1) I really like experiments. Especially the ones which can disrupt what we are currently used to. DeFi is the best example - an attempt to disrupt TradFi with a code. AMMs are already disrupting centralized exchanges and constantly evolve. What about the final form of AMM?
2) This is what @IntegralHQ tries to achieve - the final form of AMM, the one that eats other exchanges' liquidity. Sounds like a dream, doesn't it? So let's dive into it deeper. It's complex and I won't pretend I fully understand all the technical docs but I'll try to ELI5.
3) How will @IntegralHQ suck in all the liquidity? Technically it won't. But it will act as if it would have. This is due to its unique combination of AMM with orderbook (OB-AMM design). It allows them to mirror liquidity from other exchanges to become the cheapest one to trade.
4) Let's break down the term "liquidty" here. It combines 2 concepts:
- Capital: the actual amount of money liquidity providers (LP) put in OB or AMM
- Depth: the way how Capital is used for market making, which determines the slippage on the trades (OB depth, AMM shape)
5) After $UNI v3 announcement you should be familiar with the concept of concentrated liquidity. It means, that LPs can concentrate their capital for a given price range to create a bigger depth = low slippage even for big trades. Integral does a similar thing but automatically.
6) To achieve its first target, 3x Binance spot market liquidity, @IntegralHQ just needs to know what Binance's OB looks like (Depth). LPs supply the Capital to Integral which is allocated according to 3x Depth. This is the essence of automated concentrated liquidity at Integral.
7) The innovation here is to de-couple Depth and Capital in OB-AMM design. It allows Integral to achieve the same Depth with much less Capital. They can do it with any exchange. This is what they mean by "continuous vampire attack until all world liquidity is integrated by us".
8) Concentrated liquidity at Integral means very low slippage on large trades = lower total trading costs. Below table summarises total trading costs for $100k trade on Uniswap, Binance and Integral. Differences are substantial and very impressive, aren't they?
9) So whales should be happy with trading on Integral. What about average users? At the beginning, only large trades can beat other exchanges (>$30k) due to high gas costs on Ethereum. The Team claims to beat the world in small trades too when they move onto L2 later this year.
10) There are a couple of catches for traders though:
- They have to wait an extra 5 minutes on top of the usual time to mine transaction on Ethereum.
- The order is executed at the average Uniswap price over 5 minutes (TWAP).
11) From UX perspective it works this way: 1. You click "swap" button to send the order. 2. Order gets into a queue and waits 5 minutes for execution. 3. Order is executed at 5-minute TWAP + mining time.
Why is this friction needed?
12) The trade delay mechanism is implemented to protect LPs from impermanent loss (IL). I explained IL in detail in one of my threads where I focused on mitigation strategies. But my definition is correct only for traditional AMMs which follow x*y=k curve.
13) But @IntegralHQ is not a traditional AMM. Price is not the outcome of the ratio of two tokens in the pool. Instead it uses price oracle aka 5-min Uniswap TWAP. This AMM design doesn't have "paper hands" as I mocked at traditional AMMs earlier.
14) At Integral even if you (as LP) have less ETH when ETH price goes up, you have sold them at fairer price than in traditional AMM. But suprisingly, you could also have more ETH when ETH price goes up. Something unheard of in traditional AMM.
15) How can this happen? It's called Cyclical Imbalance (CI) and means that pool ratio will not be fixed at 50:50 but fluctuate cyclically around it as LPs are incentivized to bound it between 40% and 60% at all times. CI is needed to achieve concentrated liquidity.
16) CI can affect LPs in a short term. Positively or negatively.
For example, you deposit 50:50 into ETH-USD pool and ETH price goes up.
- Positive CI: pool has > 50% ETH = profit
- Negative CI: pool has < 50% ETH = loss
Profit or loss are only realized at withdrawal.
17) If you stay longer in a pool, you will almost surely see the pool ratio revert to your initial ratio which means you will at least break-even as LP. At least because you will also earn fees, farming rewards and have ETH exposure (your benchmark return).
18) It's important to emphasise that CI is different from IL. With IL LPs are guaranteed to lose (if not actively mitigated). CI can cause short-term profits or losses but due its cyclical nature, profits/losses will be cancelled when CI eventually reverts to LP's initial ratio.
19) OK. Let's sum up the core elements of OB-AMM: 1. Price oracle aka 5-min Uniswap TWAP. 2. Trade delay. 3. Concentrated liquidity (LPs' Capital follows OB Depth modified by leverage factor)
It results in extremely low slippage for traders and no IL for LPs.
20) Although OB-AMM design is technically complex, you don't really need to understand all the details. You can just try it now on testnet or when it goes live on 29.03. This will also be a great opportunity to farm $ITGR token by LPing or trading.
21) Is it safe? Well, nothing is safe in DeFi. This is still a highly experimental space. That's also why it's so rewarding if you take a risk. But it's definitely not a degen-risk play. The product has gone through 9 months of careful design & development and 3 completed audits.
1) While I, as active liquidity provider, am excited about sophisticated options for LPs in $UNI v3, I'm also concerned that too much complexity will only serve few in the know and leave the majority of (passive) LPs behind.
2) Although I haven't conducted a survey to justify my thesis, I'm quite convinced that the majority of current LPs don't actively manage their pools. This is based on my observations and pushed me to share a set of "advanced" strategies for active LPs:
3) Uni v3 feature to provide liquidity only for a given range (+ other options) will be useful for professional market makers who will likely eat lunch of passive LPs. If passive LPs earn less, they may look for alternative simple solutions.
1) What is the most popular term in DeFi which you have never heard of in traditional world? Probably aping but let's assume it's impermanent loss (IL). Every liquidity provider in AMM suffered from IL. But do you know that you can beat it? Read this thread to find out how.
2) Let's start with a quick definition of IL. It's a difference in value between your current assets in liquidity pool (LP) and assets you would have if you hadn't added them to LP. In other words:
IL = current assets at current prices - initial assets at current prices
3) Why current assets are different than initial assets? Because this is how AMM works - each trade changes the amount of both tokens (x and y) in LP so that their product remains constant (x*y=k). It's like automatic rebalancing of your portfolio consisting of tokens x and y.
1) If you don't like reading long blog posts with project updates but prefer to get a bullish thread with a summary of news pumping your favourite token, I'm here to serve. It's $BNT time again after the March release of Bancor Progress Update. blog.bancor.network/bancor-progres…
2) "In the last month, the total value locked in the Bancor Protocol has more than doubled, exceeding $1.6 billion. Bancor broke into the top 10 projects by TVL and now generates the fifth highest revenue of any protocol on Ethereum." - no commentary is needed - bullish $BNT.
3) $BNT circulating supply reported by CoinGecko & CoinMarketCap is overstated. When you deposit single-sided liquidity, @Bancor mints BNT into the pool to match it. This BNT is protocol-owned, largely remains in the pool earning fees and is eventually burned.
1) Although in a bull market narratives drive prices more than fundamentals, it's always wise to look at your portfolio from a bear market perspective and pay attention to traditional valuation metrics adapted to DeFi. @tokenterminal is a place to go. Let's play a bit with AMMs.
2) The most common metric used to compare protocols is Price to Sales ratio (P/S). It's a relation of a protocol's market cap to its revenue so it indicates how the market values the asset relative to its revenue and expectation of future growth.
3) In terms of AMMs revenue represents total fees paid by traders to liquidity providers. In other words it's the amount users are willing to pay to use the protocol. For better comparison market cap is fully diluted (FDV), i.e. it assumes all tokens are in circulation.
1) I've been trying to raise awareness of superior @Bancor dex for some time but my reach on Twitter is so low that I literally twitted for myself with the aim to quote it when market realises I was right. I think this time has come.
2) In my opinion @Bancor is the most innovative AMM on the market and $BNT is substantially undervalued. The core features include:
- Single-sided liquidity (you can add liquidity for your token only)
- Impermanent loss protection
- Low trading fees (0.2% vs 0.6% on Uni or Sushi)
3) More features are coming:
- Leveraged liquidity on staked $BNT (borrow against staked $BNT for better capital efficiency)
- Layer 2 on Arbitrum for faster and cheaper transactions
- Cross-chain bridge to Polkadot & other chains