Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Loss-Versus-Rebalancing under Deterministic and Generalized block-times

Published 8 May 2025 in q-fin.MF, math.PR, q-fin.PM, q-fin.PR, and q-fin.TR | (2505.05113v3)

Abstract: Although modern blockchains almost universally produce blocks at fixed intervals, existing models still lack an analytical formula for the loss-versus-rebalancing (LVR) incurred by Automated Market Makers (AMMs) liquidity providers in this setting. Leveraging tools from random walk theory, we derive the following closed-form approximation for the per block per unit of liquidity expected LVR under constant block time: [ \overline{\mathrm{ARB}}= \frac{\,\sigma_b{2}} {\,2+\sqrt{2\pi}\,\gamma/(|\zeta(1/2)|\,\sigma_b)\,}+O!\bigl(e{-\mathrm{const}\tfrac{\gamma}{\sigma_b}}\bigr)\;\approx\; \frac{\sigma_b{2}}{\,2 + 1.7164\,\gamma/\sigma_b}, ] where $\sigma_b$ is the intra-block asset volatility, $\gamma$ the AMM spread and $\zeta$ the Riemann Zeta function. Our large Monte Carlo simulations show that this formula is in fact quasi-exact across practical parameter ranges. Extending our analysis to arbitrary block-time distributions as well, we demonstrate both that--under every admissible inter-block law--the probability that a block carries an arbitrage trade converges to a universal limit, and that only constant block spacing attains the asymptotically minimal LVR. This shows that constant block intervals provide the best possible protection against arbitrage for liquidity providers.

Summary

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We found no open problems mentioned in this paper.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (2)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 7 tweets with 18 likes about this paper.