Impermanent Loss reduction idea. Every pool has a secondary "overflow pool" attached. When someone swaps asset 'A', rather than the pool becoming imbalanced and then arbed, an equal amount of asset 'B' goes into this secondary pool. #DeFi#Ethereum
If asset 'B' is swapped next then capital comes out of the overflow pool first and if large enough then the primary pool at which point asset 'A' would then be placed into the overflow pool.
There is a cap on how large the overflow pool can become as a % of the primary pool (10, 20 or 30% max?), at which point standard Constant Mix is enforced to prevent pool depth from getting too low.
I am going to start this thread by saying... the term impermanent loss should NEVER have been created! Why? Because there is already a term for a pool that balances based on constant product. It's called... *drum roll* 🥁 Constant Mix Strategy!
Constant mix has been around for as long as trading strategies have existed. It is simply a strategy that keeps a constant weighting of each asset.
Yes, it's true. The math behind IL, profit and loss curve, everything about this is old news.
1 - Uniswap LP yield from fees are automatically reinvested back into the pool. There is no gas involved and makes this yield comparable to dividend paying stocks using DRIP. If you are paid in gov. token the gains are separate from the pool and must be explicitly reinvested.
2 - LP's Uniswap gains are GAS FREE 🥳. Gas is expensive. Gas costs add up. Due to compounding, losing a little money today is losing a lot in the future. If you want the equivalent in gov tokens you must claim, then swap, then add the new liquidity. *ouch*
I was thinking how AMM's can reduce price impact and arb losses. It would essentially require various AMM protocols to communicate with each other over another protocol layer. I then read some of what @andrecronjedev is working on and it is almost identical to my thoughts. 😂
This would only work as single, atomic transaction to reduce front running opportunities. For that to be the case this AMM-to-AMM communication would have to be tied into the AMM's smart contracts using a middle-layer protocol. Here's a high level view of how it would work...
User initiates trade -> Trade is sent to AMM -> AMM calculated price impact -> If large enough the protocol then looks at a pool of other AMMs connected to middle-layer -> It then initiates a swap if profitable -> single atomic transaction is mined and executed.
I am quickly approaching 800 holders of my sets on @tokensets . That probably makes this a good time to talk about an important aspect of my trading, which is position sizing.
I get asked sometimes why I often take smaller positions. The simple answer is "risk".
Essentially a trader should not just look at how much they could make (reward) per trade but also how much they could lose (risk). In addition to that there is also the fact that any trade could be a losing trade which makes risk even more critical to manage.
Diving deeper, a good trading strategy will have at least a slight long term edge. Losses on the other hand create a compounding disadvantage, neutralizing the edge. A 10% loss takes 11% gains to recover, 20% loss takes 25% to recover, and 50% loss takes 100% gains to recover.