What is impermanent loss?

A simple definition

Impermanent loss (IL) is the difference between what your tokens would be worth if you had simply held them in your wallet, versus what they are actually worth inside a liquidity pool. Whenever the price ratio between the two tokens in a pool changes, the pool's automated rebalancing leaves you with less total value than if you had done nothing at all. The bigger the price change, the larger the loss.

Why it happens: the pool sells your winners

To understand impermanent loss, you need to understand how liquidity pools work. A pool holds two tokens and uses a mathematical formula to maintain a constant balance between them. The most common formula is x * y = k, where x and y are the quantities of the two tokens and k is a constant.

When the price of one token rises on external markets, arbitrage traders step in. They buy the cheaper token from the pool (sending the other token in) until the pool's price matches the market price. This process changes the ratio of tokens in the pool.

As a liquidity provider, your share of the pool now contains less of the token that went up and more of the token that stayed flat or went down. The pool has effectively sold your winning asset on the way up and replaced it with the underperformer. This is the mechanism behind impermanent loss: automatic rebalancing works against you whenever prices diverge.

Step-by-step example with real numbers

Let us walk through a concrete scenario so you can see exactly how the math works.

Starting position

You deposit into an ETH/USDC pool when ETH is priced at $2,000. You contribute:

• 1 ETH (worth $2,000)
• 2,000 USDC (worth $2,000)
• Total deposit value: $4,000

Price change: ETH doubles to $4,000

Now suppose ETH's price doubles to $4,000. The pool rebalances according to its constant product formula.

If you had just held (no pool):

• 1 ETH at $4,000 = $4,000
• 2,000 USDC = $2,000
• Total: $6,000

What the pool gives you back:

• The constant product formula means your share is now approximately 0.707 ETH and 2,828 USDC
• 0.707 ETH at $4,000 = $2,828
• 2,828 USDC = $2,828
• Total: $5,656

Notice something important: the pool sold 0.293 ETH on the way up (from 1 ETH down to 0.707 ETH) and converted it into USDC. You ended up with more USDC than you started with, but less ETH. Since ETH was the winning asset, this automatic rebalancing cost you.

Price change vs. impermanent loss

Impermanent loss depends only on how much the price ratio between the two tokens changes, not the direction. A 2x increase causes the same IL as a 2x decrease. Here is the full scale:

Small price movements cause negligible IL. A 25% swing costs you just 0.6%. But the relationship is not linear: as the price ratio grows, IL accelerates. At a 10x move, you have lost nearly half the value you could have had. This is why providing liquidity on highly volatile, small-cap tokens is so risky.

Why "impermanent" is misleading

The loss is called "impermanent" because, in theory, it reverses if the price ratio returns to exactly where it was when you deposited. If ETH goes from $2,000 to $4,000 and then back to $2,000, your pool position ends up right where it started (plus any fees earned), and the IL disappears.

But in practice, this is a poor name for three reasons:

1. Prices rarely return to the exact starting ratio. Markets trend. Tokens that 10x do not usually come back. Tokens that crash often stay down.
2. If you withdraw while prices have diverged, the loss becomes permanent. It is realized the moment you exit the pool.
3. Even if prices do return, they may have swung wildly in between. If you withdrew during the swing, you locked in the loss.

A growing number of DeFi researchers and developers prefer the term divergence loss, because it more honestly describes what is happening: loss caused by the price of the two tokens diverging from their original ratio. If you see "divergence loss" in DeFi discussions, it means the same thing as impermanent loss.

When impermanent loss is worth it

The fundamental question for every liquidity provider is simple: do the fees I earn outweigh the impermanent loss I suffer?

IL is often worth it when:

• The pair is stable. Stablecoin pairs like USDC/USDT or DAI/USDC barely move in relative price, so IL is negligible. Fees accumulate with almost no downside.
• The pair is correlated. Tokens like ETH/stETH or ETH/WETH move together by design. The price ratio stays tight, keeping IL minimal.
• Trading volume is high relative to pool size. A pool earning 50% APR in fees can easily absorb 5-10% IL and still be very profitable.
• There are incentive rewards. Many protocols offer additional token rewards to LPs. These rewards can more than compensate for IL, though you should evaluate whether the reward token holds value over time.

IL is often not worth it when:

• One token is highly volatile. Memecoins, small-cap tokens, and newly launched tokens can easily move 5x or 10x, causing devastating IL.
• Volume is low. A pool with little trading activity generates minimal fees but still exposes you to IL.
• You are bullish on one token. If you believe ETH will triple, putting it in a pool means the pool will sell your ETH all the way up. Just holding would be better.

Concentrated liquidity amplifies IL

Protocols like Uniswap V3 introduced concentrated liquidity, which lets you focus your capital within a specific price range. This makes your capital far more efficient -- you earn more fees per dollar deposited. But it also dramatically amplifies impermanent loss.

In a concentrated position, if the price moves outside your chosen range, 100% of your position converts into the less valuable token. You end up holding only the loser. The IL from a concentrated position can be many times worse than from a standard full-range pool.

Concentrated liquidity is a powerful tool for experienced LPs and automated vaults, but it is not a "set and forget" strategy. It requires active management and a clear understanding of the amplified risks.

Stablecoin pairs: the low-IL strategy

If you want to earn fees from providing liquidity while minimizing impermanent loss, stablecoin pools are the most straightforward option. Pairs like USDC/USDT or DAI/USDC are designed to maintain a 1:1 ratio. Because the price ratio barely changes, IL is almost zero.

The trade-off is that stablecoin pools earn lower fees than volatile pairs (because the fee tiers are lower and the margins are thinner). But the predictability makes them popular with LPs who want steady, low-risk income.

Related guides