IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2107.12484.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Constant Function Market Makers: Multi-Asset Trades via Convex Optimization

Author

Listed:
  • Guillermo Angeris
  • Akshay Agrawal
  • Alex Evans
  • Tarun Chitra
  • Stephen Boyd

Abstract

The rise of Ethereum and other blockchains that support smart contracts has led to the creation of decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as Uniswap, Balancer, Curve, mStable, and SushiSwap, which enable agents to trade cryptocurrencies without trusting a centralized authority. While traditional exchanges use order books to match and execute trades, DEXs are typically organized as constant function market makers (CFMMs). CFMMs accept and reject proposed trades based on the evaluation of a function that depends on the proposed trade and the current reserves of the DEX. For trades that involve only two assets, CFMMs are easy to understand, via two functions that give the quantity of one asset that must be tendered to receive a given quantity of the other, and vice versa. When more than two assets are being exchanged, it is harder to understand the landscape of possible trades. We observe that various problems of choosing a multi-asset trade can be formulated as convex optimization problems, and can therefore be reliably and efficiently solved.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2107.12484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.12484
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guillermo Angeris & Tarun Chitra, 2020. "Improved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers," Papers 2003.10001, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    2. Guillermo Angeris & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra, 2020. "When does the tail wag the dog? Curvature and market making," Papers 2012.08040, arXiv.org.
    3. Brendan O’Donoghue & Eric Chu & Neal Parikh & Stephen Boyd, 2016. "Conic Optimization via Operator Splitting and Homogeneous Self-Dual Embedding," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 1042-1068, June.
    4. Stephen P. Boyd & Seung-Jean Kim & Dinesh D. Patil & Mark A. Horowitz, 2005. "Digital Circuit Optimization via Geometric Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 899-932, December.
    5. Nicholas Moehle & Enzo Busseti & Stephen Boyd & Matt Wytock, 2019. "Dynamic Energy Management," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, in: Jesús M. Velásquez-Bermúdez & Marzieh Khakifirooz & Mahdi Fathi (ed.), Large Scale Optimization in Supply Chains and Smart Manufacturing, pages 69-126, Springer.
    6. ., 2020. "Taxes for which state?," Chapters, in: Tax Tyranny, chapter 11, pages 163-176, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Robin Hanson, 2003. "Combinatorial Information Market Design," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 107-119, January.
    8. Nicholas Moehle & Enzo Busseti & Stephen Boyd & Matt Wytock, 2019. "Dynamic Energy Management," Papers 1903.06230, arXiv.org.
    9. Guillermo Angeris & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra, 2021. "Replicating Market Makers," Papers 2103.14769, arXiv.org.
    10. Guillermo Angeris & Hsien-Tang Kao & Rei Chiang & Charlie Noyes & Tarun Chitra, 2019. "An analysis of Uniswap markets," Papers 1911.03380, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    11. Alex Evans & Guillermo Angeris & Tarun Chitra, 2021. "Optimal Fees for Geometric Mean Market Makers," Papers 2104.00446, arXiv.org.
    12. Alex Evans, 2020. "Liquidity Provider Returns in Geometric Mean Markets," Papers 2006.08806, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    13. Stephen Boyd & Enzo Busseti & Steven Diamond & Ronald N. Kahn & Kwangmoo Koh & Peter Nystrup & Jan Speth, 2017. "Multi-Period Trading via Convex Optimization," Papers 1705.00109, arXiv.org.
    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. Daniel Z. Zanger, 2022. "G3Ms:Generalized Mean Market Makers," Papers 2208.07305, arXiv.org.
    2. Guillermo Angeris & Tarun Chitra & Alex Evans & Stephen Boyd, 2022. "Optimal Routing for Constant Function Market Makers," Papers 2204.05238, arXiv.org.
    3. Guillermo Angeris & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra, 2021. "Replicating Monotonic Payoffs Without Oracles," Papers 2111.13740, arXiv.org.

    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. Guillermo Angeris & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra, 2021. "Replicating Monotonic Payoffs Without Oracles," Papers 2111.13740, arXiv.org.
    2. 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.
    3. Johannes Rude Jensen & Mohsen Pourpouneh & Kurt Nielsen & Omri Ross, 2021. "The Homogenous Properties of Automated Market Makers," Papers 2105.02782, arXiv.org.
    4. Neelesh Tiruviluamala & Alexander Port & Erik Lewis, 2022. "A General Framework for Impermanent Loss in Automated Market Makers," Papers 2203.11352, arXiv.org.
    5. Shane Barratt & Stephen Boyd, 2020. "Multi-Period Liability Clearing via Convex Optimal Control," Papers 2005.09066, arXiv.org.
    6. Robin Fritsch & Roger Wattenhofer, 2021. "A Note on Optimal Fees for Constant Function Market Makers," Papers 2105.13510, arXiv.org.
    7. 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.
    8. Guillermo Angeris & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra, 2020. "When does the tail wag the dog? Curvature and market making," Papers 2012.08040, arXiv.org.
    9. Lioba Heimbach & Eric Schertenleib & Roger Wattenhofer, 2022. "Risks and Returns of Uniswap V3 Liquidity Providers," Papers 2205.08904, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    10. Guillermo Angeris & Alex Evans & Tarun Chitra, 2021. "Replicating Market Makers," Papers 2103.14769, arXiv.org.
    11. Jiahua Xu & Krzysztof Paruch & Simon Cousaert & Yebo Feng, 2021. "SoK: Decentralized Exchanges (DEX) with Automated Market Maker (AMM) Protocols," Papers 2103.12732, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    12. Maxim Bichuch & Zachary Feinstein, 2022. "Axioms for Automated Market Makers: A Mathematical Framework in FinTech and Decentralized Finance," Papers 2210.01227, arXiv.org.
    13. Nassib Boueri, 2021. "G3M Impermanent Loss Dynamics," Papers 2108.06593, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    14. Andrea Barbon & Angelo Ranaldo, 2021. "On The Quality Of Cryptocurrency Markets: Centralized Versus Decentralized Exchanges," Papers 2112.07386, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    15. Lioba Heimbach & Ye Wang & Roger Wattenhofer, 2021. "Behavior of Liquidity Providers in Decentralized Exchanges," Papers 2105.13822, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    16. Nicholas Moehle & Mykel J. Kochenderfer & Stephen Boyd & Andrew Ang, 2021. "Tax-Aware Portfolio Construction via Convex Optimization," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 189(2), pages 364-383, May.
    17. Robin Fritsch, 2021. "Concentrated Liquidity in Automated Market Makers," Papers 2110.01368, arXiv.org.
    18. Michael Garstka & Mark Cannon & Paul Goulart, 2021. "COSMO: A Conic Operator Splitting Method for Convex Conic Problems," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 190(3), pages 779-810, September.
    19. Alex Evans, 2020. "Liquidity Provider Returns in Geometric Mean Markets," Papers 2006.08806, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    20. Enzo Busseti & Walaa M. Moursi & Stephen Boyd, 2019. "Solution refinement at regular points of conic problems," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 627-643, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:2107.12484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.