---
title: The Term Structure of Implied Fee Rates in Liquidity Pools
url: https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2610.36392/
site: ML-Quant (https://www.ml-quant.com)
updated: 2026-10-30
license: Summaries CC BY 4.0; links go to the original sources
index: https://www.ml-quant.com/llms.txt
identifier: arXiv:2610.36392
source_url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36392
featured: 2026-10-30
citations: unknown
topic: Crypto & DeFi
---


# The Term Structure of Implied Fee Rates in Liquidity Pools

A no-arbitrage framework recovers implied fee rates for liquidity providers in Uniswap pools, revealing time-varying and maturity-dependent compensation that varies significantly with pool design.

- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36392
- Identifier: arXiv:2610.36392
- Released: 2026-10-28
- First featured: Quant Letter No. 137 (2026-10-30): https://www.ml-quant.com/issues/2026-10-30/
- Citations (Semantic Scholar): not tracked
- Published in: not yet
- Topic: Crypto & DeFi
- Authors: Diogo Duarte, Lucas X. Ferreira, Emmanuel Gobet, Yuri F. Saporito

## Abstract (arXiv, CC0)

We develop a no-arbitrage framework to recover implied fee rates from option-implied information and quantify fee compensation for liquidity providers in automated market maker (AMM) pools. Expected accumulated fees equal the current pool value minus the risk-neutral value of its terminal payoff, reducing forward-looking LP compensation to pricing the LP payoff. We apply the framework to Uniswap v2 and Uniswap v3 ETH--USDC pools using a stochastic-volatility jump-diffusion model calibrated to Deribit options. Implied fee rates are positive, time varying, downward sloping in maturity, and highly sensitive to range design, with tighter near-the-money ranges earning larger implied returns.

## Related

- [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.
- [Decentralised Finance and Automated Market Making: Predictable Loss and Optimal Liquidity Provision](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2309.08431/): The study outlines the wealth dynamics of strategic liquidity providers in constant product markets, proposes an optimal liquidity provision strategy, and uses Uniswap v3 data to show its effectiveness.
- [Axioms for Automated Market Makers: A Mathematical Framework in FinTech and Decentralized Finance](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2210.01227/): Mathematical Framework: The research introduces a new framework for Automated Market Makers, suggesting a unique fee structure and a novel AMM that reduces divergence loss.
- [Learning from DeFi: Would Automated Market Makers Improve Equity Trading?](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/4531670/): The study suggests that optimally designed automated market makers could potentially save U.S. investors billions in transaction costs each year.
- [Decentralised Finance and Automated Market Making: Execution and Speculation](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/4144743/): The study investigates automated market makers, particularly constant product market makers, and develops two optimal trading strategies using stochastic optimal control tools, as demonstrated with Uniswap v3 data.
- [Active Liquidity On Chain: Evidence from PropAMMs Across Chains](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2609.38056/): Proprietary AMMs earn 0.37 to 1.19 basis points within two seconds by repricing continuously and avoiding arbitrage, compared to passive AMMs losing 0.22 to 0.62 basis points.