---
title: Not All LPs Are Equal: The Active-Passive Gap in Automated Market Maker Liquidity Provision
url: https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2609.37963/
site: ML-Quant (https://www.ml-quant.com)
updated: 2026-10-02
license: Summaries CC BY 4.0; links go to the original sources
index: https://www.ml-quant.com/llms.txt
identifier: arXiv:2609.37963
source_url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37963
featured: 2026-10-02
citations: unknown
topic: Crypto & DeFi
---


# Not All LPs Are Equal: The Active-Passive Gap in Automated Market Maker Liquidity Provision

Analysis of Uniswap pools shows passive liquidity providers underperform aggregate pool returns, with the gap wider on Ethereum than on layer-two blockchains.

- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37963
- Identifier: arXiv:2609.37963
- Released: 2026-09-30
- First featured: Quant Letter No. 133 (2026-10-02): https://www.ml-quant.com/issues/2026-10-02/
- Citations (Semantic Scholar): not tracked
- Published in: not yet
- Topic: Crypto & DeFi
- Authors: Agathe Sadeghi, Dingyue Liu, Ciamac Moallemi, Xin Wan, Brian Zhu

## Abstract (arXiv, CC0)

Liquidity provision in automated market makers is typically analyzed at the pool level, implicitly assuming LP homogeneity. This aggregate view can hide how liquidity provision outcomes differ between LP strategies, particularly as concentrated liquidity AMM designs operating on high-performance blockchains allow liquidity to be actively repositioned around trades. We develop a markout-based framework to decompose Uniswap LP profitability into active and passive components using two complementary methods: a LIFO subtraction method that matches short-lived mint-burn positions and attributes swap-level markouts by liquidity share; and an infinitesimal LP benchmark that estimates the performance of a fully passive, always-in-range marginal LP directly from the AMM price path. We apply these methods to Uniswap v2, v3, and v4 pools on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base chains, and find passive profitability can materially differ from aggregate pool profitability.In Uniswap v2, with liquidity distributed evenly and active LP behavior nearly absent, the overall and passive markouts are almost the same. In contrast, concentrated-liquidity pools have a systematic active-passive gap: passive LPs tend to underperform aggregate pool-level measures. The gap is wider on Ethereum than on L2s, consistent with active liquidity provision being more useful when block times and ordering conditions allow LPs to react to incoming flow. In general, passive LPs perform better on higher fee pools. The LIFO and infinitesimal estimates are generally consistent directionally across most pools, providing evidence of the robustness of the decomposition. The results suggest that adverse selection in AMMs is not evenly distributed among LPs, with important implications for LP strategy, fee-tier design and measurement of DEX market quality.

## Related

- [Price Discovery in Cryptocurrency Markets](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2506.08718/): Centralized markets typically lead in Ethereum price discovery compared to decentralized exchanges, affecting liquidity, arbitrage, and market efficiency.
- [Private MEV Protection RPCs: Benchmark Stud](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2505.19708/): OFA Implications: The Ethereum DeFi sector has seen a shift with 80% of transactions now using private RPCs, emphasizing the impact of Order Flow Auctions on transaction efficiency and quality.
- [Price manipulation schemes of new crypto-tokens in decentralized exchanges](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2502.10512/): An analysis of decentralized exchanges (DEXs) shows high risks in investing in new tokens due to liquidity traps and fraud, emphasizing the importance of understanding the financial dynamics and risks of decentralized markets.
- [Trust Dynamics in Cryptocurrency Markets: Centralized vs. Decentralized Exchanges](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2404.17227/): The study investigates the impact of incidents on trust and trading behaviors in centralized and decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges.
- [A theoretical framework for fees in AMMs](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2404.03976/): The study explores the workings of arbitrage in decentralized finance automated market makers (AMMs), aiming to understand how AMMs can optimize revenue or minimize losses, and models the dynamics of arbitrage activity.
- [Deep Learning for Dynamic NFT Valuation](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2312.05346/): The research suggests a deep learning model to predict non-fungible tokens (NFTs) prices using Ethereum blockchain and OpenSea data, which could be useful in decentralized finance (DeFi).