Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) present challenges for regulation and investor protection; nevertheless, they also present many opportunities for disintermediation and transparency. We explore the past and present state of DEXs, and argue that regulators ought to recognize the both their risks and promises, pursuing oversight strategies that balance flexibility and investor protection.
Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) present challenges for regulation and investor protection; nevertheless, they also present many opportunities for disintermediation and transparency. We explore the past and present state of DEXs, and argue that regulators ought to recognize the both their risks and promises, pursuing oversight strategies that balance flexibility and investor protection.
Decentralized exchanges are widely used platforms for trading crypto assets. The most common types work with automated market makers (AMM), allowing traders to exchange assets without needing to find matching counterparties. Thereby, traders exchange against asset reserves managed by smart contracts. These assets are provided by liquidity providers in exchange for a fee. Static analysis shows that small price changes in one of the assets can result in losses for liquidity providers. Despite the success of AMMs, it is claimed that liquidity providers often suffer losses. However, the literature does not adequately consider the dynamic effects of fees over time. Therefore, we investigate the impermanent loss problem in a dynamic setting using Monte Carlo simulations. Our findings indicate that price changes do not necessarily lead to losses. Fees paid by traders and arbitrageurs are equally important. In this respect, we can show that an arbitrage-friendly environment benefits the liquidity provider. Thus, we suggest that AMM developers should promote an arbitrage-friendly environment rather than trying to prevent arbitrage.
