Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2106.14404

UNISWAP: Impermanent Loss and Risk Profile of a Liquidity Provider

Andreas A. Aigner·Gurvinder Dhaliwal
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Uniswap is a decentralized exchange (DEX) and was first launched on November 2, 2018 on the Ethereum mainnet [1] and is part of an Ecosystem of products in Decentralized Finance (DeFi). It replaces a traditional order book type of trading common on centralized exchanges (CEX) with a deterministic model that swaps currencies (or tokens/assets) along a fixed price function determined by the amount of currencies supplied by the liquidity providers. Liquidity providers can be regarded as investors in the decentralized exchange and earn fixed commissions per trade. They lock up funds in liquidity pools for distinct pairs of currencies allowing market participants to swap them using the fixed price function. Liquidity providers take on market risk as a liquidity provider in exchange for earning commissions on each trade. Here we analyze the risk profile of a liquidity provider and the so called impermanent (unrealized) loss in particular. We provide an improved version of the commonly denoted impermanent loss function for Uniswap v2 on the semi-infinite domain. The differences between Uniswap v2 and v3 are also discussed.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.TRq-fin.CPq-fin.GNq-fin.PMq-fin.RM

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Andreas A. Aigner, Gurvinder Dhaliwal. 2021-06-28. UNISWAP: Impermanent Loss and Risk Profile of a Liquidity Provider. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.32419.58400/6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Deep Learning of Robust Market Making under Regime-Switching Order Flow

Classical market-making strategies based on stochastic control, such as the Avellaneda-Stoikov and the Gu\'{e}ant-Lehalle-Fernandez-Tapia (GLFT) extension, provide closed-form quoting rules, but rest on assumptions that break down at realistic microstructure timescales. One of them is that order flow is stationary, while empirical evidence points to the existence of regimes, possibly associated with algorithmic execution of metaorders. In this case, existing methods provide negative PnL. In this paper, we develop a deep reinforcement-learning market maker (RLMM) - a Rainbow-style distributional DQN (C51) which is calibrated and tested in a zero-intelligence limit order book. We find that, in the stationary setting, RLMM outperforms GLFT across the entire observed risk-return frontier. The RLMM is more robust to flow asymmetry than GLFT, but, like any stationarily trained strategy, it still suffers large drawdowns from inventory saturation under persistent directional imbalance. Augmenting the state of RLMM with two auxiliary signals - a Bayesian online change-point filter over the directional flow bias and a queue-adjusted quote-exposure imbalance -restores profitability. A final scenario-bandit step that reweights low-return regime scenarios further improves performance under random-persistence and correlated-direction stress.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

dexamine: A Python package for Uniswap event data on Ethereum

Decentralized exchanges record trading and liquidity provision on public blockchains, but empirical analysis requires interpreting these records and linking them to execution metadata. dexamine is a Python package that parses Uniswap v2 and v3 events on Ethereum. It converts transaction receipt logs into observations of trades and liquidity changes, with token quantities, pool state, transaction order, and gas information. The package separates data retrieval, contract metadata, protocol interpretation, and output construction. The repository provides recorded Ethereum responses and an offline reproducible example, and version 1 has been used to construct data for an empirical study of price discovery in decentralized markets.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

The Double-Edged Sword of Short-Selling Bans

We develop a theoretical model that endogenizes the regulator's decision to impose short-selling bans to prevent large stock price declines. Empirically, we test the model's predictions using the cross-sectional variation in short-selling restrictions implemented across European countries in 2020. Consistent with our model, we find that bans had a detrimental effect on liquidity and failed to support the average price levels, but were effective in limiting large price drawdowns. Finally, we show that the effectiveness of the bans depends on the share of informed stockholders, a central variable in our framework, thus informing the design of more effective regulatory responses.

q-fin.TR↗