuning, not as the load-bearing justification of the pricing or menu theorems; they do not create circularity. Section 3.1 explicitly concedes that DeFi lending interest rates 'cannot be directly modeled via the traditional models above, since it is, to a large extent, set endogenously'; that is a real gap between Theorem 1's spanning assumption and the lending-pool application, but it is a modeling/completeness gap, not a circular reduction. The only concrete circular step is the 'optimally efficient' label on the indifference curve in Theorem 3, which is true by construction; it is minor and does not affect the central pricing derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central pricing claim relies on standard stochastic calculus and the assumption that yield is a hedgeable function of tradable prices; for its main lending application this is acknowledged to be incomplete. There are no fitted free parameters. The main invented primitive is the yield future, a design with no external validation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The yield process Y(t,X_t) is a function of the tradable underlying price vector X_t and can be perfectly hedged by dynamic trading in the underlying tokens.
    Theorem 1's delta-hedging argument requires this; the paper's own Section 3.1 notes lending interest rates are endogenous to utilization, not direct functions of tradable prices.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: all lending pool participants are risk neutral (later relaxed).
    Used to prove Lemma 1 and Theorem 2; Theorem 2's welfare result restates Jensen's inequality under this simplification.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: any yield token holder is either a lender or a borrower in the underlying pool.
    Simplifies the hedging argument in Theorem 2 by excluding speculators and outside liquidity providers.
  • ad hoc to paper The LP knows the traders' utility function U_S and uses it to build the indifference menu.
    Theorem 4's optimality of the indifference menu depends on the LP being able to set prices according to the traders' risk aversion; the paper says the LP 'brings knowledge of the risk aversion' without modeling how it is obtained.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: the lending pool has found its equilibrium interest rate at t=0.
    The hedging analysis in Section 3 starts after equilibrium; the dynamic process of reaching equilibrium is abstracted away.
invented entities (1)
  • Yield future token Y_i representing the yield payment at a specific future block or time
    purpose: Allows splitting a yield token into maturity slices and aggregating liquidity across yield tokens of different maturities.
    The paper introduces yield futures and a splitting contract (Sections 2.1 and 4) but no existing protocol implements them; no empirical or formal evidence outside the paper's design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Split the Yield, Share the Risk: Pricing, Hedging and Fixed rates in DeFi." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M3GTCSNA

@misc{pith2026250522784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Split the Yield, Share the Risk: Pricing, Hedging and Fixed rates in DeFi},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M3GTCSNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22784}
}
read the original abstract

We present the first formal treatment of \emph{yield tokenization}, a mechanism that decomposes yield-bearing assets into principal and yield components to facilitate risk transfer and price discovery in decentralized finance (DeFi). We propose a model that characterizes yield token dynamics using stochastic differential equations. We derive a no-arbitrage pricing framework for yield tokens, enabling their use in hedging future yield volatility and managing interest rate risk in decentralized lending pools. Taking DeFi lending as our focus, we show how both borrowers and lenders can use yield tokens to achieve optimal hedging outcomes and mitigate exposure to adversarial interest rate manipulation. Furthermore, we design automated market makers (AMMs) that incorporate a menu of bonding curves to aggregate liquidity from participants with heterogeneous risk preferences. This leads to an efficient and incentive-compatible mechanism for trading yield tokens and yield futures. Building on these foundations, we propose a modular \textit{fixed-rate} lending protocol that synthesizes on-chain yield token markets and lending pools, enabling robust interest rate discovery and enhancing capital efficiency. Our work provides the theoretical underpinnings for risk management and fixed-income infrastructure in DeFi, offering practical mechanisms for stable and sustainable yield markets.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accessed: 2023- 05

    Aave finance governance.https://app.aave.com/governance/. Accessed: 2023- 05

    2023

  2. [2]

    A unified framework for dynamic prediction market design, 2025

    Shipra Agrawal, Erick Delage, Mark Peters, Zizhuo Wang, and Yinyu Ye. A unified framework for dynamic prediction market design, 2025. URL: https: //web.stanford.edu/class/msande310/ORfinal.pdf

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Improved price oracles

    Guillermo Angeris and Tarun Chitra. Improved price oracles. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. ACM, oct 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3419614.3423251, doi:10.1145/3419614. 3423251

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    When does the tail wag the dog? curvature and market making, 2020.arXiv:2012.08040

    Guillermo Angeris, Alex Evans, and Tarun Chitra. When does the tail wag the dog? curvature and market making, 2020.arXiv:2012.08040

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Replicating market makers,

    Guillermo Angeris, Alex Evans, and Tarun Chitra. Replicating market makers,

    work page

  6. [6]

    Centrifuge turns real world assets into loans

    Axios. Centrifuge turns real world assets into loans. 2022. URL:https://www. axios.com/2022/09/23/centrifuge-turns-real-world-assets-into-loans

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Bitcoin staking on babylon, 2025

    Babylon Labs. Bitcoin staking on babylon, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https://babylonlabs.io/

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Thinking Fast and Slow: Data-Driven Adaptive DeFi Borrow-Lending Protocol

    Mahsa Bastankhah, Viraj Nadkarni, Chi Jin, Sanjeev Kulkarni, and Pramod Viswanath. Thinking Fast and Slow: Data-Driven Adaptive DeFi Borrow-Lending Protocol. In Rainer Böhme and Lucianna Kiffer, editors, 6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2024), volume 316 ofLeibniz Inter- national Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 27:1–27:...

    doi:10.4230/lipi 2024

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Agilerate: Bringing adaptivity and robustness to defi lending markets, 2025

    Mahsa Bastankhah, Viraj Nadkarni, Xuechao Wang, and Pramod Viswanath. Agilerate: Bringing adaptivity and robustness to defi lending markets, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13105, arXiv:2410.13105

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Optimal risk-aware interest rates for decentralized lending protocols, 2025

    Bastien Baude, Damien Challet, and Ioane Muni Toke. Optimal risk-aware interest rates for decentralized lending protocols, 2025. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2502.19862, arXiv:2502.19862

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The market model of interest rate dynamics

    Alastair Brace, Dariusz Gatarek, and Marek Musiela. The market model of interest rate dynamics. Mathematical Finance, 7(2):127–155, 1997. 20

    1997

  4. [12]

    Understanding libor, 2012

    British Bankers’ Association. Understanding libor, 2012. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/benchmarks/libor

    2012

  5. [13]

    Decentralized finance (defi): Transformative potential and associated risks

    Francesca Carapella, Edward Dumas, Jacob Gerszten, Nathan Swem, and Larry Wall. Decentralized finance (defi): Transformative potential and associated risks. Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Se- ries, (2022-14), 2022. URL:https://www.federalreserve.gov/eco...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Strategic bonding curves in automated market makers

    Álvaro Cartea, Fayçal Drissi, Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt, David Siska, and Lukasz Szpruch. Strategic bonding curves in automated market makers. 2024. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5018420

    2024

  7. [15]

    Defi and the future of finance

    Jason Chen, Collin Masi, Meng Wu, and Jake Brukhman. Defi and the future of finance. ArXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08091, 2020

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A curationary tale: Logarithmic regret in defi lending via dynamic pricing

    Tarun Chitra. A curationary tale: Logarithmic regret in defi lending via dynamic pricing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18237, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2503.18237

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Perpetual demand lending pools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06028, 2025

    Tarun Chitra, Theo Diamandis, Nathan Sheng, Luke Sterle, and Kamil Yusubov. Perpetual demand lending pools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06028, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06028

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Attacks on dynamic defi interest rate curves, 2023

    Tarun Chitra, Peteris Erins, and Kshitij Kulkarni. Attacks on dynamic defi interest rate curves, 2023. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13139, arXiv: 2307.13139

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cohen, Marc Sabate-Vidales, Łukasz Szpruch, and Mathis Gon- tier Delaunay

    Samuel N. Cohen, Marc Sabate-Vidales, Łukasz Szpruch, and Mathis Gon- tier Delaunay. The paradox of adversarial liquidation in decentralised lend- ing. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https: //ssrn.com/abstract=4540333

    2023

  12. [20]

    Cohen, Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt, and Łukasz Szpruch

    Samuel N. Cohen, Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt, and Łukasz Szpruch. The eco- nomics of interest rate models in decentralised lending protocols.SSRN Elec- tronic Journal, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL:https://ssrn.com/abstract= 4638390

    2023

  13. [21]

    Risks and limitations of liquid staking

    CoinFlare. Risks and limitations of liquid staking. 2025. URL: https://www. coinflare.com/blog/risks-and-limitations-of-liquid-staking/

    2025

  14. [22]

    Lido finance discloses 20 slashing events due to launchnodes validator, 2023

    Cointelegraph. Lido finance discloses 20 slashing events due to launchnodes validator, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https://cointelegraph.com/ news/lido-finance-launchnodes-validator-slashed

    2023

  15. [23]

    https://compound.finance/governance

    Compound finance governance. https://compound.finance/governance. Ac- cessed: 2023-05

    2023

  16. [24]

    A theory of the term structure of interest rates.Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 385–407, 1985

    John C Cox, Jonathan E Ingersoll, and Stephen A Ross. A theory of the term structure of interest rates.Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 385–407, 1985. 21

    1985

  17. [25]

    What are amms (automated market maker) and cfmms (constant function market maker), 2021

    Radix DLT. What are amms (automated market maker) and cfmms (constant function market maker), 2021. URL:https://learn.radixdlt.com/article/ what-are-amms-automated-market-maker-and-cfmms-constant-function-market-maker

    2021

  18. [26]

    Restaking overview, 2025

    EigenLayer. Restaking overview, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https: //docs.eigenlayer.xyz/restakers/concepts/overview

    2025

  19. [27]

    Ethereum staking – ethereum.org, 2023

    Ethereum Foundation. Ethereum staking – ethereum.org, 2023. Accessed: 2025- 05-27. URL: https://ethereum.org/en/staking/

    2023

  20. [28]

    Liquidity provider returns in geometric mean markets, 2020.arXiv: 2006.08806

    Alex Evans. Liquidity provider returns in geometric mean markets, 2020.arXiv: 2006.08806

    2020 arXiv

  21. [30]

    The element protocol construction paper, 2021

    Element Finance. The element protocol construction paper, 2021. URL:https: //paper.element.fi/

    2021

  22. [31]

    Fluid finance whitepaper, 2023

    Fluid Finance. Fluid finance whitepaper, 2023. URL:https://fluid.finance/ whitepaper.pdf

    2023

  23. [32]

    Notional finance blog, 2021

    Notional Finance. Notional finance blog, 2021. URL:https://blog.notional. finance/

    2021

  24. [33]

    Notional finance whitepaper, 2021

    Notional Finance. Notional finance whitepaper, 2021. URL:https://notional. finance/whitepaper.pdf

    2021

  25. [34]

    Pendle finance documentation, 2021

    Pendle Finance. Pendle finance documentation, 2021. URL: https://docs. pendle.finance/

    2021

  26. [35]

    Pendle v2 amm whitepaper, 2021

    Pendle Finance. Pendle v2 amm whitepaper, 2021. URL: https: //raw.githubusercontent.com/pendle-finance/pendle-v2-resources/ main/whitepapers/V2_AMM.pdf

    2021

  27. [36]

    Principal & yield token | spectra, 2023

    Spectra Finance. Principal & yield token | spectra, 2023. URL:https://docs. spectra.finance/core-concepts/principal-and-yield-token

    2023

  28. [37]

    Spectra finance documentation, 2023

    Spectra Finance. Spectra finance documentation, 2023. URL: https://docs. spectra.finance/

    2023

  29. [38]

    Tenor protocol documentation, 2024

    Tenor Finance. Tenor protocol documentation, 2024. URL:https://www.docs. tenor.finance/overview/lend/

    2024

  30. [39]

    Yearn finance whitepaper, 2021

    Yearn Finance. Yearn finance whitepaper, 2021. URL:https://yfi.management/ assets/whitepaperv1.pdf

    2021

  31. [40]

    Ethereum staking & liquid staking: Risks, rewards & insights

    Fireblocks. Ethereum staking & liquid staking: Risks, rewards & insights. 2025. URL: https://www.fireblocks.com/report/liquid-staking-101/

    2025

  32. [41]

    Arfc aave v3 interest rate curve recommendations from gaunt- let, 2023

    Gauntlet. Arfc aave v3 interest rate curve recommendations from gaunt- let, 2023. Accessed: 2024-05-20. URL: https://governance.aave.com/t/ arfc-aave-v3-interest-rate-curve-recommendations-from-gauntlet-2023-04-27/ 12921. 22

    2023

  33. [42]

    Werner, Daniel Perez, and William J

    Lewis Gudgeon, Sam M. Werner, Daniel Perez, and William J. Knottenbelt. Defi protocols for loanable funds: Interest rates, liquidity and market efficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13922, 2020. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13922

    2006 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Fair interest rates are impossible for lending pools: Results from options pricing, 2024

    Joe Halpern, Rafael Pass, and Aditya Saraf. Fair interest rates are impossible for lending pools: Results from options pricing, 2024. URL:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.11053, arXiv:2410.11053

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Campbell R. Harvey. Defi-ing the rules: Five opportunities and five risks of decentralized finance. CFA Institute , 2022. URL: https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2022/06/07/ defi-ing-the-rules-five-opportunities-and-five-risks-of-decentralized-finance/

    2022

  36. [45]

    Tycho aggregator.https://www.propellerheads.xyz/tycho

    Propeller Heads. Tycho aggregator.https://www.propellerheads.xyz/tycho. Accessed: 2025-05

    2025

  37. [46]

    Bond pricing and the term structure of interest rates: A new methodology for contingent claims valuation

    David Heath, Robert Jarrow, and Andrew Morton. Bond pricing and the term structure of interest rates: A new methodology for contingent claims valuation. Econometrica, 60(1):77–105, 1992

    1992

  38. [47]

    Mesh security sees itself as new protection on the cosmos network, 2023

    Bralon Hill. Mesh security sees itself as new protection on the cosmos network, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https://crypto.news/ mesh-security-sees-itself-as-new-protection-on-the-cosmos-network/

    2023

  39. [48]

    Pricing interest-rate-derivative securities.The Review of Financial Studies, 3(4):573–592, 1990

    John Hull and Alan White. Pricing interest-rate-derivative securities.The Review of Financial Studies, 3(4):573–592, 1990

    1990

  40. [49]

    Impermanent loss mitigation - protecting your defi investments

    Barrons Independent. Impermanent loss mitigation - protecting your defi investments. 2025. URL: https://www.barrons-independent.com/ impermanent-loss-mitigation-protecting-your-defi-investments/

    2025

  41. [50]

    Collateralized mortgage obligation (cmo), 2021

    Investopedia. Collateralized mortgage obligation (cmo), 2021. URL: https: //www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cmo.asp

    2021

  42. [51]

    Interest rate swap, 2021

    Investopedia. Interest rate swap, 2021. URL:https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/i/interestrateswap.asp

    2021

  43. [52]

    Stripped treasury bonds, 2021

    Investopedia. Stripped treasury bonds, 2021. URL:https://www.investopedia. com/terms/s/strippedtreasurybond.asp

    2021

  44. [53]

    Crypto insights part 2: Decentralised exchanges and automated market makers, 2021

    KPMG. Crypto insights part 2: Decentralised exchanges and automated market makers, 2021. URL: https: //assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/cn/pdf/en/2021/10/ crypto-insights-part-2-decentralised-exchanges-and-automated-market-makers. pdf

    2021

  45. [54]

    Routing mev in constant function market makers, 2023

    Kshitij Kulkarni, Theo Diamandis, and Tarun Chitra. Routing mev in constant function market makers, 2023. URL:https://link.springer.com/chapter/10. 1007/978-3-031-48974-7_26

    2023

  46. [55]

    Bonding curves - the what, why, and shapes be- hind them, 2019

    Linum Labs. Bonding curves - the what, why, and shapes be- hind them, 2019. URL: https://www.linumlabs.com/articles/ bonding-curves-the-what-why-and-shapes-behind-it . 23

    2019

  47. [56]

    Lido liquid staking, 2025

    Lido Finance. Lido liquid staking, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https: //lido.fi/

    2025

  48. [57]

    Moallemi, and Tim Roughgarden

    Jason Milionis, Ciamac C. Moallemi, and Tim Roughgarden. Automated market making and arbitrage profits in the presence of fees, 2023.arXiv:2305.14604

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Moallemi, and Tim Roughgarden

    Jason Milionis, Ciamac C. Moallemi, and Tim Roughgarden. A myersonian framework for optimal liquidity provision in automated market makers, 2023. arXiv:2303.00208

    2023 arXiv

  50. [59]

    pm-amm: A uniform amm for prediction markets

    Ciamac Moallemi and Dan Robinson. pm-amm: A uniform amm for prediction markets. https://www.paradigm.xyz/2024/11/pm-amm, 2024. Accessed: 2025- 05-28

    2024

  51. [60]

    Interest rate model – morpho docs.https://docs.morpho.org/ overview/concepts/irm/, 2023

    Morpho Labs. Interest rate model – morpho docs.https://docs.morpho.org/ overview/concepts/irm/, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-27

    2023

  52. [61]

    Zeroswap: Data-driven optimal market making in defi.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09413, 2023

    Viraj Nadkarni, Jiachen Hu, Ranvir Rana, Chi Jin, Sanjeev Kulkarni, and Pramod Viswanath. Zeroswap: Data-driven optimal market making in defi.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09413, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Adaptive curves for optimally efficient market making.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13794, 2024

    Viraj Nadkarni, Sanjeev Kulkarni, and Pramod Viswanath. Adaptive curves for optimally efficient market making.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13794, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    The risks of lrts.https://ethresear.ch/t/ the-risks-of-lrts/18799, February 2024

    Mike Neuder and Tarun Chitra. The risks of lrts.https://ethresear.ch/t/ the-risks-of-lrts/18799, February 2024. Posted on Ethereum Research Forum

    2024

  55. [64]

    Balancer amm: What is it, and how does it work?, 2021

    Crypto News. Balancer amm: What is it, and how does it work?, 2021. URL: https://crypto.news/balancer-amm-what-is-it/

    2021

  56. [65]

    Loss-versus-rebalancing under deterministic and generalized block-times, 2025

    Alex Nezlobin and Martin Tassy. Loss-versus-rebalancing under deterministic and generalized block-times, 2025. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.05113, arXiv:2505.05113

    2025 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Yieldspace: Anautomatedliquidity provider for fixed yield tokens, 2020

    AllanNiemerg, DanRobinson, andLevLivnev. Yieldspace: Anautomatedliquidity provider for fixed yield tokens, 2020. URL:https://yield.is/yieldspace.pdf

    2020

  58. [67]

    Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applica- tions

    Bernt Øksendal. Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applica- tions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 6th edition, 2003

    2003

  59. [68]

    Amm | pendle documentation, 2023

    Pendle Finance. Amm | pendle documentation, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https://docs.pendle.finance/ProtocolMechanics/LiquidityEngines/AMM

    2023

  60. [69]

    Eip-4626: Tokenized vault standard, 2022

    Ethereum Improvement Proposals. Eip-4626: Tokenized vault standard, 2022. URL: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4626

    2022

  61. [70]

    Cowswap docs

    CoW protocol. Cowswap docs. https://docs.cow.fi/overview/ coincidence-of-wants. Accessed: 2023-09

    2023

  62. [71]

    Uniswap v3: The universal amm.https://www.paradigm.xyz/ 2021/06/uniswap-v3-the-universal-amm, 2021

    Dan Robinson. Uniswap v3: The universal amm.https://www.paradigm.xyz/ 2021/06/uniswap-v3-the-universal-amm, 2021. Accessed: 2025-05-27

    2021

  63. [72]

    Rocket pool - decentralised ethereum liquid staking protocol, 2025

    Rocket Pool. Rocket pool - decentralised ethereum liquid staking protocol, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-27. URL: https://rocketpool.net/. 24

    2025

  64. [73]

    Decentralized finance: On blockchain- and smart contract-based financial markets.Federal Reserve Bank of St

    Fabian Schär. Decentralized finance: On blockchain- and smart contract-based financial markets.Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 103(2):153–174, 2021. URL: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2021/02/05/ decentralized-finance-on-blockchain-and-smart-contract...

    2021

  65. [74]

    The principal–agent problem in liquid staking

    Apostolos Tzinas and Dionysis Zindros. The principal–agent problem in liquid staking. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, volume 13953 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 456–469. Springer, 2023. URL: https:// link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-48806-1...

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    Uniswap v2 mainnet launch, 2020

    Uniswap. Uniswap v2 mainnet launch, 2020. URL:https://blog.uniswap.org/ launch-uniswap-v2

    2020

  67. [76]

    Concentrated liquidity - uniswap, 2021

    Uniswap. Concentrated liquidity - uniswap, 2021. URL:https://docs.uniswap. org/concepts/protocol/concentrated-liquidity

    2021

  68. [77]

    Hooks - uniswap, 2023

    Uniswap. Hooks - uniswap, 2023. URL:https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/ v4/concepts/hooks

    2023

  69. [78]

    An equilibrium characterization of the term structure.Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2):177–188, 1977

    Oldrich Vasicek. An equilibrium characterization of the term structure.Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2):177–188, 1977

    1977

  70. [79]

    fair pricing

    Sam M Werner, Daniel Perez Perez, Lewis Gudgeon, Ariah Klages-Mundt, William Knottenbelt, and Arthur Gervais. Sok: Decentralized finance (defi). InIEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2021. A Proof of Theorem 1 Proof. By Ito’s formula, we get dP T Y = ∂P T Y ∂t + ¯...

    2021

  71. [81]

    orderbook

    Without a yield tokenizer, the welfare of the lending pool participants would be W = P Li E[ULi(Li + LiY )] + P Bj E[UBj (Bj + BjY /u)]. In presence of a yield tokenizer, the lenders and borrowers would prefer to hedge and hence their welfare becomes W ′ = P Li ULi(Li + LiE[Y ...

  72. [82]

    For the AMM to be incentive compatible (which is necessary for the AMM to be non-trivial and a valid price oracle), the bonding curve function has to be quasiconcave [3]

    (constrains the reserves of the AMM directly inx, y−space), the demand curve [58](represents the minimum amount of asset that the AMM wants to hold as inventory at a pricep), and the liquidity curve (represents the infinitesimal/marginal amount of asset that the AMM wants to s...

  73. [2021]

    URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14769

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.