The Cost of Permissionless Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers

Julian Ma; Davide Crapis

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2402.18256

The Cost of Permissionless Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers

Julian Ma·Davide Crapis

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Automated market makers (AMMs) allocate fee revenue \textit{proportional} to the amount of liquidity investors deposit. In this paper, we study the economic consequences of the competition between passive liquidity providers (LPs) caused by this allocation rule. We employ a game-theoretic model in which $N$ strategic agents optimally provide liquidity and two types of liquidity traders trade. In this setting, we find that competition drives LPs to provide excess liquidity. Excess liquidity is costly as more capital is exposed to adverse selection costs. One of our main results is that the price of anarchy, defined over the liquidity provider performance, is $O(N)$, implying that the welfare loss scales linearly with the number of liquidity providers. This inefficient capital allocation is masked when considering the welfare of elastic liquidity traders as the total price of anarchy is $O(1)$. Since this result is driven by elastic liquidity traders benefiting from the liquidity provided because of inelastic liquidity traders, we show that different types of liquidity traders complement each other. Finally, we show that AMM designs that reduce the arbitrage intensity per unit of liquidity do increase utility for liquidity traders but importantly not for LPs nor do they necessarily decrease total arbitrage volume.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Julian Ma, Davide Crapis. 2024-08-03. The Cost of Permissionless Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18256

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning in Structured Stackelberg Games

We initiate the study of structured Stackelberg games, a novel form of strategic interaction between a leader and a follower where contextual information can be predictive of the follower's (unknown) type. Motivated by applications such as security games and AI safety, we show how this additional structure can help the leader learn a utility-maximizing policy in both the online and distributional settings. In the online setting, we first prove that standard learning-theoretic measures of complexity do not characterize the difficulty of the leader's learning task. Notably, we find that there exists a learning-theoretic measure of complexity, analogous to the Littlestone dimension in online classification, that tightly characterizes the leader's instance-optimal regret. We term this the Stackelberg-Littlestone dimension, and leverage it to provide a provably optimal online learning algorithm. In the distributional setting, we provide analogous results by showing that two new dimensions control the sample complexity upper- and lower-bound.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Equilibrium and Infeasibility: A new solution concept for games

Addressing infeasibility in non-cooperative games has become an important topic, as many problems across different applications face this issue. In this paper, we propose a new solution concept for generalized games with possibly infeasible individual constraints. A solution is defined as the limit of a sequence of generalized Nash equilibria induced by games with penalty terms relaxing the individual constraints. Existence is established for a broad range of games and we provide conditions allowing to characterize a $ψ$-penalized solution as a strategy profile maximizing every player's utility over all her penalty minimizing strategies. A variation of Divide-the-Dollar serves as an illustrative example. We further establish the compatibility with the GNE and the solution to the Nash bargaining.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Subgame-Perfect Nash Equilibria of Plurality Voting with Abstention: a PSPACE-Completeness Result for Restricted Ballots

We consider sequential Plurality elections in which each voter may abstain or vote for a single candidate. Each voter assigns utilities to all candidates; for each voter, this induces a (weak) order over the candidates. Ties are resolved uniformly at random, and voting has a small positive cost, so that a voter prefers to abstain when their vote cannot change the election outcome. We consider a variant of this model where, for each voter, we additionally specify a prefix of her ranking, so that she is only allowed to vote for a candidate from that prefix (or abstain). We prove that for this variant of the model, deciding whether a designated candidate is among the election winners in a subgame-perfect equilibrium of the associated extensive-form game is PSPACE-complete. This partially resolves an open problem from the work of Desmedt and Elkind [2010].

cs.GT↗