Rethinking Impermanent Loss: Exploring the Evolving Landscape of Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs)

In this interview, we explore the evolving landscape of decentralized exchanges (DEXs), particularly focusing on the market leader, Uniswap. We discuss the significance of using mathematical functions for price determination in exchanges, which diverges from traditional order book systems. The conversation highlights the advantages of the Constant Product Market Maker (CPMM) model and emphasizes the role of smart contracts in its proliferation within the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. Notably, we introduce the concept of impermanent gain, which provides new perspectives on impermanent loss under certain conditions for liquidity providers. Additionally, we address the crucial role of user education and the practical implications of research findings on established DeFi platforms like Uniswap. We also cover the regulatory challenges facing DEX and the importance of implementing measures to enhance trust between users and platforms. Ultimately, this interview offers realistic insights into the future of Automated Market Makers (AMMs) and the prospects for businesses like Uniswap to enhance profitability through innovation alongside the ongoing research needed to navigate the complexities of digital finance.

This interview delves into the evolving landscape of decentralized exchanges (DEXs), with a particular focus on the market leader, Uniswap. We discuss the significance of using mathematical functions for price determination in exchanges, which diverges from traditional order book systems. The conversation highlights the advantages of the Constant Product Market Maker (CPMM) model and emphasizes the role of smart contracts in its proliferation within the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. Notably, we introduce the concept of impermanent gain, which provides new perspectives on impermanent loss under certain conditions for liquidity providers. Additionally, we address the crucial role of user education and the practical implications of research findings on established DeFi platforms like Uniswap. We also cover the regulatory challenges facing DEX and the importance of implementing measures to enhance trust between users and platforms. Ultimately, this interview offers realistic insights into the future of Automated Market Makers (AMMs) and the prospects for businesses like Uniswap to enhance profitability through innovation alongside the ongoing research needed to navigate the complexities of digital finance.

The following is a Q&A session with Professor Hyoung Joong Kim from the Business Group for the Next Generation of Communication at Kookmin University.

Q: Price Determination: Can you explain the importance of using mathematical functions for price determination and how this differs from traditional order book systems in decentralized exchanges?

A: Throughout history, there seems to have never been an instance where prices were determined by mathematical formula. The process of discovering prices has been bypassed, yet it feels surprisingly natural to accept a determined price, similar to buying items at a fixed price. The mathematical price determination was first attempted by Uniswap in 2018, and it has since taken root in the market, making the company a unicorn. This method has been adopted by several decentralized exchanges such as Sushiswap and PancakeSwap. Recently, mathematical pricing has also been applied in prediction markets.

Q: Constant Product Market Maker: What are the key advantages of using the Constant Product Market Maker (CPMM) in decentralized exchanges, and why do you think it has been widely adopted?

A: It is crucial to understand the meaning of constant product. The constant product refers to keeping the product of the quantity of coin A and the quantity of coin B constant. As the quantity of coin A increases, the quantity of coin B must decrease so that the product is a constant, and vice versa. If the quantity of coin A decreases while that of coin B increases, it indicates that the value of coin A has been relatively higher compared to coin B. In other words, a smaller quantity corresponds to a higher price and a larger quantity to a lower price, a universal truth utilized in price determination. People perceive this method as fair, and it functions through smart contracts, which is significant, suggesting that this approach has the potential for wide use in the future.

Q: Causes of Impermanent Loss: What causes impermanent loss?

A: It is widely acknowledged that liquidity providers suffer a loss on exchanges utilizing CPMM. This loss is referred to as impermanent loss and has been accepted as a norm because it has mathematically been proven that loss always occurs. The prices used in this context are represented by the ratio of the quantity of coin A to that of coin B, which is the fundamental cause surrounding impermanent loss.

Q: Types of Mathematical Pricing: Are there multiple types of mathematical pricing?

A: In the effort to eliminate impermanent loss, I found that at least two types of mathematical pricing exist. The price of coin A is represented by the ratio of the quantity of coin A to that of coin B, which is referred to as the relative price. However, using this pricing does not allow for the removal of impermanent loss, and this relative price is, in fact, not the exact price of coin A. The exact price of coin A is expressed as the absolute value of the ratio of the increment in the quantity of coin A to that of coin B. I refer to this as the exact price, which indeed represents the true price. The relative price is the price before a transaction takes place, the exact price is the price at the moment the actual transaction takes place, and the difference between the two prices is called slippage.

Q: Impermanent Loss and Gain: The paper suggests that impermanent gain can be achieved under certain conditions. What are these conditions, and how do they benefit liquidity providers?

A: Completely eliminating impermanent loss is impossible. However, contrary to prior knowledge, I discovered that gain can occasionally occur. For gain to be realized, two conditions must be satisfied. First, the use of the exact price, not the relative price. For example, in the past, when liquidity providers first participated in the liquidity pool, they deposited 10 coins, and after many transactions, there are now 11 coins, and at some point in the future, when a trader wants to buy two coins, the quantity of coins will decrease to 9. In other words, the second condition is that it goes from 11 to