Home Blog Page 81

Clarity survives (barely), Strategy sells and the untold story of Mastercard’s $1.8 billion deal: Crypto’s week in 5 stories

0
Clarity survives (barely), Strategy sells and the untold story of Mastercard's $1.8 billion deal: Crypto's week in 5 stories

That may happen. But last week showed that right now, institutions are choosing selectively.

Grayscale dropped plans for ETFs tied to Cardano, Polkadot and Hedera. None of the proposed products became effective, and no securities were sold.

Tokenization also got a reality check. Securitize shares fell 20% after its first earnings report as a public company missed expectations. Tokenized assets hit a record, and trading activity jumped. Revenue, however, fell short.

That is a useful snapshot of institutional crypto in 2026: Enthusiasm can be genuine without every product, token or business model being a winner. Wall Street isn’t simply “adopting crypto.” It is paying for stablecoin infrastructure, expanding certain ETF strategies and demanding that the businesses behind blockchain’s biggest narratives eventually produce revenue.

4. Tech and security: Coldcard shook self-custody. Bitcoin’s rebellion lasted two blocks.

The most consequential bitcoin flows of the week, however, may not have been selling at all.

About 210,000 bitcoin moved out of long-term holder wallets, according to Glassnode data, the most since December 2024. Normally, that kind of action might look bearish. This time, the transfers were the result of an unauthorized attack on Coldcard’s offline wallets.

Some affected users moved bitcoin into newly generated wallets, while others may have shifted toward regulated custodians or exchange-traded funds; U.S. spot ETFs attracted roughly $754 million during the period.



Source link

Top 6 cloud mining platforms of August 2026

0
Top 6 cloud mining platforms of August 2026


Cloud mining has emerged as an alternative to traditional mining in the crypto space. Instead of buying specialized equipment, setting up a mining operation, and managing ongoing electricity costs, users can rent computing power from a third-party provider and take part in mining remotely.

The cryptocurrency space can be complex and hard to break into for a lot of people; this can be especially true for something as niche as cryptocurrency mining. Crypto mining provides an easy option for people who want to earn a passive income.

Here are the top 6 cloud mining platforms to check out in August 2026:

1.  NiceHash

NiceHash operates as a marketplace that connects buyers and sellers of hashing power rather than a cloud-mining provider. Buyers can rent hashing power, and hardware owners can sell unused computing capacity. It was established in 2014 and supports a wide range of proof-of-work algorithms, letting users mine Bitcoin or other PoW assets through pools of their choice, where payouts are settled in BTC.

Orders are placed on a pay-as-you-go basis; pricing is set through live bids and real-time market data. There is also a range of tools, including marketplace charts, profitability calculators, and API access for more advanced setups.

2. BeMine 

BeMine is another cloud mining platform that lets users take part in cryptocurrency mining remotely, where users can buy cloud contracts or ASIC miners either individually or through shared ownership. It has a hybrid setup that mixes individual mining farms with larger mining hotel operations that exposes users to real infrastructure.

The platform has also promoted liquid or transferable mining positions. BeMine is suited for users who are interested in cloud mining combined with ASIC ownership or transferable mining positions.

3. Hashmart

Hashmart is a cloud mining platform that gives users a chance to rent computing power remotely with a simple and accessible interface. There are also mining monitoring features that can help users track their activity.

The services and plans are focused on flexible mining plans and operational uptime while emphasising transparency and tracking tools. There is also a real-time marketplace environment tied to the mining ecosystem.

4. BitFuFu

BitFuFu is a cloud mining platform that focuses on Bitcoin mining along with miner and mining-related services. Users can place cloud-mining orders and receive BTC payouts directly to their wallets.

There are multiple cloud-mining products, such as Starter mining, BTC, FlexPay mining, and much more. There are also miner-purchase and hosting services for users who want greater exposure to physical mining equipment. It is a publicly listed Bitcoin-mining company that simplifies cloud mining for everyone.

5. IQ Mining 

IQ Mining offers remote cloud mining options to users and gives them daily payouts and different contract structures for various users. There is also an option to choose contracts instead of focusing entirely on Bitcoin.

The platform operates on a contract-based model, giving users rewards that are generated from mining infrastructure. They can track earnings, manage balances, and withdraw earnings through their wallets.

6. ECOS

ECOS has a broad ecosystem and offers cloud mining as one of the services for its users. They can customize the mining plans as per their needs and modify contract duration, hashrate, and electricity prepayment.

There are also services like mining hardware-related products and mining pools. The simple user interface gives beginners a chance to estimate their profits through the profitability calculator.

Final conclusion

While there is no single platform that serves as the best choice for everyone, users need to pick the right one depending on the contract duration, electricity, maintenance fees, payout rules, availability, and hashrate price.

Users should do their own research before picking a platform to invest in.


Disclaimer. Readers are encouraged to do their own research. Ambcrypto is not liable for any outcomes related to the use of information, products, or services mentioned. This content may include affiliate or partner links.



Source link

Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu says AI and liberal democracy share the same crisis: ‘there is a tendency to escalate everything’

0
Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu says AI and liberal democracy share the same crisis: 'there is a tendency to escalate everything'


Daron Acemoglu is frustrated by the artificial intelligence debate — and not because the MIT economist thinks the technology is dangerous. Although he does think that.

With his nearly unique mixture of frustrated nuance, Acemoglu, who has been warning about the dangers of AI for years, argued in an interview with Fortune that giving into fear is the worst kind of response right now. While evaluating the opposing camps in the debate, he sounds like the Groucho Marx of Nobel laureates: he wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have him as a member.

On one side are the true believers — what he calls “quasi-moderate-friendly” types so convinced that AI is going to be good for everybody with no exception that any challenge to this view “drives them insane.” On the other are the skeptics who refuse to credit AI with any genuine capability, treating the models as “stochastic parrots” generating plausible-sounding noise. “There are people on the left — or part of the left — that just will refuse any argument that says AI has capabilities, it just drives them insane,” Acemoglu told Fortune. He sighs: “it’s very unproductive.”

He refuses both camps. “I think you have to really have your head in the sand to think that AI is a stochastic parrot right now,” he said, noting that anyone who uses the models will see that’s just not true. “But I’m also not willing to go along with some inchoate belief that everything will work out fine.”

Frontier models are making genuine advances in comprehension, coding and even scientific and mathematical discoveries — “it’s really great, the way proofs are being done” — and this should be celebrated just as fear of future job loss should be a concern. “It’s become sort of radical to hold two apparently conflicting ideas in your head at the same time,” he said. Which is why it’s the perfect time for his book, What Happened to Liberal Democracy? to come out.

We are in a time of crisis, he said, and the terms of our AI debate are just like our political system: so angry because it’s been so deeply damaged, for such a long time.

The escalator effect

“We live in an environment that’s been partly shaped by social media,” Acemoglu said, “and there is a tendency to escalate everything, because that gets attention. Politics is like that. The other topic like that, unfortunately, is AI.”

The economist sees a connection — the public’s inability to acknowledge both the real capabilities of this likely general-purpose technology and its potentially destructive social effects reflects a political culture losing its ability to deliberate over trade-offs, build common ground and direct economic change toward shared ends. That used to be normal in a liberal democracy.

He turns to what Wharton’s Ethan Mollick calls the “jagged frontier” of AI capabilities, because this technology is exceptional at some tasks, unreliable at others, and sometimes it’s some unusual combination of the two. “You need to do a lot of detailed babysitting,” he said. The economist flagged that beyond coding, there just isn’t much evidence of wide adoption, noting customer service employment is barely budged in recent years, likewise in manufacturing.

In Groucho-esque fashion, Acemoglu argued that this messy state of things could serve a useful purpose: “I wouldn’t call myself an optimist, I would say I resolutely refuse to give up hope.”

Two economists talking

Acemoglu points to his relationship with his former colleague and fellow star economist, Stanford’s Erik Brynjolffson, as a model for how the AI debate could go. The two have disagreed publicly and sharply about AI’s impact on productivity. Brynjolffson has argued for substantially greater gains than Acemoglu projects, and yet, Acemoglu says, “Erik and I actually agree on many things.” Their ability to disagree respectfully is exactly what he wishes he could see more of in policy circles.

He said he was pleased that Brynjolffson has increasingly called for redirecting AI in more human-complementary and more human-friendly ways, saying it’s “been my bugbear for almost two decades.” He also described Brynjolffson as “the main scholar showing the potential job losses from AI,” which Fortune has reported extensively on, as documented in the Canaries dashboard based on ADP data.

Acemoglu has been studying AI explicitly since at least 2018, and to his point, has spent much longer examining the underlying question: whether new technologies replace workers or create new tasks that raise their value. His work with Pascual Restrepo developed a framework for understanding automation as a force that can displace labor while also creating work, an ambiguity that sits at the center of today’s AI debate, with all its talk of the “lump of labor fallacy” and the Jevons paradox. His 2024 Nobel, shared with Simon Johnson and James Robinson, concerned the formation of institutions and how they shape prosperity, or fail to.

The point, Acemoglu stressed, is that it’s not a situation where solutions come easily — neither of the two economists is a straightforward booster or skeptic, but they are trying to move toward clearer understanding of trade-offs, problems and solutions.

Liberalism’s broken bargain

According to Acemoglu’s book, liberal democracy used to rest on more than elections and constitutional rights. “Shared prosperity” was the glue, the “main promise” that held the system together. Somewhere in the transition to what he calls the “postindustrial economy” that bargain fell apart.

The divides that resulted are the same ones you see in the dysfunctional AI debate: the educated and less educated got separated, the more educated took over the center-left, and the working class fled for the center-right or hard right.

There’s a “significant divergence in values” between the camps, along with a significant gap in “connections and empathy,” leading to what he described as “sins of omission” and “sins of commission.”

The center-left is silent as inequality grows, separating the groups by class, while cultural politics divide them in social views — “that destroyed the communal roots of liberal democracy.”

The DSA

Acemoglu’s framework informs his ambivalent view of the Democratic Socialists of America and Zohran Mamdani, the telegenic far-left New York City mayor, who has a gift for making local politics go national. The DSA are a “mixed bag,” Acemoglu said; they should be credited for highlighting the theme of affordability, and yet they are “preaching to their base” and don’t have much impact with Black voters, who have been lukewarm in response. Furthermore, they have “doubled down on cultural politics … exactly the kind of policy ideas and rhetoric that alienate the working class [and] creates an adversarial attitude.”

He wasn’t saying that DSA was wrong about their stances, just wrong on their methods, citing his book’s examples of ways to use liberal democracy to bridge such divides. State-level referenda on gay marriage and grassroots movements on abortion rights in Ireland, for example, weren’t top down and so allowed for consensus to form, just the way it needs to on AI now. “In both cases the evidence is that many people change their views,” he said — the process can’t be forced. Liberalism should not be a “cookbook” that dictates the answer to every controversial question, he said, but a model for resolving difficult issues through persuasion, public participation and compromise. It’s hard to adopt that in a time of crisis, though.

Democratic socialism, Acemoglu continued, is “a very amorphous concept” at this point, but he added that he wasn’t opposed to Mamdani policies like a wealth tax or a pied-a-terre tax. He added that it’s not as “efficient” to adopt these in one city as opposed to nationally, because state-by-state wealth taxes invite competition among jurisdictions, as seen to Texas’ and Florida’s benefit in recent years.

Midterm elections

When the topic turns to Donald Trump and the oncoming midterms, Acemoglu is his usual not-quite-optimistic self. “I still think we’re going to have elections in November and both sides will get counted,” he said. “Two years from now, I have no idea.”

AI anxiety has been a major issue this election season, as has backlash over data center development.

Acemoglu’s book calls for “pro-worker AI” and a stronger safety net and more redistribution. This would mean supporting AI tools that increase the effectiveness of workers, reconsidering tax rules about capital gains vs. wages, limiting the dominance of big tech and giving workers a stronger voice at the table. Above all, he added, the unthinkable has to be avoided: “If 50, 60, 70% of the people become jobless, hopeless, feeling dispensable, having no dignity at work, then I don’t think we can have a liberal democracy society.”

But what about the fact that, midterms aside, Trump will still be responsible for steering AI until the next presidential election? “It’s not going to change radically for two years,” he agreed, while adding that he “wouldn’t say Democrats are on the ball, either.” The only prescription is more of his beloved liberal democracy, in other words.

Just think, he said, about what a remarkable achievement this has been, to build advanced societies, negotiate conflicts and reach compromise without routine descent into violence. “We come from very cantankerous apes,” Acemoglu said, and it’s “amazing” what we have built from that raw genetic inheritance. “I would be so devastated if we lose liberal democracy.”

“We need to redirect AI,” he added, saying he was “very worried that things won’t work out if we don’t change things now.” Somehow, in these crisis times, we need to really listen to each other, hold two conflicting ideas at the same time, and get over our cantankerous natures. Easier said than done.



Source link

Best CD rates today, Saturday, August 15, 2026: Best CD account earns 4.30% APY

0
Best CD rates today, Saturday, June 20, 2026: Best account provides 4% APY


Find out how much you could earn by locking in a high CD rate today. The Federal Reserve cut its federal funds rate three times in 2025. So far in 2026, the Fed has left interest rates alone, and so now could be your last chance to lock in a competitive CD rate before rates move further. CD rates vary widely across financial institutions, so it’s important to ensure you’re getting the best rate possible when shopping around for a CD.

The following is a breakdown of CD rates today and where to find the best offers.

Generally, the best CD rates today are offered on shorter terms of around one year or less. Online banks and credit unions, in particular, offer the top CD rates.

Today, Saturday, August 15, 2026, the highest CD rate is 4.30%. This rate is offered by Synchrony Bank on its 16-month CD.

Here is a look at some of the best CD rates available today:

The amount of interest you can earn from a CD depends on the annual percentage rate (APY). This is a measure of your total earnings after one year, taking into account the base interest rate and how often interest compounds (CD interest typically compounds daily or monthly).

Say you invest $1,000 in a one-year CD with 1.52% APY, and interest compounds monthly. At the end of that year, your balance would grow to $1,015.20 — your initial $1,000 deposit, plus $15.20 in interest.

Now let’s say you choose a one-year CD that offers 4% APY instead. In this case, your balance would grow to $1,040.74 over the same period, which includes $40.74 in interest.

The more you deposit in a CD, the more you stand to earn. If we used the same example of a one-year CD at 4% APY but deposited $10,000, your total balance when the CD matures would be $10,407.42, meaning you’d earn $407.42 in interest. ​​

Read more: What is a good CD rate?

When choosing a CD, the interest rate is usually top of mind. However, the rate isn’t the only factor you should consider. There are several types of CDs that offer different benefits, though you may need to accept a slightly lower interest rate in exchange for more flexibility. Here’s a look at some of the common types of CDs you can consider beyond traditional CDs:

  • Bump-up CD: This type of CD allows you to request a higher interest rate if your bank’s rates go up during the account’s term. However, you’re usually allowed to “bump up” your rate just once.

  • No-penalty CD: Also known as a liquid CD, this type of CD allows you to withdraw funds before maturity without penalty.

  • Jumbo CD: These CDs require a higher minimum deposit (usually $100,000 or more), and often offer a higher interest rate in return. In today’s CD rate environment, however, the difference between traditional and jumbo CD rates may not be much.

  • Brokered CD: As the name suggests, these CDs are purchased through a brokerage rather than directly from a bank. Brokered CDs can sometimes offer higher rates or more flexible terms, but they also carry more risk and might not be FDIC-insured.



Source link

Third-party breach exposes shipping addresses of 14,000 Trezor buyers

0
Third-party breach exposes shipping addresses of 14,000 Trezor buyers

ShipMonk, Trezor’s fulfillment partner, suffered unauthorized access to its systems, affecting nearly 14,000 customers’ data, the cold storage crypto wallet firm reported Thursday.

Trezor said the names, email addresses, phone numbers and shipping addresses of 11,742 customers had been compromised. It also said the names, cities and email addresses of another 1,947 customers were also breached, bringing the estimated number of victims to nearly 14,000 across the U.S., the UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy and Portugal.

“We have some difficult news to share,” Trezor said Thursday on X. “Unfortunately, one of our shipping providers has experienced a data breach that exposed sensitive order data.”

The Trezor-related security hack comes as global data breaches are at an all-time high, according to SentinelOne, a U.S. cybersecurity firm. It said that this year, data breaches have increased by 17% compared with 2025, with an average of 2,090 attacks worldwide each week. It is also estimated that global data breaches have been rising by 3% month over month since January.



Source link

‘Paying taxes is now a threat?’ – French tax breach exposes 678K users

0
‘Paying taxes is now a threat?’ - French tax breach exposes 678K users


Crypto investors based in France may face more risk of physical attacks and kidnappings. The threats, commonly known as wrench attacks, could be triggered after the tax authority suffered a data breach, resulting in 678K users’ data being leaked.  

According to Jameson Lopp, a security analyst and CSO at Casa Wallet, over 28K of the victims earn more than 100K Euros.

About 400 have incomes over 1 million Euros. For him, France is a leading country for wrench attacks; the breach could elevate the risks if the victims become targets. 

France crypto wrench attacks
Source: X

French and crypto wrench attacks

Stolen crypto funds, especially those linked to on-chain hacks, always get most of the headlines. However, the deadly and violent physical attacks are not widely covered. Still, they are an increasing key risk factor for crypto investors.

These wrench attacks involve home invasions and kidnappings targeting crypto investors, founders, influencers, and their relatives or close associates. For their release, the attackers demand crypto as ransom. Some victims have ended up being mutilated or dead, and only a few have been rescued by law enforcement. 

For example, in February 2026, David Prinçay, CEO of Binance France, suffered a home invasion.

Last year, David Balland, co-founder of Ledger (BTC hardware wallet), was kidnapped alongside his wife, and the attackers demanded €10 million in ransom. But they were later rescued. 

According to the Crypto Crime tracker, there have been 61 violent attack incidents this year, resulting in a cumulative loss of $143M. 

France wrench attacksFrance wrench attacks
Source: Crypto Crime

France tops the list with home invasions and kidnappings as the most dominant tactics deployed by attackers. 

Crypto attacks: Home invasions and kidnappings dominate

But a recent Chainalysis report reported lower estimated losses of about $30M. However, it also flagged France as a hot spot (with 36 incidents), followed by the United States and Brazil. 

France wrench attacksFrance wrench attacks
Source: Chainalysis 

Interestingly, France’s precarious position has been largely blamed on the tax watchdog. 

In fact, earlier this year, the Telegram founder Pavel Durov claimed that the French taxman’s employees directly sell personal data to criminal organizations. For him, that was the main reason for the rising crypto kidnappings in France. 

Worth noting that the success rate of violent crypto crimes has dropped to 26% in 2026. But the latest breach could reverse the trend. 

Reacting to the French tax authority breach, Curve Founder Michael Egorov said, 

Ugh. Paying taxes is now a threat?

Another analyst noted that the recent Trezor breach alongside the French hack would collectively make the situation worse. Affected victims in the breach who are also crypto investors should take extra precautions for their physical safety. 


Final Summary

  • French tax authority breach has affected 678K users as analysts warn it could accelerate wrench attacks 
  • France leads in violent crypto kidnappings and home invasions with 36 incidents in 2026 

 



Source link

Impermanent loss in crypto: Understanding the real risk of providing liquidity

0
Impermanent loss in crypto: Understanding the real risk of providing liquidity


In a nutshell, the value of your tokens left in a liquidity pool will likely be lower than if you had just held those same tokens in your crypto wallet. This “loss” occurs when the token pair diverges in price due to how automated market makers (AMMs) calculate swap values. However, you’ll also earn swap fees that offset your impermanent loss. Swap fees often cover the difference, leaving you with a net gain.

If you’re new to providing liquidity in decentralized finance (DeFi), you’ve probably encountered the term impermanent loss (IL), accompanied by some confusing math. The good news is that IL is less complicated than it seems.

IL isn’t the boogeyman it’s often portrayed as; it is better described as an opportunity cost rather than a loss. In some ways, it’s like renting out a house for ongoing income rather than selling it in pristine condition at the market peak. Renting leaves some wear and tear, but you’re getting paid along the way.

In this guide, we’ll discuss the math behind impermanent loss as well as ways to reduce your risk by using correlated assets. IL isn’t a reason to avoid liquidity provision, but it’s a key element to understand before you start. Let’s begin with some basics.

To understand impermanent loss, you first need to understand how your tokens are being used. In traditional finance, you buy and sell assets through an order book. A seller names their price, and the order goes to the order book. A buyer agrees, and a trade happens. Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) often use a different model called an automated market maker.

An AMM replaces the order book with a liquidity pool. In most cases, the pool holds a pair of tokens people can trade against. For example, let’s say the pool holds ether (ETH-USD) and USDC (USDC-USD), a stablecoin token pegged to $1. Rather than matching buyers and sellers, the AMM uses a formula to set the price of each token based on the ratio of tokens in the pool.

The most common formula is the constant product formula, which ensures the total value of both tokens remains balanced as trades occur.

In the constant product formula (x * y = k), x and y represent the quantity of each token in the liquidity pool. K is the constant product. The rule is simple: no matter how many trades happen, k must remain the same. This formula drives prices and ratios in the pool.

Let’s say your pool holds 10 ETH and 20,000 USDC. Your constant product (k) is 200,000.

  • If a trader wants to buy ETH from the pool, they must add USDC to keep the equation balanced.

  • As ETH becomes scarcer in the pool, it costs more USDC to acquire it. That’s how the AMM sets the price. It’s supply and demand, governed by math rather than an order book.

For this market to work, the pool needs inventory. That’s where liquidity providers (LPs) come into play.

  • When you provide liquidity, you deposit your own tokens into the pool using your crypto wallet to approve the transaction.

  • In return, you receive LP tokens, which represent your share of the pool.

  • Your deposited pool tokens become the inventory that other traders swap against.

In exchange for supplying this inventory, you earn a fee for every swap that occurs in the pool, proportional to your share of the pool’s inventory. Every time someone swaps tokens in the pool, they pay a fee, ranging from 0.01% to 1.00%.

Some protocols also offer additional incentives to attract liquidity, such as governance tokens. This combined income (swap fees and incentives) is the reward for making your tokens available to the market.

Impermanent loss sounds like a scary term, but the idea isn’t as complicated as it seems. IL is also sometimes called divergence loss, which makes it a bit easier to understand. Impermanent loss refers to the difference in value between holding your tokens in your wallet versus depositing them into a liquidity pool.

When you provide liquidity, you are exposing your tokens to the pool’s rebalancing mechanism. Most AMMs use the constant product formula, so the token ratio adjusts as token prices diverge.

The loss is called impermanent because the tokens are still in the pool. Withdrawing your pool position makes the loss permanent. Here’s how it works:

  • If the prices of your paired tokens stay exactly the same, you experience zero impermanent loss.

  • Once prices diverge, the pool automatically adjusts your holdings. The ratio changes.

  • You end up with more of the token that dropped in value and less of the token that rose in value.

  • Because of this rebalancing, your pool position grows more slowly than the value of simply holding those same tokens in your wallet. That gap in value is your impermanent loss.

IL measures the opportunity cost, not what you lost in absolute terms. How much would you have had if you held? Your pool position can still be worth more than your original deposit in dollar terms. You just missed out on some of the upside you would have captured if you had simply held the tokens.

Let’s look at a concrete scenario. Imagine you deposit 1 ETH and 2,000 USDC into a liquidity pool when ETH is trading at $2,000. Your initial deposit is worth $4,000.

A few months later, the price of ETH doubles to $4,000. Arbitrage traders rush into the pool to buy cheaper ETH until the pool’s price matches the market price. The pool’s math rebalances your holdings, leaving you with roughly 0.707 ETH and 2,828 USDC.

If you had simply held your original 1 ETH and 2,000 USDC in your wallet, your total value would have been $6,000. However, your pool position is worth about $5,656. That $344 difference is your impermanent loss. You still made a profit compared to your starting point, but you missed out on some of ETH’s price run.

The word “impermanent” suggests that the loss will disappear on its own. That’s not likely, but you might get closer to the original ratio if prices begin to converge again. If you withdraw your liquidity while prices are still diverged, any loss in value compared to holding becomes permanent.

It’s important to note that impermanent loss can happen regardless of the market direction. The loss stems from a divergence in token values and is driven by how AMMs calculate swap values.

The focus on loss of value relative to holding makes some crypto investors shy away from providing liquidity. However, the loss moniker is often a misnomer. You might not have an actual loss at all, and swap fees help offset the loss in value compared to holding. You’re exchanging the potential for maximum price appreciation for a steady stream of fee income.

It’s helpful to think of the trade-off as current cash flow at the expense of depreciation. Think back to the rental property analogy.

  • If you hold an empty house in a hot real estate market, you capture 100% of the price appreciation when you sell.

  • If you rent it out, you earn a monthly income, but the tenants cause wear and tear.

The rented home may be worth less than it would be if you had kept it pristine, but the rent checks often make up the difference. Providing liquidity works similarly. Your tokens are “rented out” to the pool, and the trading fees are your rent.

The question then becomes whether that fee income compensates for the missed upside. You may still incur a loss overall, depending on which tokens you choose when providing liquidity.

  • In a highly volatile pool with heavy trading volume, you might earn enough in fees to far exceed your impermanent loss.

  • In a low-volume pool where prices swing wildly, the fees might not cover the gap.

Impermanent loss isn’t a reason to avoid liquidity pools altogether. Instead, it’s a variable in your profit calculation. To come out ahead, your first priority is ensuring the pool’s trading activity generates enough yield to offset the divergence in token prices.

The size of your divergence loss depends heavily on the assets and pool you choose. The main factors that drive your exposure are price volatility, pool composition, and fee tiers.

The most significant driver of impermanent loss is price movement. If one token is headed to the moon and the other is headed to zero, you’ll end up with more of the depreciating token. Similarly, if the price of one token is volatile and the other is stable, you can expect IL.

Divergence loss happens when the ratio of your tokens changes, so larger price swings create larger gaps. If a token’s price doubles or drops by 50%, you’ll experience much more impermanent loss than if the price moves by just 5%.

That’s why stablecoin pairs experience minimal impermanent loss. For example, let’s say you provide liquidity for USDC and DAI. Both tokens are pegged to the US dollar, so their prices rarely diverge by more than a fraction of a percent. The ratio in the pool stays relatively static, and your divergence loss remains close to zero. By comparison, pairing a volatile asset like ETH with a stablecoin will lead to impermanent loss. ETH’s price is never static, so the ratio in the pool will change as the price diverges from when you made your initial deposit.

The assets you pair together when providing liquidity dictate your risk. Correlated assets move in tandem. For example, if you provide liquidity for cbBTC (Coinbase Wrapped Bitcoin) and WBTC (Wrapped Bitcoin), their prices are the same. When one goes up, the other goes up by the same amount. Even if the ratio changes because the market wants more cbBTC or WBTC, the price of both is the same. Your impermanent loss is negligible.

By comparison, uncorrelated pairs carry a much higher risk. To revisit the ETH/USDC example, when ETH’s price changes, USDC’s price remains at $1. ETH’s volatility guarantees an impermanent loss. The pool ratios will change as ETH bounces around, leaving swap fees as your only hope of coming out whole.

The type of pool you choose also affects your exposure to IL.

  • Traditional AMMs, such as Uniswap, use a 50/50 weighting. You supply equal dollar values of both tokens.

  • Platforms such as Balancer offer weighted pools. You might choose an 80/20 ETH/USDC pool. This structure tilts your exposure toward the 80% asset and minimizes your risk on the 20% asset.

Some platforms also offer concentrated liquidity. In effect, you’re only providing liquidity within a specified price range. This strategy increases fee volume compared to full-range pools but increases IL risk. Once the pair goes out of range, you’ll have 100% of one asset and none of the other (and you’ll stop earning fees).

Price correlation and pool structure are both important to consider, but the primary defense against impermanent loss is the fee income you earn. Higher fees can offset larger divergence losses and might make it worth the risk. For example, decentralized exchanges like Uniswap offer different fee tiers, ranging from 0.05% to 1.00%. A 1.00% fee tier earns considerably more per trade than a 0.05% fee tier on the same volume.

Volume is the other half of the equation. A 0.30% fee tier with $10 million in daily trading volume generates far more yield than a 1.00% fee tier with only $10,000 in daily volume. A higher fee percentage isn’t always better. Protocols like Uniswap use automatic routing for swaps. If you provide liquidity to a 1% pool, your pool won’t be used unless it’s the cheapest option for the swap. This could occur with larger trades or when a pool with lower fees is out of sync with the external price by more than 1%. You’re trading higher fees per swap for lower volume.

You can’t eliminate impermanent loss entirely, but you can manage your exposure. Some liquidity providers, particularly in the meme coin space, don’t pay much attention to it at all. Fees trump IL. Your strategy comes down to the pairs you select, the size of your position, and how actively you monitor the market.

Stablecoin pools like USDC/USDT or USDC/DAI offer the safest path to minimize impermanent loss. Price moves on stablecoins are often just a fraction of a penny. However, swap volume for stablecoins centers on pools with the lowest fees. Scale matters if you want to make more than a few pennies for providing liquidity on stablecoins.

Correlated assets like cbBTC and WBTC work similarly. You minimize IL risk because the price divergence is minimal. Pairs like this may see more activity at a higher fee level. You can also consider correlated asset pools like WETH/stETH, which is ether and staked ether. Absent an industry-shaking event, the relative price of staked ether won’t move more than the yield earned on the staked ether, usually about 3% annually.

For higher returns from swap fees, you can consider volatile pairs like ETH/USDC. However, a higher yield potential comes at the cost of greater divergence loss for this uncorrelated pair. You can also explore weighted pools, such as an 80/20 Balancer pool, to skew your exposure toward the asset you believe in most.

How much you invest and how long you leave your position in the pool also matter. A larger position earns more in total fees, but it’s always safer to start small if you’re new. The math works (almost) the same with a smaller position, so you can see the IL versus swap-fee earnings in action and decide if you want to scale up to a larger position.

Your time horizon also plays a role. Shorter timeframes reduce your exposure to massive price swings. The longer your capital sits in a pool, the more time there is for prices to diverge.

Providing liquidity isn’t a hands-off strategy. You need to monitor your position, particularly if providing liquidity for volatile assets or using concentrated liquidity. You can find impermanent loss calculators online to measure IL, and then add your swap-fee income to see the big picture.

Define rules for when you will withdraw. For example, you might decide to pull your liquidity if divergence loss exceeds 10%. Withdrawing locks in the loss, but staying in a pool that isn’t earning enough to cover the gap can hurt even more.

Providing liquidity isn’t for everyone, and there are easier ways to earn a yield in DeFi, such as lending. Before you deposit your tokens, run through a quick decision framework. Ask yourself about your risk tolerance, your income needs, and your market outlook.

If watching your pool balance shift as prices diverge will keep you up at night, volatile pairs aren’t a good fit. Instead, stick to stablecoins or correlated assets, or even another yield opportunity in DeFi, such as lending. However, if you can accept the volatility (and the divergence it creates), uncorrelated pairs often offer higher yields from swap fees.

Do you want steady cash flow from trading fees, or are you more comfortable holding for long-term price appreciation? If you need your tokens to maintain their exact upside potential, providing liquidity will frustrate you. You’re trading long-term upside potential for current income.

Finally, look at your market outlook. If you believe a token is about to make a massive run upward, holding it in your wallet captures the full gain. Providing liquidity in a pool will dilute that upside due to rebalancing. That massive run-up works against you in this example. You’ll end up with less of the appreciating token as traders buy these tokens from the pool.

Impermanent loss is often portrayed as a Loch Ness monster lurking beneath the shimmer of liquidity pools. From another perspective, IL is just a cost of doing business in this segment of DeFi. You’re trading potential price appreciation in the assets you choose for your position in exchange for a current income stream, similar to renting out a property.

Choosing your positions strategically helps minimize your risk. The safest strategy is to start small and monitor your positions. If something isn’t working, stop doing it. Reevaluate.

As DeFi evolves, new AMM designs will likely emerge that might change the math slightly. But every AMM to date creates impermanent loss as a side effect. The trade-off between fees and divergence loss will always be the main consideration when you provide liquidity.



Source link