Providing liquidity entirely above or below the market price in @Uniswap v3 can be used for both profit-taking and limit orders, while still earning trading fees in the process.
How does this work?
2/
If ETH is at $2500 and you want to take profits as it rises to $3000 simply deposit your ETH to the range of $2500-$3000 on an ETH/DAI (or USDC, etc) pair
At $2500 your position be 100% ETH and convert to DAI as it rises in value until it is fully converted at $3000.
3/
How much fees will be earned?
Depends on how much trading occurs in that price range. But it will provide liquidity with more than 22x the efficiency of a traditional v2 position between 0 and infinity
🔥 I don't think the insane efficiency of @Uniswap v3 has sunk in yet. Just how efficient is it?
The equation for calculating the efficiency of a concentrated v3 position relative to providing to the entire v2 curve:
1/(1 - (a/b)^(1/4))
where a and b are your price bounds
2/
Over the past 3 months (Jan8-present) the price of ETH/BTC has ranged from 0.0295 to 0.0454
Plugging into the formula, we find it is 9.8x more efficient than v2
So what does this actually mean?
3/
Today, the Uniswap v2 WBTC/ETH pair has $318m in it.
If WBTC/ETH LPs instead provided to the range of 0.0295 and 0.0454 on v3 they could create the same amount of liquidity, and take on the same amount of impermanent loss with just
Uniswap v3 provides the only possible "solution" to impermanent loss and price impact
It also lets you reduce total price risk while increasing your impermanent loss (relative to v2) with concentrated liquidity
This might need a blogpost but I'll try a long thread first
2/
"Impermanent loss" (IL) refers to the fact that if you sell a token before it rises in value it would have been better to hold it and sell more at the higher price
Similarly, if you buy a token and it drops in value it would also have been better to hold
3/
The "impermanent" part refers to the fact that if you sell a token and it rises in value you, but buy it back as it falls in value you are back to where you started
IL is only "impermanent" if prices eventually revert to where they started. Then all fees are pure profit
Result 1:
"If the volatility of an asset is high enough relative to its average rate of return, LPs on Uniswap will do better than HODLers over time, even when the only incoming trades are arbs."
TLDR: LPing can be good without "retail" volume and arb is not bad for LPs
3/
Result 2:
In a zero latency, zero network fee, arbitrage-only (no "retail") world, the profit-optimizing LP fee approaches (but never touches) 0.
This was one of the more shocking results
TLDR: Lower fees = more profitable arb trades = more total fee revenue