IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2203.07774.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Empirical Study of Market Inefficiencies in Uniswap and SushiSwap

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Arvid Berg
  • Robin Fritsch
  • Lioba Heimbach
  • Roger Wattenhofer

Abstract

Decentralized exchanges are revolutionizing finance. With their ever-growing increase in popularity, a natural question that begs to be asked is: how efficient are these new markets? We find that nearly 30% of analyzed trades are executed at an unfavorable rate. Additionally, we observe that, especially during the DeFi summer in 2020, price inaccuracies across the market plagued DEXes. Uniswap and SushiSwap, however, quickly adapt to their increased volumes. We see an increase in market efficiency with time during the observation period. Nonetheless, the DEXes still struggle to track the reference market when cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile. During such periods of high volatility, we observe the market becoming less efficient - manifested by an increased prevalence in cyclic arbitrage opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Arvid Berg & Robin Fritsch & Lioba Heimbach & Roger Wattenhofer, 2022. "An Empirical Study of Market Inefficiencies in Uniswap and SushiSwap," Papers 2203.07774, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.07774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.07774
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lioba Heimbach & Ye Wang & Roger Wattenhofer, 2021. "Behavior of Liquidity Providers in Decentralized Exchanges," Papers 2105.13822, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    2. Guillermo Angeris & Tarun Chitra, 2020. "Improved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers," Papers 2003.10001, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    3. Robin Hanson, 2003. "Combinatorial Information Market Design," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 107-119, January.
    4. Vincent Danos & Hamza El Khalloufi & Julien Prat, 2021. "Global Order Routing on Exchange Networks," Post-Print hal-03455981, HAL.
    5. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1982. "The Inefficiency of the Stock Market Equilibrium," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(2), pages 241-261.
    6. Victor Bernard & Jacob Thomas & James Wahlen, 1997. "Accounting†Based Stock Price Anomalies: Separating Market Inefficiencies from Risk," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 89-136, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lioba Heimbach & Eric Schertenleib & Roger Wattenhofer, 2022. "Exploring Price Accuracy on Uniswap V3 in Times of Distress," Papers 2208.09642, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    2. Deborah Miori & Mihai Cucuringu, 2022. "DeFi: data-driven characterisation of Uniswap v3 ecosystem & an ideal crypto law for liquidity pools," Papers 2301.13009, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arman Abgaryan & Utkarsh Sharma, 2023. "Dynamic Function Market Maker," Papers 2307.13624, arXiv.org.
    2. Guillermo Angeris & Akshay Agrawal & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra & Stephen Boyd, 2021. "Constant Function Market Makers: Multi-Asset Trades via Convex Optimization," Papers 2107.12484, arXiv.org.
    3. Alex Evans, 2020. "Liquidity Provider Returns in Geometric Mean Markets," Papers 2006.08806, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    4. Sam M. Werner & Daniel Perez & Lewis Gudgeon & Ariah Klages-Mundt & Dominik Harz & William J. Knottenbelt, 2021. "SoK: Decentralized Finance (DeFi)," Papers 2101.08778, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    5. Vijay Mohan, 2022. "Automated market makers and decentralized exchanges: a DeFi primer," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-48, December.
    6. Guillermo Angeris & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra, 2020. "When does the tail wag the dog? Curvature and market making," Papers 2012.08040, arXiv.org.
    7. Lioba Heimbach & Eric Schertenleib & Roger Wattenhofer, 2022. "Risks and Returns of Uniswap V3 Liquidity Providers," Papers 2205.08904, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    8. Daniel Kirste & Niclas Kannengie{ss}er & Ricky Lamberty & Ali Sunyaev, 2023. "How Automated Market Makers Approach the Thin Market Problem in Cryptoeconomic Systems," Papers 2309.12818, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    9. Johannes Rude Jensen & Mohsen Pourpouneh & Kurt Nielsen & Omri Ross, 2021. "The Homogenous Properties of Automated Market Makers," Papers 2105.02782, arXiv.org.
    10. Marina Halac & Pierre Yared, 2018. "Fiscal Rules and Discretion in a World Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(8), pages 2305-2334, August.
    11. Johannes Matschke, 2021. "Macroprudential Policy Interlinkages," Research Working Paper RWP 21-10, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    12. Jeanne, Olivier & Korinek, Anton, 2019. "Managing credit booms and busts: A Pigouvian taxation approach," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 2-17.
    13. Sergio Turner, 2004. "Pareto Improving Taxation in Incomplete Markets," Econometric Society 2004 Latin American Meetings 310, Econometric Society.
    14. Mueller-Frank, Manuel, 2014. "Does one Bayesian make a difference?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 423-452.
    15. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    16. Marko Corn & Nejc Rov{z}man, 2021. "Unihedge -- A decentralized market prediction platform," Papers 2108.11631, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2021.
    17. Estelle Sterrett & Waylon Jepsen & Evan Kim, 2022. "Replicating Portfolios: Constructing Permissionless Derivatives," Papers 2205.09890, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    18. Julio Dávila & Jay H. Hong & Per Krusell & José‐Víctor Ríos‐Rull, 2012. "Constrained Efficiency in the Neoclassical Growth Model With Uninsurable Idiosyncratic Shocks," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2431-2467, November.
    19. Zhimeng Yang & Ariah Klages-Mundt & Lewis Gudgeon, 2023. "Oracle Counterpoint: Relationships between On-chain and Off-chain Market Data," Papers 2303.16331, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    20. Lawrence Choo & Todd R. Kaplan & Ro’i Zultan, 2022. "Manipulation and (Mis)trust in Prediction Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6716-6732, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.07774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.