IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/compec/v65y2025i1d10.1007_s10614-024-10585-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Forecasting Comparisons in Decentralized Finance: An Approach in Constant Product Market Makers

Author

Listed:
  • Lucas Mussoi Almeida

    (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul)

  • Fernanda Maria Müller

    (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul)

  • Marcelo Scherer Perlin

    (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul)

Abstract

This study leverages decentralized liquidity pool data sourced from UNISWAP-V2 to forecast Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES) employing the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model with varied error distributions and the deep learning probabilistic forecasting algorithm known as DeepAR. Performance evaluations of these distinct forecasting methodologies are conducted using an appropriate loss function. Results indicate that the GARCH model with a normal distribution consistently outperforms other models, particularly when forecasting VaR. Conversely, the DeepAR model exhibits limited effectiveness in VaR forecasting across all scenarios, except for liquidity pools involving at least one stablecoin. However, it demonstrates greater reliability in predicting most ES risk measures and associated data. Our findings underscore that in a subset of the data, providing liquidity to pairs involving at least one stablecoin entails statistically significant lower risk compared to holding an equivalent amount of crypto assets. Furthermore, this research contributes to the advancement of novel risk management tools and strategies tailored for liquidity providers.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas Mussoi Almeida & Fernanda Maria Müller & Marcelo Scherer Perlin, 2025. "Risk Forecasting Comparisons in Decentralized Finance: An Approach in Constant Product Market Makers," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 65(1), pages 395-428, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:compec:v:65:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10614-024-10585-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10614-024-10585-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10614-024-10585-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10614-024-10585-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    2. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    3. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Coherence And Elicitability," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 901-918, October.
    4. Müller, Fernanda Maria & Santos, Samuel Solgon & Gössling, Thalles Weber & Righi, Marcelo Brutti, 2022. "Comparison of risk forecasts for cryptocurrencies: A focus on Range Value at Risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    5. Ardia, David & Bluteau, Keven & Rüede, Maxime, 2019. "Regime changes in Bitcoin GARCH volatility dynamics," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 266-271.
    6. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Ceretta, Paulo Sergio, 2015. "A comparison of Expected Shortfall estimation models," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 14-47.
    7. Ze Shen & Qing Wan & David J. Leatham, 2021. "Bitcoin Return Volatility Forecasting: A Comparative Study between GARCH and RNN," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Robin Hanson, 2003. "Combinatorial Information Market Design," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 107-119, January.
    9. Fernanda Maria Müller & Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2018. "Numerical comparison of multivariate models to forecasting risk measures," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(1), pages 29-50, February.
    10. Stefan Loesch & Nate Hindman & Mark B Richardson & Nicholas Welch, 2021. "Impermanent Loss in Uniswap v3," Papers 2111.09192, arXiv.org.
    11. 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.
    12. Thabang Mathonsi & Terence L. van Zyl, 2021. "A Statistics and Deep Learning Hybrid Method for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting and Mortality Modeling," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, December.
    13. Timothy C. Earle, 2009. "Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 785-792, June.
    14. Meng, Xiaochun & Taylor, James W., 2020. "Estimating Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall using the intraday low and range data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 280(1), pages 191-202.
    15. Acereda, Beatriz & Leon, Angel & Mora, Juan, 2020. "Estimating the expected shortfall of cryptocurrencies: An evaluation based on backtesting," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    16. Bhaskar Krishnamachari & Qi Feng & Eugenio Grippo, 2021. "Dynamic Curves for Decentralized Autonomous Cryptocurrency Exchanges," Papers 2101.02778, arXiv.org.
    17. Antonio Díaz & Gonzalo García-Donato & Andrés Mora-Valencia, 2017. "Risk quantification in turmoil markets," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 202-224, August.
    18. Kajtazi, Anton & Moro, Andrea, 2019. "The role of bitcoin in well diversified portfolios: A comparative global study," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 143-157.
    19. Andreas A. Aigner & Gurvinder Dhaliwal, 2021. "UNISWAP: Impermanent Loss and Risk Profile of a Liquidity Provider," Papers 2106.14404, arXiv.org.
    20. Yousaf, Imran & Yarovaya, Larisa, 2022. "Static and dynamic connectedness between NFTs, Defi and other assets: Portfolio implication," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    21. Richard Gerlach & Declan Walpole & Chao Wang, 2017. "Semi-parametric Bayesian tail risk forecasting incorporating realized measures of volatility," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 199-215, February.
    22. Salinas, David & Flunkert, Valentin & Gasthaus, Jan & Januschowski, Tim, 2020. "DeepAR: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1181-1191.
    23. Rainer Böhme & Nicolas Christin & Benjamin Edelman & Tyler Moore, 2015. "Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(2), pages 213-238, Spring.
    24. Guo, Zi-Yi, 2022. "Risk management of Bitcoin futures with GARCH models," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    25. Trucíos, Carlos, 2019. "Forecasting Bitcoin risk measures: A robust approach," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 836-847.
    26. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    27. Wang, Jianzhou & Wang, Shuai & Zeng, Bo & Lu, Haiyan, 2022. "A novel ensemble probabilistic forecasting system for uncertainty in wind speed," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    28. Ye Wang & Yan Chen & Haotian Wu & Liyi Zhou & Shuiguang Deng & Roger Wattenhofer, 2021. "Cyclic Arbitrage in Decentralized Exchanges," Papers 2105.02784, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    29. Adachi, Mitsutoshi & Cominetta, Matteo & Kaufmann, Christoph & van der Kraaij, Anton, 2020. "A regulatory and financial stability perspective on global stablecoins," Macroprudential Bulletin, European Central Bank, vol. 10.
    30. Troster, Victor & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Macedo, Demian Nicolás, 2019. "Bitcoin returns and risk: A general GARCH and GAS analysis," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 187-193.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Müller, Fernanda Maria & Santos, Samuel Solgon & Gössling, Thalles Weber & Righi, Marcelo Brutti, 2022. "Comparison of risk forecasts for cryptocurrencies: A focus on Range Value at Risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    2. Fernanda Maria Müller & Thalles Weber Gössling & Samuel Solgon Santos & Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2024. "A comparison of Range Value at Risk (RVaR) forecasting models," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(3), pages 509-543, April.
    3. Carlos Trucíos & James W. Taylor, 2023. "A comparison of methods for forecasting value at risk and expected shortfall of cryptocurrencies," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 989-1007, July.
    4. Mohammed Berkhouch & Fernanda Maria Müller & Ghizlane Lakhnati & Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2022. "Deviation-Based Model Risk Measures," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 59(2), pages 527-547, February.
    5. Pablo Cristini Guedes & Fernanda Maria Müller & Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2023. "Risk measures-based cluster methods for finance," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(1), pages 1-56, March.
    6. Fernanda Maria Müller & Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2024. "Comparison of Value at Risk (VaR) Multivariate Forecast Models," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 63(1), pages 75-110, January.
    7. Maziar Sahamkhadam, 2021. "Dynamic copula-based expectile portfolios," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 209-223, May.
    8. Nikolaos A. Kyriazis, 2021. "A Survey on Volatility Fluctuations in the Decentralized Cryptocurrency Financial Assets," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-46, June.
    9. Fracasso, Laís Martins & Müller, Fernanda Maria & Ramos, Henrique Pinto & Righi, Marcelo Brutti, 2023. "Is there a risk premium? Evidence from thirteen measures," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 182-199.
    10. Sebastian Bayer & Timo Dimitriadis, 2018. "Regression Based Expected Shortfall Backtesting," Papers 1801.04112, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    11. Gao, Lingbo & Ye, Wuyi & Guo, Ranran, 2022. "Jointly forecasting the value-at-risk and expected shortfall of Bitcoin with a regime-switching CAViaR model," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    12. Marcelo Brutti Righi & Fernanda Maria Muller & Marlon Ruoso Moresco, 2022. "A risk measurement approach from risk-averse stochastic optimization of score functions," Papers 2208.14809, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    13. Timo Dimitriadis & Tobias Fissler & Johanna Ziegel, 2020. "The Efficiency Gap," Papers 2010.14146, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    14. Taylor, James W., 2021. "Evaluating quantile-bounded and expectile-bounded interval forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 800-811.
    15. Aurelio F. Bariviera & Ignasi Merediz‐Solà, 2021. "Where Do We Stand In Cryptocurrencies Economic Research? A Survey Based On Hybrid Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 377-407, April.
    16. Jiménez, Inés & Mora-Valencia, Andrés & Perote, Javier, 2022. "Semi-nonparametric risk assessment with cryptocurrencies," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    17. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    18. Sebastian Bayer & Timo Dimitriadis, 2022. "Regression-Based Expected Shortfall Backtesting [Backtesting Expected Shortfall]," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 437-471.
    19. Tobias Fissler & Fangda Liu & Ruodu Wang & Linxiao Wei, 2024. "Elicitability and identifiability of tail risk measures," Papers 2404.14136, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    20. Fritzsch, Simon & Timphus, Maike & Weiß, Gregor, 2024. "Marginals versus copulas: Which account for more model risk in multivariate risk forecasting?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    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:kap:compec:v:65:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10614-024-10585-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.