---
title: Loss-versus-rebalancing with external proportional transaction costs
url: https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2610.21057/
site: ML-Quant (https://www.ml-quant.com)
updated: 2026-10-16
license: Summaries CC BY 4.0; links go to the original sources
index: https://www.ml-quant.com/llms.txt
identifier: arXiv:2610.21057
source_url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21057
featured: 2026-10-16
citations: unknown
topic: Trading, Microstructure & Execution
---


# Loss-versus-rebalancing with external proportional transaction costs

The study shows that automated market maker pools matched to transaction-cost-aware benchmarks have zero loss-versus-rebalancing, clarifying the investment interpretation of pool design.

- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21057
- Identifier: arXiv:2610.21057
- Released: 2026-10-16
- First featured: Quant Letter No. 135 (2026-10-16): https://www.ml-quant.com/issues/2026-10-16/
- Citations (Semantic Scholar): not tracked
- Published in: not yet
- Topic: Trading, Microstructure & Execution
- Authors: Masaaki Fukasawa

## Abstract (arXiv, CC0)

We study liquidity provision in automated market makers when trading in the external market incurs proportional transaction costs. We consider both separately collected fees and fees retained in reserves. The benchmark is a self-financing strategy holding the same total risky inventory and trading at the external bid and ask. Under continuous external prices and pure arbitrage, the pool and benchmark have identical liquidation wealth whenever the pool fee or the external spread is positive. Thus loss-versus-rebalancing relative to this transaction-cost benchmark is zero, even without a pool fee if the external spread is positive. We then construct retained-fee utility-indifference pools that implement admissible decreasing inventory schedules, and geometric mean pools that implement feasible constant no-trade boundaries for portfolio weights. These results offer an investment interpretation of liquidity provision: by choosing the pool design, a liquidity provider can specify a trading strategy whose rebalancing is carried out by arbitrageurs.

## Related

- [Optimal Exit Time for Liquidity Providers in Automated Market Makers](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2509.06510/): The study investigates the best way for a liquidity provider to withdraw liquidity in an automated market, balancing fees and potential losses, and offers insights into dynamic liquidity provision.
- [Optimal Fees for Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2508.08152/): The research investigates the earnings of passive liquidity providers in automated markets, suggesting that optimal fees should balance volume attraction and revenue generation, and dynamic fees can enhance results.
- [Optimal Dynamic Fees in Automated Market Makers](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2506.02869/): The research investigates the best dynamic fees in Automated Market Makers, suggesting fees that are linear in inventory and sensitive to price changes are optimal.
- [Equilibrium Reward for Liquidity Providers in Automated Market Makers](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2503.22502/): The study introduces a model to determine the optimal contract an automated market maker offers to liquidity providers, suggesting that more noise trading encourages providers to add liquidity.
- [Liquidity provision of utility indifference type in decentralized exchanges](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2502.01931/): The research provides a mathematical examination of liquidity provision in decentralized exchanges, particularly constant function market makers, and investigates conditions for no-arbitrage, the effect of transaction fees on impermanent loss, and the efficiency of the Uniswap v3 platform.
- [Concentrated Superelliptical Market Maker](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2410.13265/): The article discusses a new automated market maker model that can handle both negative and positive asset pricing, useful in electricity, energy, and derivatives markets, and compares it to a replicating market maker.