Impermanent Loss Rekenmachine

Not necessarily — it is a loss relative to simply holding both assets, but the LP position may still be profitable in absolute dollar terms if token prices rise and fee income is sufficient. For example, if both tokens in a pool double in price, both the hold strategy and the LP position gain value in dollar terms, but the LP position gains less due to IL. The IL represents underperformance versus holding, not necessarily an absolute cash loss. Whether providing liquidity was the right choice depends on whether accumulated fees exceeded the IL penalty over the holding period.

The loss is called impermanent because it only locks in and becomes permanent when you withdraw from the pool at a price ratio that differs from your deposit ratio. If prices return to exactly the original deposit ratio before you withdraw, the IL disappears completely and you keep all fees earned. In practice, however, most volatile token pairs rarely return to their exact original ratio, making the loss effectively permanent in most real-world scenarios. Some researchers and protocols now prefer the term divergence loss as a more accurate description of the underlying mechanism.

Pairs with stable or highly correlated prices experience the least IL. Stablecoin pairs like USDC/USDT, liquid staking pairs like ETH/stETH, wrapped token pairs like BTC/wBTC, and correlated assets that tend to move together all exhibit minimal IL. Pairs with high volatility and low correlation, such as a large-cap cryptocurrency paired with a small-cap altcoin, experience the most IL. Matching the price correlation of your pair to your IL tolerance is a fundamental LP strategy decision.

The break-even fee APY depends on the magnitude of IL and your holding period. If IL is 5.72% from a 2x price move and you hold the position for one year, you need at least 5.72% annual fee income on your LP value to break even. If the pool generates 15% fee APY, you net approximately 9.28% after IL. However, this assumes a one-time price change that stabilizes. If prices are continuously volatile, IL accumulates continuously and the required fee APY is much higher. High-volatility pairs therefore need very high fee APYs to compensate for ongoing IL.

Uniswap v3 allows LPs to concentrate their liquidity within a specific price range, earning much higher fee income per dollar of capital when prices trade within that range. However, concentrated liquidity amplifies IL within the range and creates binary risk at the boundaries: when prices exit the range, the position converts entirely to one token and earns zero fees. Active management is required to adjust ranges as prices move. Concentrated liquidity is not suitable for passive investors who cannot monitor and rebalance positions regularly.

No. IL as defined, which is the underperformance versus holding both assets, is bounded by the AMM mechanics. The worst case for a constant-product AMM is when one token goes to zero. In that scenario, your LP position is worth approximately half of the initial deposit value (all in the surviving token), while the hold position retains the surviving token's value. The mathematical maximum IL in a 50/50 AMM is approximately 50% relative to the hold position when one token becomes worthless, not 100%.

Yes. Different AMM curve designs significantly affect the IL profile. Constant-product AMMs using x*y=k like Uniswap v2 have a standard IL curve. Stable-asset AMMs like Curve use a combination of constant-sum and constant-product formulas, producing much lower IL for near-pegged assets because the pricing curve is flatter near the 1:1 ratio. Weighted AMMs like Balancer allow non-50/50 pools where an 80/20 pool has lower IL than a 50/50 pool because less rebalancing occurs. Oracle-based AMMs attempt to minimize IL by using external price feeds to set prices rather than relying entirely on arbitrage.

Model IL explicitly before providing liquidity. Estimate the expected price range for your token pair, calculate expected IL at the boundaries, and compare against the pool's historical fee APY. If the fee APY exceeds your IL estimate with a meaningful margin, LP provision may be appropriate. Use on-chain analytics tools such as DefiLlama, Uniswap Analytics, or Revert Finance to track actual fee income and IL in real time. Set a withdrawal trigger: if IL exceeds a pre-defined threshold such as 10%, consider exiting before the loss deepens. Never provide liquidity to a volatile pair without first modeling the IL risk.