The Paradox Of Just-in-Time Liquidity in Decentralized Exchanges: More Providers Can Sometimes Mean Less Liquidity
We study Just-in-time (JIT) liquidity provision in blockchain-based decentralized exchanges. A JIT liquidity provider (LP) monitors pending swap orders in public mempools of blockchains to sandwich orders of their choice with liquidity, depositing right before and withdrawing right after the order. Our game-theoretic model with asymmetrically informed agents reveals that a JIT LP's presence does not always enhance liquidity pool depth, as one might expect. While passive LPs face adverse selection by informed arbitrageurs, a JIT LP's ability to detect pending orders for toxic order flow prior to liquidity provision lets them avoid being adversely selected. JIT LPs thus only provide liquidity to uninformed orders and crowd out passive LPs when order volume is not sufficiently elastic to pool depth, possibly reducing overall market liquidity. We show that using a two-tiered fee structure which transfers a part of a JIT LP's fee revenue to passive LPs or allowing for JIT LPs to compete \`{a} la Cournot are potential solutions to mitigate the negative effects of JIT liquidity.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Periodicity in Cryptocurrency Volatility and Liquidity
We study recurrent patterns in volatility and volume for major cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ether, using data from two centralized exchanges (Coinbase Pro and Binance) and a decentralized exchange (Uniswap V2). We find …
Algorithmic TradingDynamic Curves for Decentralized Autonomous Cryptocurrency Exchanges
One of the exciting recent developments in decentralized finance (DeFi) has been the development of decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges that can autonomously handle conversion between different cryptocurrencies. Decen…
Generalizing Impermanent Loss on Decentralized Exchanges with Constant Function Market Makers
Liquidity providers are essential for the function of decentralized exchanges to ensure liquidity takers can be guaranteed a counterparty for their trades. However, liquidity providers investing in liquidity pools face m…
Fragmentation and optimal liquidity supply on decentralized exchanges
We investigate how liquidity providers (LPs) choose between high- and low-fee trading venues, in the face of a fixed common gas cost. Analyzing Uniswap data, we find that high-fee pools attract 58% of liquidity supply ye…
ManagementLiquidity provision of utility indifference type in decentralized exchanges
We present a mathematical formulation of liquidity provision in decentralized exchanges. We focus on constant function market makers of utility indifference type, which include constant product market makers with concent…