What happened with pDEX ETH liquidity?

My simple theory: Impermanent loss.

ETH and BTC pumped but not PRV, less and less ETH and BTC in pools compared to PRV so risky for liquidity that comes from Provide.

Your theory is more realistic than my ones :slight_smile:

Hi @adrian
Any reference that people can get +20% for their investment on Curve/Uniswap/Sushi? I search but only get < 10%.

https://www.convexfinance.com/stake (tricrypto2 28%)


I’ve got a lot in ^ and its averaging 20-30% YTD.

1 Like

Still would love a response on this, it doesn’t seem like this is natural removal of funds from liquidity, especially considering I still have a lot more than the quoted 1.77 ETH in the PRV-ETH pool, where has the money I’m providing been put? :neutral_face:

You actually put PRV and ETH into liquidity pool? or just Provide?

For liquidity pool, if you see small amount of ETH than your first provided amount, then your PRV amount should be larger? It could be Impermanent loss?

We were talking about Provide, not the direct “add” liquidity. We assumed adding to provide directly increases liquidity but maybe this is not the case?

I just answer what @disco is concerning, if he put PRV-ETH into liquidity pool, then he could experience Impermanent Loss(ETH decrease, PRV increase).

Otherwise, if he use Provide, then there is no connection between his provided amount and ETH-PRV liquidity pool. Adding asset to Provide is not fully add to Liquidity.

1 Like

He’s my friend and we’re both in the same situation. We’ve both added through provide but assumed it would directly increase the liquidity available for the ETH pairs.

If that is the case, your asset is still in Provide wallet. “Provide” team withdrew ETH for a certain purpose . @duc will respond soon.


Ah understandable, it was just concerning to see since we know there should be quite a bit in liquidity based on the amount we are providing alone, and when looking at the graph over the months you can see large drops in liquidity in the pool occur multiple times in the same pattern over 2 days.

Hopefully a statement comes soon, would love to be able to trade PRV-ETH again without large slippage :slight_smile:

To add to the saga, it’s now been 4+ days since I’ve been waiting for my Ethereum provision to withdraw :no_mouth:


Is there any explanation yet for this? @0xkumi @duc

1 Like

Yes, would be great to get an update as soon as possible. @0xkumi @duc

To quench any worries I did end up receiving my provided amount, but it feels like a shame to have to reactively remove my funds due to the sudden liquidity with no explanation. The communication and transparency on this really does need an improvement :pleading_face:


Hi all, apologies for the delay and thanks for your patience. Let me shed some light on this.

As some of you may know, the process of moving from Provide to pDEX is not direct due to a tradeoff made between user-friendliness (single-sided provision) and efficiency.

These design inefficiencies led to a delay in adding ETH from Provide to pDEX liquidity. So when 2 whales removed ETH in the past few days, the ETH/PRV pair was depleted, exacerbated by the fact that the amount in pDEX was not up to date with the amount that was deposited through Provide. This has now been rectified.

The improved liquidity provision mechanism for pDEX v.3, will go live in a few weeks. This is especially salient, because as you have seen over the past few days, there is a real need for a better solution to pDEX liquidity. In pDEX v.3, providers add funds directly to pools, retaining full control of their assets without needing to rely on any centralized party. The improved design also uses liquidity more efficiently, which should reduce slippage considerably.

Thanks again for your patience while we work through what is a rather lengthy list of improvements. Feel free to ask any questions, and if you’d like to add to this list at any time, just let us know your thoughts.


To make sure I understand, you’re just calculating what you’ve earned so far?
It’s not like those returns are guaranteed in some way, correct? Also, how is impermanent loss being factored in?

I think there’s some significant tradeoffs to be considered when comparing providing a coin pair to a liquidity pool versus using the Provide feature on Incognito. You say:

But that sounds like a straight comparison, neglecting the fact that it’s:

  1. a guaranteed 10%
  2. no IL risk
  3. no need to supply an equal value amount of a counter coin

Could you clarify how you’re arriving at those APY numbers and how you’re weighing the value of the three attributes of Provide mentioned above, which don’t apply to the pools you listed?

Also, what pair are you earning that kind of return on Curve?

You are also not considering that Provide is a custodial+centralized service and backed by staking, not liquidity mining, so the two are not really comparable. I agree that Incognito staking is a very lucrative and stable source of income and Provide simplified access to it.

It all depends on what people want, if you want stable APY and don’t care about centralization then sure, Provide might be a good choice. Otherwise external non-custodial DEXs right now offer much better variable APY, with the risk of IL (less so for Curve).

Let’s see how the new pDEX will change things once there’s an incentive to provide liquidity, although IL risks will remain.

Also, what pair are you earning that kind of return on Curve?

https://curve.fi/tricrypto2 (right now around 20%)

Staked into Convex for boosted rewards.

I did consider the drawbacks/risks of Provide, but I’m not the one who was comparing them. You say now that the two are not really comparable, but that’s precisely what you did in the OP, I was just pointing out that it’s not an apples to apples comparison as it sounded like you made it out to be.

My point was that to simply say “10% is a joke when you can get 20% elsewhere” is quite misleading, as it ignores all the differing factors between the two situations that earn those two amounts (which, again, even neglecting the risk factors of supplying to pools, the 20% isn’t even a stable or guaranteed amount).

What do you mean by “once there’s an incentive to provide liquidity”?

1 Like

What do you mean by “once there’s an incentive to provide liquidity”?

Right now pDEX has no fees, and it’s unlikely that funds from Provide actually go into pDEX. Fees will be added in the new pDEX so LPing is incentivised.

My point was that to simply say “10% is a joke when you can get 20% elsewhere” is quite misleading, as it ignores all the differing factors between the two situations that earn those two amounts

Agree, it’s not the same, however in my case for ETH I would rather accept the risk of IL for higher variable APY versus locking it in a centralized and custodial service that can rug me overnight.

1 Like