Impermanent loss is the gap between what your deposited tokens are worth inside a liquidity pool versus what they’d be worth if you had simply held them instead — a direct consequence of how an AMM rebalances a pool’s two token balances as prices move. It’s the single most important risk to understand before providing liquidity, and it’s frequently misunderstood as something rarer or smaller than it actually is.
{{IMAGE:assets/images/il-featured.webp}}
What impermanent loss actually is
When you deposit into a liquidity pool, you deposit an equal value of two tokens. As traders swap against the pool, the constant-product formula (see how AMMs price trades) automatically shifts the pool’s balance of each token to reflect the new price ratio between them. Your share of the pool moves with that rebalancing — so if one token’s price rises relative to the other, your share ends up holding relatively less of the token that rose and relatively more of the one that didn’t. Compared to just holding the original two tokens outside the pool, you can end up with less total value.
Why it happens (the rebalancing mechanism)
The AMM’s job is to keep the product of the two token quantities constant. It can only do that by adjusting the pool’s balance whenever the market price of one token moves relative to the other — arbitrage traders buy the relatively underpriced token from the pool until the pool’s price matches the wider market again. That arbitrage activity is what shifts your share’s composition, and it happens automatically and continuously, not as some separate event you opt into.
Why it’s called “impermanent”
The loss only becomes real — realized — if you withdraw your liquidity while the price ratio is still different from when you deposited. If the two tokens’ relative prices return to where they were at deposit before you withdraw, the loss shrinks back toward zero, because your share’s composition also shifts back. This is exactly why the loss is called impermanent rather than simply “loss” — but it’s a real risk for anyone who might need to withdraw during a period when prices haven’t returned to that ratio.
A worked (hypothetical) example
This is a purely illustrative example, not a claim about any specific pool’s current numbers. Based on the general shape of published impermanent-loss calculations, a roughly 2x price change between the two pooled assets produces an impermanent loss in the neighborhood of 5-6% relative to simply holding, and the loss grows sharply from there as the price divergence increases — a much larger price move can produce a loss well into the double digits. Kraken’s impermanent-loss explainer includes the underlying math in more detail. The key pattern worth remembering: the loss accelerates as the price divergence grows — it isn’t linear.
{{IMAGE:assets/images/il-example-comparison.webp}}
Fee income vs. impermanent loss: the real trade-off
Liquidity providers earn a share of trading fees generated by the pool, and in a high-volume pool, that fee income can outweigh impermanent loss over time. Whether it actually does depends on trading volume relative to how much the price ratio moved — there’s no universal answer, and it varies pool to pool and period to period. This is the actual trade-off a liquidity provider is making, not a guaranteed yield.
Why some LPs still choose high-volatility pairs
If impermanent loss grows with price divergence, why would anyone provide liquidity to a pair of assets that move very differently from each other? The answer is usually fee income: volatile, less-correlated pairs often see more trading volume and can charge higher swap fees, since traders have fewer alternative pools to route through. A liquidity provider is implicitly betting that the extra fee income from that volume and fee rate will outweigh the larger potential impermanent loss — a real trade-off, not a mistake, but one that requires actually comparing the two rather than assuming a high advertised yield is free money.
Ways some pools reduce it
- Stableswap-style formulas, used for pairs expected to trade near a fixed ratio (like two stablecoins), produce far less impermanent loss than a standard constant-product pool for those specific pairs.
- Weighted pools allow ratios other than 50/50 between the two assets, which changes the pool’s impermanent-loss profile depending on the weighting chosen.
- Choosing correlated asset pairs in general — two assets that tend to move together — reduces exposure compared to pairing two assets with very different price behavior.
Checking a pool’s impermanent-loss exposure before depositing
- Look at how correlated the two assets actually are. Two stablecoins, or a token paired with its own wrapped/staked version, tend to diverge far less than two unrelated tokens.
- Check whether the pool uses a stableswap or weighted formula rather than a plain constant-product model — these can meaningfully change the loss profile for the same price move.
- Look at recent trading volume relative to the pool’s size, since that’s the main driver of the fee income that offsets impermanent loss.
- Consider your own time horizon — since the loss is only realized on withdrawal, someone able to wait out a price divergence carries less practical risk than someone who might need to exit on short notice.
FAQ
Can impermanent loss make me lose money overall?
Yes, if the loss exceeds the fee income earned while providing liquidity, and you withdraw while the price ratio is still diverged from your deposit point.
Does impermanent loss affect traders, or only liquidity providers?
Only liquidity providers. Traders swapping against a pool experience slippage on individual trades, which is a related but separate concept — see how AMMs price trades.
Is there a way to avoid impermanent loss entirely?
The only way to avoid it entirely is not providing liquidity to a pool where the two assets’ prices can diverge — for example, simply holding the tokens instead, or choosing a pool pairing two assets whose prices are pegged to move together.