Concentrated Liquidity
Background
Concentrated liquidity is a novel Automated Market Maker (AMM) design introduced
by Uniswap that allows for more efficient use of capital. The improvement is
achieved by providing liquidity in specific price ranges chosen by the user.
For instance, a pool with stablecoin pairs like USDC/USDT has a spot price that
should always be trading near 1. As a result, Liquidity Providers (LPs) can
focus their capital in a small range around 1, rather than the full range from 0
to infinity. This approach leads to an average of 200-300x higher capital
efficiency. Moreover, traders benefit from lower price impact because the pool
incentivizes greater depth around the current price.
Concentrated liquidity also opens up new opportunities for providing liquidity
rewards to desired strategies. For example, it's possible to incentivize LPs
based on their position's proximity to the current price and the time spent
within that position. This design also allows for a new "range order" type,
similar to a limit order with order-books.
Architecture
The traditional Balancer AMM relies on the following curve that tracks current reserves:
$$xy = k$$
This formula allows for distributing liquidity along the $xy=k$ curve and across
the entire price range of (0, ∞).
With the new architecture, we introduce the concept of a position
that allows
users to concentrate liquidity within a fixed range. A position only needs to
maintain enough reserves to satisfy trading within this range. Consequently,
it functions as the traditional xy = k
within that range.
In the new architecture, real reserves are described by the following formula:
$$(x + L / \sqrt P_u)(y + L \sqrt P_l) = L^2$$
Where P_l
is the lower tick, P_u
is the upper tick, and L
is the amount
of liquidity provided, $$L = \sqrt k$$
This formula stems from the original $xy = k$ but with a limited range. In the
traditional design, a pool's x
and y
tokens are tracked directly. However,
with the concentrated design, we only track $L$ and $\sqrt P$, which can be
calculated with:
$$L = \sqrt {xy}$$
$$\sqrt P = y / x$$
By rearranging the above, we obtain the following formulas to track virtual reserves:
$$x = L / \sqrt P$$
$$y = L \sqrt P$$
Note the square root around price. By tracking it this way, we can utilize the
following core property of the architecture:
$$L = \Delta Y / \Delta \sqrt P$$
Since only one of the following changes at a time:
- $L$: When an LP adds or removes liquidity
- $\sqrt P$: When a trader swaps
We can use the above relationship to calculate the outcome of swaps as well as
pool joins that mint shares.
Conversely, we calculate liquidity from the other token in the pool:
$$\Delta x = \Delta \frac {1}{\sqrt P} L$$
Overall, the architecture's goal is to enable LPs to provide concentrated
liquidity within a specific range while maintaining high capital efficiency.
Ticks
Context
In Uniswap V3, discrete points (called ticks) are used when providing liquidity
in a concentrated liquidity pool.
The price [p] corresponding to a tick [t] is defined by the equation:
$$ p(i) = 1.0001^t $$
This results in a .01% difference between adjacent tick prices. This does not,
however, allow for control over the specific prices that the ticks correspond
to. For example, if a user wants to make a limit order at the $17,100.50 price point,
they would have to interact with either tick 97473 (corresponding to price
$17,099.60) or tick 97474 (price $17101.30).
Since we know what range a pair will generally trade in, how can we provide more
granularity at that range and provide a more optimal price range between ticks
instead of the "one-size-fits-all" approach explained above?
Geometric Tick Spacing with Additive Ranges
In Osmosis' implementation of concentrated liquidity, we will instead make use
of geometric tick spacing with additive ranges.
We start by defining an exponent for the precision factor of each incremental
tick starting at the spot price of one. This is referred to as $exponentAtPriceOne$.
In the current design, we hardcode $exponentAtPriceOne$ as -6. When used with a
tick spacing of 100, this effectively acts as an $exponentAtPriceOne$ of -4,
since only every 100 ticks are able to be initialized.
When $exponentAtPriceOne = -6$ (and tick spacing is 100), each tick starting at
0 and ending at the first factor of 10 will represents a spot price increase of 0.0001:
- $tick_{0} = 1$
- $tick_{100} = 1.0001$
- $tick_{200} = 1.0002$
- $tick_{300} = 1.0003$
This continues until the pool reaches a spot price of 10. At this point, since
the pool has increased by a factor of 10, the $exponentAtCurrentTick$ increases
from -4 to -3 (decreasing the incremental precision), and the ticks will
increase as follows:
- $tick_{8999900} = 9.9999$
- $tick_{9000000} = 10.000$
- $tick_{9000100} = 10.001$
- $tick_{9000200} = 10.002$
For spot prices less than a dollar, the precision factor decreases
(increasing the incremental precision) at every factor of 10:
- $tick_{-100} = 0.9999$
- $tick_{-200} = 0.9998$
- $tick_{-500100} = 0.4999$
- $tick_{-500200} = 0.4998$
- $tick_{-9000100} = 0.099999$
- $tick_{-9000200} = 0.099998$
This goes on in the negative direction until it reaches a spot price of
0.000000000000000001 or in the positive direction until it reaches a spot
price of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000.
The minimum spot price was chosen as this is the smallest possible number
supported by the sdk.Dec type. As for the maximum spot price, the above number
was based on gamm's max spot price of 340282366920938463463374607431768211455.
While these numbers are not the same, the max spot price used in concentrated
liquidity utilizes the same number of significant figures as gamm's max spot
price and is less than gamm's max spot price which satisfies the initial design requirements.
After we define tick spacing (which effectively defines the $exponentAtPriceOne$,
since $exponentAtPriceOne$ is fixed), we can then calculate how many ticks must
be crossed in order for $k$ to be incremented
( $geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks$ ).
$$geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks = 9 * 10^{(-exponentAtPriceOne)}$$
Since we define $exponentAtPriceOne$ and utilize this as the increment starting
point instead of price zero, we must multiply the result by 9 as shown above.
In other words, starting at 1, it takes 9 ticks to get to the first power of 10.
Then, starting at 10, it takes 9*10 ticks to get to the next power of 10, etc.
Now that we know how many ticks must be crossed in order for our
$exponentAtPriceOne$ to be incremented, we can then figure out what our change
in $exponentAtPriceOne$ will be based on what tick is being traded at:
$$geometricExponentDelta = ⌊ tick / geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks ⌋$$
With $geometricExponentDelta$ and $exponentAtPriceOne$, we can figure out what
the $exponentAtPriceOne$ value we will be at when we reach the provided tick:
$$exponentAtCurrentTick = exponentAtPriceOne + geometricExponentDelta$$
Knowing what our $exponentAtCurrentTick$ is, we must then figure out what power
of 10 this $exponentAtPriceOne$ corresponds to (by what number does the price
gets incremented with each new tick):
$$currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 10^{(exponentAtCurrentTick)}$$
Lastly, we must determine how many ticks above the current increment we are at:
$$numAdditiveTicks = tick - (geometricExponentDelta * geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks)$$
With this, we can determine the price:
$$price = (10^{geometricExponentDelta}) + (numAdditiveTicks * currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks)$$
where $(10^{geometricExponentDelta})$ is the price after $geometricExponentDelta$
increments of $exponentAtPriceOne$ (which is basically the number of decrements
of difference in price between two adjacent ticks by the power of 10)
Tick Spacing Example: Tick to Price
Bob sets a limit order on the USD<>BTC pool at tick 36650010. This pool's
$exponentAtPriceOne$ is -6. What price did Bob set his limit order at?
$$geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks = 9 * 10^{(6)} = 9000000$$
$$geometricExponentDelta = ⌊ 36650010 / 9000000 ⌋ = 4$$
$$exponentAtCurrentTick = -6 + 4 = -2$$
$$currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 10^{(-2)} = 0.01$$
$$numAdditiveTicks = 36650010 - (4 * 9000000) = 650010$$
$$price = (10^{4}) + (650010 * 0.01) = 16,500.10$$
Bob set his limit order at price $16,500.10
Tick Spacing Example: Price to Tick
Bob sets a limit order on the USD<>BTC pool at price $16,500.10. This pool's
$exponentAtPriceOne$ is -6. What tick did Bob set his limit order at?
$$geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks = 9 * 10^{(6)} = 9000000$$
We must loop through increasing exponents until we find the first exponent that
is greater than or equal to the desired price
$$currentPrice = 1$$
$$ticksPassed = 0$$
$$currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 10^{(-6)} = 0.000001$$
$$maxPriceForCurrentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks
- currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 9000000 * 0.000001 = 9$$
$$ticksPassed = ticksPassed + geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks =
0 + 9000000 = 9000000$$
$$totalPrice = totalPrice + maxPriceForCurrentAdditiveIncrementInTicks =
1 + 9 = 10$$
10 is less than 16,500.10, so we must increase our exponent and try again
$$currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 10^{(-5)} = 0.00001$$
$$maxPriceForCurrentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks
- currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 9000000 * 0.00001 = 90$$
$$ticksPassed = ticksPassed + geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks =
9000000 + 9000000 = 18000000$$
$$totalPrice = totalPrice + maxPriceForCurrentAdditiveIncrementInTicks =
10 + 90 = 100$$
100 is less than 16,500.10, so we must increase our exponent and try again.
This goes on until...
$$currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 10^{(-2)} = 0.01$$
$$maxPriceForCurrentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks
- currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = 9000000 * 0.01 = 90000$$
$$ticksPassed = ticksPassed + geometricExponentIncrementDistanceInTicks =
36000000 + 9000000 = 45000000$$
$$totalPrice = totalPrice + maxPriceForCurrentAdditiveIncrementInTicks =
10000 + 90000 = 100000$$
100000 is greater than 16,500.10. This means we must now find out how many
additive tick in the currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks of -2 we must pass in
order to reach 16,500.10.
$$ticksToBeFulfilledByExponentAtCurrentTick = (desiredPrice - totalPrice) /
currentAdditiveIncrementInTicks = (16500.10 - 100000) / 0.01 = -8349990$$
$$tickIndex = ticksPassed + ticksToBeFulfilledByExponentAtCurrentTick =
45000000 + -8349990 = 36650010$$
Bob set his limit order at tick 36650010
Consequences
This decision allows us to define ticks at spot prices that users actually
desire to trade on, rather than arbitrarily defining ticks at .01% distance
between each other. This will also make integration with UX seamless,
instead of either:
a) Preventing trade at a desirable spot price or
b) Having the front end round the tick's actual price to the nearest
human readable/desirable spot price
Concentrated Liquidity Module Messages
MsgCreatePosition
This message allows LPs to provide liquidity between LowerTick
and UpperTick
in a given PoolId
. The user provides the amount of each token desired. Since
LPs are only allowed to provide liquidity proportional to the existing reserves,
the actual amount of tokens used might differ from requested. As a result, LPs
may also provide the minimum amount of each token to be used so that the system fails
to create position if the desired amounts cannot be satisfied.
Three KV stores are initialized when a position is created:
Position ID -> Position
- This is a mapping from a unique position ID to a
position object. The position ID is a monotonically increasing integer that is
incremented every time a new position is created.
Owner | Pool ID | Position ID -> Position ID
- This is a mapping from a
composite key of the owner address, pool ID, and position ID to the position ID.
This is used to keep track of all positions owned by a given owner in a given pool.
Pool ID -> Position ID
- This is a mapping from a pool ID to a position ID.
This is used to keep track of all positions in a given pool.
type MsgCreatePosition struct {
PoolId uint64
Sender string
LowerTick int64
UpperTick int64
TokenDesired0 types.Coin
TokenDesired1 types.Coin
TokenMinAmount0 github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Int
TokenMinAmount1 github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Int
}
On succesful response, we receive the actual amounts of each token used to
create the liquidityCreated number of shares in the given range.
type MsgCreatePositionResponse struct {
PositionId uint64
Amount0 github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Int
Amount1 github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Int
JoinTime google.protobuf.Timestamp
LiquidityCreated github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Dec
}
This message should call the createPosition
keeper method that is introduced
in the "Liquidity Provision"
section of this document.
MsgWithdrawPosition
This message allows LPs to withdraw their position via their position ID,
potentially in partial amount of liquidity. It should fail if the position ID
does not exist or if attempting to withdraw an amount higher than originally
provided. If an LP withdraws all of their liquidity from a position, then the
position is deleted from state along with the three KV stores that were
initialized in the MsgCreatePosition
section. However, the fee accumulators
associated with the position are still retained until a user claims them manually.
type MsgWithdrawPosition struct {
PositionId uint64
Sender string
LiquidityAmount github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Dec
}
On successful response, we receive the amounts of each token withdrawn
for the provided share liquidity amount.
type MsgWithdrawPositionResponse struct {
Amount0 github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Int
Amount1 github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Int
}
This message should call the withdrawPosition
keeper method that is introduced
in the "Liquidity Provision"
section of this document.
MsgCreatePool
This message is responsible for creating a concentrated-liquidity pool.
It propagates the execution flow to the x/poolmanager
module for pool id
management and for routing swaps.
type MsgCreateConcentratedPool struct {
Sender string
Denom0 string
Denom1 string
TickSpacing uint64
SwapFee github_com_cosmos_cosmos_sdk_types.Dec
}
On successful response, the pool id is returned.
type MsgCreateConcentratedPoolResponse struct {
PoolID uint64
}
MsgCollectFees
This message allows collecting fees allocated multiple position IDs from a
single owner.
The fee collection is discussed in more detail in the "Fees" section of this document.
type MsgCollectFees struct {
PositionIds []uint64
Sender string
}
On successful response, the collected tokens are returned.
The sender should also see their balance increase by the returned
amounts.
type MsgCollectFeesResponse struct {
CollectedFees []types.Coin
}
MsgFungifyChargedPositions
This message allows fungifying the fully charged unlocked positions belonging to the same owner
and located in the same tick range.
MsgFungifyChargedPosition takes in a list of positionIds and combines them into a single position.
It validates that all positions belong to the same owner, are in the same ticks and are fully charged.
Fails if not. Otherwise, it creates a completely new position P. P's liquidity equals to the sum of all
liquidities of positions given by positionIds. The uptime of the join time of the new position equals
to current block time - max authorized uptime duration (to signify that it is fully charged).
The previous positions are deleted from state. Prior to deleting, the rewards are claimed.
The old position's unclaimed rewards are transferred to the new position.
The new position ID is returned.
type MsgFungifyChargedPositions struct {
PositionIds []uint64
Sender string
}
On successful response, the new position id is returned.
type MsgFungifyChargedPositionsResponse struct {
NewPositionId uint64
}
Relationship to Pool Manager Module
Pool Creation
As previously mentioned, the x/poolmanager
is responsible for creating the
pool upon being called from the x/concentrated-liquidity
module's message server.
It does so to store the mapping from pool id to concentrated-liquidity module so
that it knows where to route swaps.
Upon successful pool creation and pool id assignment, the x/poolmanager
module
returns the execution to x/concentrated-liquidity
module by calling InitializePool
on the x/concentrated-liquidity
keeper.
The InitializePool
method is responsible for doing concentrated-liquidity specific
initialization and storing the pool in state.
Note, that InitializePool
is a method defined on the SwapI
interface that is
implemented by all swap modules. For example, x/gamm
also implements it so that
x/pool-manager
can route pool initialization there as well.
Swaps
We rely on the swap messages located in x/poolmanager
:
MsgSwapExactAmountIn
MsgSwapExactAmountOut
The x/poolmanager
received the swap messages and, as long as the swap's pool id
is associated with the concentrated-liquidity
pool, the swap is routed
into the relevant module. The routing is done via the mapping from state that was
discussed in the "Pool Creation" section.
Liquidity Provision
As an LP, I want to provide liquidity in ranges so that I can achieve greater
capital efficiency
This is a basic function that should allow LPs to provide liquidity in specific ranges
to a pool.
A pool's liquidity is consisted of two assets: asset0 and asset1. In all pools,
asset0 will be the lexicographically smaller of the two assets. At the current
tick, the bucket at this tick consists of a mix of both asset0 and asset1 and
is called the virtual liquidity of the pool (or "L" for short). Any positions
set below the current price are consisted solely of asset0 while positions above
the current price only contain asset1.
Adding Liquidity
We can either provide liquidity above or below the current price, which would
act as a range order, or decide to provide liquidity at the current price.
As declared in the API for createPosition
, users provide the upper and lower
tick to denote the range they want to provide the liquidity in. The users are
also prompted to provide the amount of token0 and token1 they desire to receive.
The liquidity that needs to be provided for the given token0 and token1 amounts
would be then calculated by the following methods:
Liquidity needed for token0:
$$L = \frac{\Delta x \sqrt{P_u} \sqrt{P_l}}{\sqrt{P_u} - \sqrt{P_l}}$$
Liquidity needed for token1:
$$L = \frac{\Delta y}{\sqrt{P_u}-\sqrt{P_l}}$$
Then, we pick the smallest of the two values for choosing the final L
. The
reason we do that is because the new liquidity must be proportional to the old
one. By choosing the smaller value, we distribute the liqudity evenly between
the two tokens. In the future steps, we will re-calculate the amount of token0
and token1 as a result the one that had higher liquidity will end up smaller
than originally given by the user.
Note that the liquidity used here does not represent an amount of a specific
token, but the liquidity of the pool itself, represented in sdk.Dec
.
Using the provided liquidity, now we calculate the delta amount of both token0
and token1, using the following equations, where L is the liquidity calculated above:
$$\Delta x = \frac{L(\sqrt{p(i_u)} - \sqrt{p(i_c)})}{\sqrt{p(i_u)}\sqrt{p(i_c)}}$$
$$\Delta y = L(\sqrt{p(i_c)} - \sqrt{p(i_l)})$$
Again, by recalculating the delta amount of both tokens, we make sure that the
new liquidity is proportional to the old one and the excess amount of the token
that originally computed a larger liquidity is given back to the user.
The delta X and the delta Y are the actual amounts of tokens joined for the
requested position.
Given the parameters needed for calculating the tokens needed for creating a
position for a given tick, the API in the keeper layer would look like the following:
ctx sdk.Context, poolId uint64, owner sdk.AccAddress, amount0Desired,
amount1Desired, amount0Min, amount1Min sdk.Int,
lowerTick, upperTick int64, frozenUntil time.Time
func createPosition(
ctx sdk.Context,
poolId uint64,
owner sdk.AccAddress,
amount0Desired,
amount1Desired,
amount0Min,
amount1Min sdk.Int
lowerTick,
upperTick int64) (amount0, amount1 sdk.Int, sdk.Dec, error) {
...
}
Removing Liquidity
Removing liquidity is achieved via method withdrawPosition
which is the inverse
of previously discussed createPosition
. In fact, the two methods share the same
underlying logic, having the only difference being the sign of the liquidity.
Plus signifying addition while minus signifying subtraction.
Withdraw position also takes an additional parameter which represents the liqudity
a user wants to remove. It must be less than or equal to the available liquidity
in the position to be successful.
func (k Keeper) withdrawPosition(
ctx sdk.Context,
poolId uint64,
owner sdk.AccAddress,
lowerTick,
upperTick int64,
frozenUntil time.Time,
requestedLiquidityAmountToWithdraw sdk.Dec)
(amtDenom0, amtDenom1 sdk.Int, err error) {
...
}
Swapping
As a trader, I want to be able to swap over a concentrated liquidity pool so
that my trades incur lower slippage
Unlike balancer pools where liquidity is spread out over an infinite range,
concentrated liquidity pools allow for LPs to provide deeper liquidity for
specific price ranges, which in turn allows traders to incur less slippage on
their trades.
Despite this improvement, the liquidity at the current price is still finite,
and large single trades in times of high volume, as well as trades against
volatile assets, are eventually bound to incur some slippage.
In order to determine the depth of liquidity and subsequent amountIn/amountOut
values for a given pool, we track the swap's state across multiple swap "steps".
You can think of each of these steps as the current price following the original
xy=k curve, with the far left bound being the next initialized tick below the
current price and the far right bound being the next initialized tick above the
current price. It is also important to note that we always view prices of asset1
in terms of asset0, and selling asset1 for asset0 would, in turn, increase its
spot price. The reciprocal is also true, where if we sell asset0 for asset1,
we would decrease the pool's spot price.
When a user swaps asset0 for asset1 (can also be seen as "selling" asset0), we
move left along the curve until asset1 reserves in this tick are depleted.
If the tick of the current price has enough liquidity to fulfill the order without
stepping to the next tick, the order is complete. If we deplete all of asset1 in
the current tick, this then marks the end of the first swap "step". Since all
liquidity in this tick has been depleted, we search for the next closest tick
to the left of the current tick that has liquidity. Once we reach this tick, we
determine how much more of asset1 is needed to complete the swap. This process
continues until either the entire order is fulfilled or all liquidity is drained
from the pool.
The same logic is true for swapping asset1, which is analogous to buying asset0;
however, instead of moving left along the set of curves, we instead search for
liquidity to the right.
From the user perspective, there are two ways to swap:
-
Swap given token in for token out.
- E.g. I have 1 ETH that I swap for some computed amount of DAI.
-
Swap given token out for token in
- E.g. I want to get out 3000 DAI for some amount of ETH to compute.
Each case has a corresponding message discussed previosly in the x/poolmanager
section.
MsgSwapExactIn
MsgSwapExactOut
Once a message is received by the x/poolmanager
, it is propageted into a
corresponding keeper
in x/concentrated-liquidity
.
The relevant keeper method then calls its non-mutative calc
version which is
one of:
calcOutAmtGivenIn
calcInAmtGivenOut
State updates only occur upon successful execution of the swap inside the calc method.
We ensure that calc does not update state by injecting sdk.CacheContext
as its
context parameter. The cache context is dropped on failure and committed on success.
Calculating Swap Amounts
Let's now focus on the core logic of calculating swap amounts.
We mainly focus on calcOutAmtGivenIn
as the high-level steps of calcInAmtGivenOut
are similar.
1. Determine Swap Strategy
The first step we need to determine is the swap strategy. The swap strategy determines
the direction of the swap, and it is one of:
Note that the first token in the strategy name always corresponds to the token
being swapped in, while the second token corresponds to the token being swapped
out. This is true for both calcOutAmtGivenIn
and calcInAmtGivenOut
calc methods.
Recall that, in our model, we fix the tokens axis at the time of pool creation.
The token on the x-axis is token zero, while the token on the y-axis is token one.
Given that the sqrt price is defined as $$\sqrt (y / x)$$, as we swap token zero
(x-axis) in for token one (y-axis), we decrease the sqrt price and move down
along the price/tick curve. Conversely, as we swap token one (y-axis) in for token
zero (x-axis), we increase the sqrt price and move up along the price/tick curve.
The reason we call this a price/tick curve is because there is a relationship
between the price and the tick. As a result, when we perform the swap, we are
likely to end up crossing a tick boundary. As a tick is crossed, the swap state
internals must be updated. We will discuss this in more detail later.
2. Initialize Swap State
The next step is to initialize the swap state. The swap state is a struct that
contains all of the swap state to be done within the current active tick
(before we across a tick boundary).
It contains the following fields:
// SwapState defines the state of a swap.
// It is initialized as the swap begins and is updated after every swap step.
// Once the swap is complete, this state is either returned to the estimate
// swap querier or committed to state.
type SwapState struct {
// Remaining amount of specified token.
// if out given in, amount of token being swapped in.
// if in given out, amount of token being swapped out.
// Initialized to the amount of the token specified by the user.
// Updated after every swap step.
amountSpecifiedRemaining sdk.Dec
// Amount of the other token that is calculated from the specified token.
// if out given in, amount of token swapped out.
// if in given out, amount of token swapped in.
// Initialized to zero.
// Updated after every swap step.
amountCalculated sdk.Dec
// Current sqrt price while calculating swap.
// Initialized to the pool's current sqrt price.
// Updated after every swap step.
sqrtPrice sdk.Dec
// Current tick while calculating swap.
// Initialized to the pool's current tick.
// Updated each time a tick is crossed.
tick sdk.Int
// Current liqudiity within the active tick.
// Initialized to the pool's current tick's liquidity.
// Updated each time a tick is crossed.
liquidity sdk.Dec
// Global fee growth per-current swap.
// Initialized to zero.
// Updated after every swap step.
feeGrowthGlobal sdk.Dec
}
3. Compute Swap
The next step is to compute the swap. Conceptually, it can be done in two ways
listed below.Before doing so, we find the next initialized tick. An initialized
tick is the tick that is touched by the edges of at least one position. If no
position has an edge at a tick, then that tick is uninitialized.
a. Swap within the same initialized tick range.
See "Appendix A" for details on what "initialized" means.
This case occurs when swapState.amountSpecifiedRemaining
is less than or equal
to the amount needed to reach the next tick. We omit the math needed to determine
how much is enough until a later section.
b. Swap across multiple initialized tick ranges.
See "Appendix A" for details on what "initialized" means.
This case occurs when swapState.amountSpecifiedRemaining
is greater than the
amount needed to reach the next tick
In terms of the code implementation, we loop, calling a swapStrategy.ComputeSwapStepOutGivenIn
or swapStrategy.ComputeSwapStepInGivenOut
method, depending on swap out given
in or in given out, respectively.
The swap strategy is already initialized to be either zeroForOne
or oneForZero
from step 1. Go dynamically determines the desired implementation via polymorphism.
We leave details of the ComputeSwapStepOutGivenIn
and ComputeSwapStepInGivenOut
methods to the appendix of the "Swapping" section.
The iteration stops when swapState.amountSpecifiedRemaining
runs out or when
swapState.sqrtPrice reaches the sqrt price limit specified by the user as a price
impact protection.
4. Update Swap State
Upon computing the swap step, we update the swap state with the results of the
swap step. Namely,
-
Subtract the consumed specified amount from swapState.amountSpecifiedRemaining
.
-
Add the calculated amount to swapState.amountCalculated
.
-
Update swapState.sqrtPrice
to the new sqrt price. The new sqrt price is not
necessarily the sqrt price of the next tick. It is the sqrt price of the next tick
if the swap step crosses a tick boundary. Otherwise, it is something in between
the original and the next tick sqrt price.
-
Update swapState.tick
to the next initialized tick if it is reached;
otherwise, update it to the new tick calculated from the new sqrt price.
If the sqrt price is unchanged, the tick remains unchanged as well.
-
Update swapState.liquidity
to the new liquidity only if the next initialized
tick is crossed. The liquidity is updated by incorporating the liquidity_net
amount associated with the next initialized tick being crossed.
-
Update swapState.feeGrowthGlobal
to the value of the total fee charged within
the swap step on the amount of token in per one unit of liquidity within the
tick range being swapped in.
Then, we either proceed to the next swap step or finalize the swap.
5. Update Global State
Once the swap is completed, we persiste the swap state to the global state
(if mutative action is performed) and return the amountCalculated
to the user.
Migration
Users can migrate their Balancer positions to a Concentrated Liquidity full range
position provided the underlying Balancer pool has a governance-selected canonical
Concentrated Liquidity pool. The migration follows two distinct flows depending
on the state of the underlying Balancer position:
- Balancer position is:
- Superfluid delegated
- Superfluid undelegating
- Locked
- Unlocked
- Balancer position has no underlying lock whatsoever
Regardless of the path taken, a single message executes all of the below logic:
UnlockAndMigrateSharesToFullRangeConcentratedPosition
in superfluid for path 1,
and MigrateSharesToFullRangeConcentratedPosition
in gamm for path 2.
Superfluid Delegated Balancer to Concentrated
The following diagram illustrates the migration flow for a Superfluid delegated
Balancer position to a Superfluid delegated Concentrated Liquidity position.
The migration process starts by removing the connection between the GAMM lock and
the GAMM intermediary account. The synthetic OSMO that was previously minted by
the GAMM intermediary account is immediately undelegated (skipping the two-week
unbonding period) and sent to the Superfluid module account where it is burned.
Next, the Lockup module account holding the original GAMM shares sends them back
to the user, deleting the GAMM lock in the process. These shares are used to
claim the underlying two assets from the GAMM pool, which are then immediately
put into a full range Concentrated Liquidity position in the canonical
Concentrated Liquidity pool.
The underlying liquidity this creates is tokenized (similar to GAMM shares) and
is put into a new lock, which is then routed to the Lockup module account. A new
intermediary account is created based on this new CL share denom. The new
intermediary account mints synthetic OSMO and delegates it to the validator the
user originally delegated to. Finally, a new synthetic lock in a bonded status
is created based on the new CL lock ID, the new CL intermediary account, and the
new CL synthetic denom.
Superfluid Undelegating Balancer to Concentrated
The following diagram illustrates the migration flow for a superfluid undelegating
balancer position to a superfluid undelegating concentrated liquidity position.
The reason we must account for this situation is to respect the two week unbonding
period that is required for superfluid undelegating, and be capable of slashing
a position that was migrated.
The process is identical to the Superfluid delegated migration, with three
exceptions. First, the connection between the GAMM intermediary account and the
GAMM lock is already removed when a user started undelegation, so it does not
need to be done again. Second, no synthetic OSMO needs to be burned or created.
Lastly, instead of creating a new CL synthetic lock in a bonded status, we create
a new CL synthetic lock in an unlocking status. This lock will be unlocked once
the two-week unbonding period is over.
Locked and Unlocked Balancer to Concentrated
The locked<>locked and unlocked<>unlocked migration utilizes a subset of actions
that were taken in the superfluid migration. The Lockup module account that was
holding the original GAMM shares sends them back to the user, deleting the GAMM
lock in the process. These shares are used to claim the underlying two assets
from the GAMM pool, which are then immediately put into a full range Concentrated
Liquidity position in the canonical Concentrated Liquidity pool.
If it was previously locked, we keep the concentrated locked for the same period
of time. If it was previously unlocking, we begin unlocking the concentrated lock
from where the GAMM lock left off.
Balancer to Concentrated with No Lock
When GAMM shares are not locked, they are simply claimed for the underlying two
assets, which are then immediately put into a full range concentrated liquidity
position in the canonical concentrated liquidity pool. No locks are involved in
this migration.
Position Fungification
There is a possibility to fungify fully-charged positions within the same tick range.
Assume that there are two positions in the same tick range and both are fully charged.
As a user, I might want to combine them into a single position so that I don't have to manage
positions inside the same tick range separately.
Therefore, I execute MsgFungifyChargedPositions
that takes a list of position ids to fungify
and merges them into one.
Besides being fully charged, all of the positions must be in the same tick range and have the same
owner (sender). All must belong to the same pool and be unlocked. As a result, none of the positions
can be superfluid staked if they are full-range.
Once the message finishes, the user will have a completely new position with fees and incentive rewards
moved into the new position. The old positions will be deleted.
Swapping. Appendix A: Example
Note, that the numbers used in this example are not realistic. They are used to
illustrate the concepts on the high level.
Imagine a tick range from min tick -1000 to max tick 1000 in a pool with a 1%
swap fee.
Assume that user A created a full range position from ticks -1000 to 1000 for
10_000
liquidity units.
Assume that user B created a narrow range position from ticks 0 to 100 for 1_000
liquidity units.
Assume the current active tick is -34 and user perform a swap in the positive
direction of the tick range by swapping 5_000 tokens one in for some tokens
zero out.
Our tick range and liquidity graph now looks like this:
cur_sqrt_price ////////// <--- position by user B
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// <---position by user A
-1000 -34 0 100 1000
The swap state is initialized as follows:
amountSpecifiedRemaining
is set to 5_000 tokens one in specified by the user.
amountCalculated
is set to zero.
sqrtPrice
is set to the current sqrt price of the pool
(computed from the tick -34)
tick
is set to the current tick of the pool (-34)
liquidity
is set to the current liquidity tracked by the pool at tick -34 (10_000)
feeGrowthGlobal
is set to (0)
We proceed by getting the next initialized tick in the direction of the swap (0).
Each initialized tick has 2 fields:
-
liquidity_gross
- this is the total liquidity referencing that tick
at tick -1000: 10_000
at tick 0: 1_000
at tick 100: 1_000
at tick 1000: 10_000
-
liquidity_net
- liquidity that needs to be added to the active liquidity as
we cross the tick moving in the positive direction so that the active liquidity
is always the sum of all liquidity_net
amounts of initialized ticks below the
current one.
at tick -1000: 10_000
at tick 0: 1_000
at tick 100: -1_000
at tick 1000: -10_000
Next, we compute swap step from tick -34 to tick 0. Assume that 5_000 tokens one
in is more than enough to cross tick 0 and it returns 10_000 of token zero out
while consuming half of token one in (2500).
Now, we update the swap state as follows:
-
amountSpecifiedRemaining
is set to 5000 - 2_500 = 2_500 tokens one in remaining.
-
amountCalculated
is set to 10_000 tokens zero out calculated.
-
sqrtPrice
is set to the sqrt price of the crossed initialized tick 0 (0).
-
tick
is set to the tick of the crossed initialized tick 0 (0).
-
liquidity
is set to the old liquidity value (10_000) + the liquidity_net
of the crossed tick 0 (1_000) = 11_000.
-
feeGrowthGlobal
is set to 2_500 * 0.01 / 10_000 = 0.0025 because we assumed
1% swap fee.
Now, we proceed by getting the next initialized tick in the direction of
the swap (100).
Next, we compute swap step from tick 0 to tick 100. Assume that 2_500 remaining
tokens one in is not enough to reach the next initialized tick 100 and it returns
12_500 of token zero out while only reaching tick 70. The reason why we now get a
greater amount of token zero out for the same amount of token one in is because the
liquidity in this tick range is greater than the liquidity in the previous tick range.
Now, we update the swap state as follows:
-
amountSpecifiedRemaining
is set to 2_500 - 2_500 = 0 tokens one in remaining.
-
amountCalculated
is set to 10_000 + 12_500 = 22_500 tokens zero out calculated.
-
sqrtPrice
is set to the reached sqrt price.
-
tick
is set to an uninitialized tick associated with the reached sqrt price (70).
-
liquidity
is set kept the same as we did not cross any initialized tick.
-
feeGrowthGlobal
is updated to 0.0025 + (2_500 * 0.01 / 10_000) = 0.005
because we assumed 1% swap fee.
As a result, we complete the swap having swapped 5_000 tokens one in for 22_500
tokens zero out. The tick is now at 70 and the current liquidity at the active
tick tracked by the pool is 11_000. The global fee growth per unit of liquidity
has increased by 50 units of token one. See more details about the fee growth
in the "Fees" section.
TODO: Swapping, Appendix B: Compute Swap Step Internals and Math
Range Orders
As a trader, I want to be able to execute ranger orders so that I have better
control of the price at which I trade
TODO
Fees
As a an LP, I want to earn fees on my capital so that I am incentivized to
participate in active market making.
In Balancer-style pools, fees go directly back into the pool to benefit all LPs pro-rata.
For concentrated liquidity pools, this approach is no longer feasible due to the
non-fungible property of positions. As a result, we use a different accumulator-based
mechanism for tracking and storing fees.
Reference the following papers for more information on the inspiration behind our accumulator package:
We define the following accumulator and fee-related fields to be stored on various
layers of state:
// Note that this is proto-generated.
type Pool struct {
...
SwapFee sdk.Dec
}
Each pool is initialized with a static fee value SwapFee
to be paid by swappers.
Additionally, each pool's fee accumulator tracks and stores the total fees accrued
throughout its lifespan, named FeeGrowthGlobal
.
// Note that this is proto-generated.
type TickInfo struct {
...
FeeGrowthOppositeDirectionOfLastTraversal sdk.DecCoins
}
TickInfo keeps a record of fees accumulated opposite the direction the tick was last traversed.
In other words, when traversing the tick from right to left, FeeGrowthOppositeDirectionOfLastTraversal
represents the fees accumulated above that tick. When traversing the tick from left to right,
FeeGrowthOppositeDirectionOfLastTraversal
represents the fees accumulated below that tick.
This information is required for calculating the amount of fees that accrue between
a range of two ticks.
Note that keeping track of the fee growth is only necessary for the ticks that
have been initialized. In other words, at least one position must be referencing
that tick to require tracking the fee growth occurring in that tick.
By convention, when a new tick is activated, it is set to the pool's FeeGrowthGlobal
if the tick being initialized is above the current tick.
See the following code snippet:
if tickIndex <= currentTick {
accum, err := k.GetFeeAccumulator(ctx, poolId)
if err != nil {
return err
}
tickInfo.FeeGrowthBelow = accum.GetValue()
}
Essentially, setting the tick's tickInfo.FeeGrowthOppositeDirectionOfLastTraversal
to the pools accum value represents the amount of fees collected by the pool up until
the tick was activated.
Once a tick is activated again (crossed in either direction),
tickInfo.FeeGrowthOppositeDirectionOfLastTraversal
is updated to add the difference
between the pool's current accumulator value and the old value of
tickInfo.FeeGrowthOppositeDirectionOfLastTraversal
.
Tracking how many fees are collected below, in the case of a lower tick, and above,
in the case of an upper tick, allows us to calculate the
amount of fees inside a position (fee growth inside between two ticks) on demand.
This is done by updating the activated tick with the amount of fees collected for
every tick lower than the tick that is being crossed.
This has two benefits:
- We avoid updating all ticks
- We can calculate a range by subtracting the upper and lower ticks for the range
using the logic below.
We calculate the fee growth above the upper tick in the following way:
- If calculating fee growth for an upper tick, we consider the following two cases:
- currentTick >= upperTick: If the current tick is greater than or equal to the
upper tick, the fee growth would be the pool's fee growth minus the upper tick's
- currentTick < upperTick: If the current tick is smaller than the upper tick,
the fee growth would be the upper tick's fee growth outside.
This process is vice versa for calculating fee growth below the lower tick.
Now, by having the fee growth below the lower and above the upper tick of a range,
we can calculate the fee growth inside the range by subtracting the two from the
global per-unit-of-liquidity fee growth.
feeGrowthInsideRange := FeeGrowthGlobalOutside - feeGrowthBelowLowerTick - feeGrowthAboveUpperTick
Note that although tickInfo.FeeGrowthOutside
may be initialized at different times
for each tick, the comparison of these values between ticks is not meaningful, and
there is no guarantee that the values across ticks will follow any particular pattern.
However, this does not affect the per-position calculations since all the position
needs to know is the fee growth inside the position's range since the position was
last interacted with.
In a concentrated liquidity pool, unlike traditional pools, fees do not get automatically
re-added to pool. Instead, they are tracked by the unclaimedRewards
fields of each
position's accumulator.
The amount of uncollected fees needs to be calculated every time a user modifies
their position. This occurs when a position is created, and liquidity is removed
(liquidity added is analogous to creating a new position).
We must recalculate the values for any modification, because with a change in liquidity
for the position, the amount of fees allocated to the position must also change accordingly.
Collecting Fees
Once calculated, collecting fees is a straightforward process of transferring the
calculated amount from the pool address to the position owner.
To collect fees, users call MsgCollectFees
with the ID corresponding to
their position. The function collectFees
in the keeper is responsible for
executing the fee collection and returning the amount collected, given the owner's
address and the position ID:
func (k Keeper) collectFees(
ctx sdk.Context,
owner sdk.AccAddress,
positionId uint64) (sdk.Coins, error) {
}
This returns the amount of fees collected by the user.
Swaps
Swapping within a single tick works as the regular xy = k
curve. For swaps
across ticks to work, we simply apply the same fee calculation logic for every swap step.
Consider data structures defined above. Let tokenInAmt
be the amount of token being
swapped in.
Then, to calculate the fee within a single tick, we perform the following steps:
- Calculate an updated
tokenInAmtAfterFee
by charging the pool.SwapFee
on tokenInAmt
.
// Update global fee accumulator tracking fees for denom of tokenInAmt.
// TODO: revisit to make sure if truncations need to happen.
pool.FeeGrowthGlobalOutside.TokenX = pool.FeeGrowthGlobalOutside.TokenX.Add(tokenInAmt.Mul(pool.SwapFee))
// Update tokenInAmt to account for fees.
fee = tokenInAmt.Mul(pool.SwapFee).Ceil()
tokenInAmtAfterFee = tokenInAmt.Sub(fee)
k.bankKeeper.SendCoins(ctx, swapper, pool.GetAddress(), ...) // send tokenInAmtAfterFee
- Proceed to calculating the next square root price by utilizing the updated `tokenInAmtAfterFee.
Depending on which of the tokens in tokenIn
,
If token1 is being swapped in:
$$\Delta \sqrt P = \Delta y / L$$
Here, tokenInAmtAfterFee
is delta y.
If token0 is being swapped in:
$$\Delta \sqrt P = L / \Delta x$$
Here, tokenInAmtAfterFee
is delta x.
Once we have the updated square root price, we can calculate the amount of
tokenOut
to be returned. The returned tokenOut
is computed with fees
accounted for given that we used tokenInAmtAfterFee
.
Swap Step Fees
We have a notion of swapState.amountSpecifiedRemaining
which is the amount of
token in remaining over all swap steps.
After performing the current swap step, the following cases are possible:
- All amount remaining is consumed
In that case, the fee is equal to the difference between the original amount remaining
and the one actually consumed. The difference between them is the fee.
feeChargeTotal = amountSpecifiedRemaining.Sub(amountIn)
- Did not consume amount remaining in-full.
The fee is charged on the amount actually consumed during a swap step.
feeChargeTotal = amountIn.Mul(swapFee)
- Price impact protection makes it exit before consuming all amount remaining.
The fee is charged on the amount in actually consumed before price impact
protection got trigerred.
feeChargeTotal = amountIn.Mul(swapFee)
Incentive/Liquidity Mining Mechanism
Overview
Due to the nonfungibility of positions and ticks, incentives for concentrated liquidity requires a
slightly different mechanism for distributing incentives compared to Balancer and Stableswap pools.
In general, the design space of incentive mechanisms for concentrated liquidity DEXs is extremely
underexplored, so our implementation takes this as an opportunity to break some new ground in the
broader design space of order-book-style AMMs.
Below, we outline the approach for CL incentives that Osmosis will be implementing for its initial
implementation of concentrated liquidity, as well as our baseline reasoning for why we are pursuing
this design.
Target Properties
As a starting point, it's important to understand the properties of a healthy liquidity pool.
These are all, of course, properties that become self-sustaining once the positive feedback cycle
between liquidity and volume kicks off, but for the sake of understanding what exactly it is that
we are trying to bootstrap with incentives it helps to be explicit with our goals.
Liquidity Depth
We want to ensure fees and incentives are being used to maximize liquidity depth at the active tick
(i.e. the tick the current spot price is in), as this gives the best execution price for trades on
the pool.
Liquidity Breadth
It is critical that as we roll out concentrated liquidity, there is an incentive for there to be
width in the books for our major pools. This is to avoid the scenario where the liquidity in the
active tick gets filled and liquidity falls off a cliff (e.g. when there is a large price move and
active tick LPs get bulk arbed against). It is important for our liquidity base to be broad when it
is low until our CL markets mature and active LPs begin participating.
Liquidity Uptime
We want to ensure that the active tick is not only liquid, but that it is consistently liquid,
meaning that liquidity providers are incentivized to keep their liquidity on the books while
they trade.
Specifically, we want to ensure that idle liquidity waiting for volume does not sit off the
books with the goal of jumping in when a trade happens, as this makes Osmosis's liquidity
look thinner than it is and risks driving volume to other exchanges.
While just-in-time (JIT) liquidity technically benefits the trader on a first-degree basis
(better price execution for that specific trade), it imposes a cost on the whole system by
pushing LPs to an equilibrium that ultimately hurts the DEX (namely that liquidity stays of
the books until a trade happens). This instance of Braess's paradox
can be remedied with mechanisms designed around rewarding liquidity uptime.
Current Standard: Pro-rata in Active Tick
The current status quo for concentrated liquidity incentives is to distribute them pro-rata
to all LPs providing liquidity in the active tick. With
some clever accumulator tricks,
this can be designed to ensure that each LP only receives incentives for liquidity they contribute
to the active tick. This approach is incredible for liquidity depth, which is arguably the most
important property we need incentives to be able to accommodate. It is also a user flow that
on-chain market makers are already somewhat familiar with and has enough live examples where
we roughly know that it functions as intended.
Our Implementation
At launch, Osmosis's CL incentives will primarily be in the format described above while we
iron out a mechanism that achieves the remaining two properties predictably and effectively.
As a piece of foreshadowing, the primary problem space we will be tackling is the following:
status quo incentives advantage LPs who keep their liquidity off the books until a trade
happens, ultimately pushing liquidity off of the DEX and creating ambiguity around the "real"
liquidity depth. This forces traders to make uninformed decisions about where to trade their
assets (or worse, accept worse execution on an inferior venue).
In other words, instead of having incentives go towards bootstrapping healthy liquidity pools,
they risk going towards adversely pushing volume to other exchanges at the cost of the DEX,
active LPs, and ultimately traders.
Note on supported and authorized uptimes
If you dig through our incentives logic, you might find code dealing with notions of Supported Uptimes
and Authorized Uptimes. These are for an uptime incentivization mechanism we are keeping off
at launch while we refine a more sophisticated version. We leave the state-related parts
in core logic to ensure that if we do decide to turn the feature on (even if just to
experiment), it could be done by a simple governance proposal (to add more supported
uptimes to the list of authorized uptimes) and not require a state migration for pools.
At launch, only the 1ns uptime will be authorized, which is roughly equivalent to status
quo CL incentives with the small difference that positions that are created and closed in
the same block are not eligible for any incentives.
For the sake of clarity, this mechanism functions very similarly to status quo incentives,
but it has a separate accumulator for each supported uptime and ensures that only liquidity
that has been in the pool for the required amount of time qualifies for claiming incentives.
TWAP Integration
In the context of twap, concentrated liquidity pools function differently from
CFMM pools.
There are 2 major differences that stem from how the liquidity is added and
removed in concentrated-liquidity.
The first one is given by the fact that a user does not provide liquidity at
pool creation time. Instead, they have to issue a separate message post-pool
creation. As a result, there can be a time where there is no valid spot price
initialized for a concentrated liquidity pool. When a concentrated liquidity pool
is created, the x/twap
module still initializes the twap records. However, these
records are invalidated by setting the "last error time" field to the block time
at pool creation. Only adding liquidity to the pool will initialize the spot price
and twap records correctly. One technical detail to note is that adding liquidity
in the same block as pool creation will still set the "last error time" field to
the block time despite spot price already being initialized. Although we fix an
error within that block, it still occurs. As a result, this is deemed acceptable.
However, this is a technical trade-off for implementation simplicity and not an
intentional design decision.
The second difference from balancer pools is focused around the fact that
liquidity can be completely removed from a concentrated liquidity pool,
making its spot price be invalid.
To recap the basic LP functionality in concentrated liquidity, a user adds
liqudity by creating a position. To remove liquidity, they withdraw their
position. Contrary to CFMM pools, adding or removing liquidity does not affect
the price in 99% of the cases in concentrated liquidity. The only two exceptions
to this rule are:
Creating the first position in the pool.
In this case, we transition from invalid state where there is no liqudity, and
the spot price is uninitialized to the state where there is some liqudity, and
as a result a valid spot price.
Note, that if there is a pool where liqudiity is completely drained and re-added,
the TWAP's last error time will be pointing at the time when the liquidity was drained.
This is different from how twap functions in CFMM pool where liquidity cannot
be removed in-full.
Removing the last position in the pool.
In this case, we transition from a valid state with liquidity and spot price to
an invalid state where there is no liquidity and, as a result, no valid spot
price anymore. The last spot price error will be set to the block time of when
the last position was removed.
To reiterate, the above two exceptions are the only cases where twap is updated
due to adding or removing liquidity.
The major source of updates with respect to twap is the swap logic. It functions
similarly to CFMM pools where upon the completion of a swap, a listener AfterConcentratedPoolSwap
propagates the execution to the twap module for the purposes of tracking state updates
necessary to retrieve the spot price and update the twap accumulators
(more details in x/twap module).
Lastly, see the "Listeners" section for more details on how twap is enabled by
the use of these hooks.
Parameters
AuthorizedQuoteDenoms
[]string
This is a list of quote denoms that can be used as token1 when creating a pool.
We limit the quote assets to a small set for the purposes of having convenient
price increments stemming from tick to price conversion. These increments are
in a human readable magnitude only for token1 as a quote. For limit orders in
the future, this will be a desirable property in terms of UX as to allow users
to set limit orders at prices in terms of token1 (quote asset) that are easy
to reason about.
This goes in-hand with centralized exchanges that limit the quote asset set
to only a few denoms.
Our list at launch is expected to consist of OSMO, DAI and USDC. These are set
in the v16 upgrade handler.
IsPermisionlessPoolCreationEnabled
bool
The flag indicating whether permissionless pool creation is enabled or not. For
launch, we have decided to disable permissionless pool creation. It will still
be enabled via governance. This is because we want to limit the number of pools
for risk management and want to avoid fragmenting liquidity for major denom
pairs with configurations of tick spacing that are not ideal.
Listeners
AfterConcentratedPoolCreated
This listener executes after the pool is created.
At the time of this writing, it is only utilized by the x/twap
module.
The twap module is expected to create twap records where the last error time
is set to the block time of when the pool was created. This is because there
is no liquidity in the pool at creation time.
AfterInitialPoolPositionCreated
This listener executes after the first position is created in a concentrated
liquidity pool.
At the time of this writing, it is only utilized by the x/twap
module.
AfterLastPoolPositionRemoved
This listener executes after the last position is removed in a concentrated
liquidity pool.
At the time of this writing, it is only utilized by the x/twap
module.
AfterConcentratedPoolSwap
This listener executes after a swap in a concentrated liquidity pool.
At the time of this writing, it is only utilized by the x/twap
module.
State
-
global (per-pool)
-
per-tick
-
per-position
Placeholder
Terminology
We will use the following terms throughout the document:
-
Virtual Reserves
- TODO
-
Real Reserves
- TODO
-
Tick
- TODO
-
Range
- TODO
External Sources