The Conceptual Flaws of Decentralized Automated Market Making

Andreas Park
{"title":"The Conceptual Flaws of Decentralized Automated Market Making","authors":"Andreas Park","doi":"10.1287/mnsc.2021.02802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) are an essential component of the nascent decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. The most common DEXs are so-called automated market makers (AMMs): smart contracts that pool liquidity and process trades as atomic swaps of tokens. AMMs price transactions with a deterministic liquidity invariance rule that only uses the AMM’s token deposits as inputs and that has no precedent in traditional finance. Yet, in the context of transparent and open blockchain operations, any liquidity invariance pricing function allows so-called sandwich attacks (akin to front running) that increase the cost of trading and threaten the long-term viability of the DeFi ecosystem. Invariance pricing is also not regret free. Linear pricing rules have similar problems except for uniform pricing, which has regret-free prices and limits sandwich attack profits but which invites excessive order splitting. Comparing trading costs using a model of liquidity provision, constant product pricing is often cheaper except when the variance of the underlying asset is small or when the order is large. This paper was accepted by Will Cong, special issue of Management Science: Blockchains and crypto economics. Funding: A. Park received financial support from the Global Risk Institute and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Grant 435-2017-0647]. Supplemental Material: The data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02802 .","PeriodicalId":18208,"journal":{"name":"Manag. Sci.","volume":"11 1","pages":"6731-6751"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manag. Sci.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) are an essential component of the nascent decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. The most common DEXs are so-called automated market makers (AMMs): smart contracts that pool liquidity and process trades as atomic swaps of tokens. AMMs price transactions with a deterministic liquidity invariance rule that only uses the AMM’s token deposits as inputs and that has no precedent in traditional finance. Yet, in the context of transparent and open blockchain operations, any liquidity invariance pricing function allows so-called sandwich attacks (akin to front running) that increase the cost of trading and threaten the long-term viability of the DeFi ecosystem. Invariance pricing is also not regret free. Linear pricing rules have similar problems except for uniform pricing, which has regret-free prices and limits sandwich attack profits but which invites excessive order splitting. Comparing trading costs using a model of liquidity provision, constant product pricing is often cheaper except when the variance of the underlying asset is small or when the order is large. This paper was accepted by Will Cong, special issue of Management Science: Blockchains and crypto economics. Funding: A. Park received financial support from the Global Risk Institute and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Grant 435-2017-0647]. Supplemental Material: The data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02802 .
去中心化自动做市的概念缺陷
去中心化交易所(DEX)是新生的去中心化金融(DeFi)生态系统的重要组成部分。最常见的去中心化交易所是所谓的自动做市商(AMM):汇集流动性并以代币原子互换的形式处理交易的智能合约。AMM 采用确定性流动性不变规则为交易定价,该规则仅使用 AMM 的代币存款作为输入,在传统金融领域尚无先例。然而,在透明、开放的区块链操作背景下,任何流动性不变定价功能都会允许所谓的三明治攻击(类似于前置运行),从而增加交易成本,威胁 DeFi 生态系统的长期生存能力。不变性定价也不是无悔的。线性定价规则也有类似的问题,但统一定价除外,因为统一定价具有无悔价格,限制了夹心攻击的利润,但会导致过度拆单。使用流动性提供模型比较交易成本,恒定产品定价通常更便宜,除非标的资产方差较小或订单较大。本文已被《管理科学》特刊 Will Cong 接收:区块链和加密经济学》特刊录用。资助:A. Park 获得了全球风险研究所(Global Risk Institute)和加拿大社会科学与人文研究理事会(Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada)的资金支持 [Grant 435-2017-0647]。补充材料:数据文件可在 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02802 上获取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信