Yield Analysis of Boost vs Non-Boost Base Trader Joe Liquidity Pools
Keywords:
Decentralized Finance, Liquidity pool, Boost Incentive Program, Trader Joe, Reward AllocationsAbstract
This comprehensive study presents an extensive quantitative analysis of the impact of Trader Joe’s Boost Incentive Program on Trader Joe’s liquidity pools. The Boost Incentive Program is a liquidity initiative designed to revitalize a specific DeFi ecosystem by enhancing user engagement and competitiveness. Following the success of a previous program from mid-2021 to early 2022, this new initiative aims to reignite growth and innovation by increasing Total Value Locked (TVL), attracting new protocols, and regaining market share within the DeFi space. The ongoing program focuses on supporting both new and existing DeFi protocols through liquidity mining incentives, direct liquidity deployment, and backing for new assets and products. The strategic use of incentives is designed to maximize impact by concentrating on core primitives and top native protocols, thereby driving substantial growth in TVL. By allocating incentives to specific strategies and liquidity pools, Trader Joe aims to offer higher yields to liquidity providers, thereby attracting more participants and increasing TVL on its platform. This approach aligns with the overarching goal of the Boost program to support innovation and new protocol growth. In the below analysis, I examine how these incentives affect yields will provide insights into the effectiveness of such programs in attracting liquidity and enhancing protocol performance. By integrating detailed data from incentive_analysis.xlsx and traderjoe_base_metrics.csv, we examine how incentive allocations, fee structures, and liquidity provider participation influence liquidity provision, trading volume, fees, and yields. The analysis incorporates statistical insights and trends within the dataset, covering rewards allocation, fee structures, liquidity provider participation, and average USD values across various token pairs. The aim is to offer deep insights into the effectiveness of incentive programs in enhancing protocol performance and user engagement within the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem.
References
. T. D. Gauthier. (2001, Dec.). “Detecting Trends Using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient,” ScienceDirect. [Online]. pp. 1. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1527592201900618. [Accessed: Sept. 1, 2024].
. Fidelity Digital Assets. (2024, Apr.). “Exploring Institutional Interest in Blockchain Applications and Digital Asset Uses.” Fidelity Digital Assets. [Online]. pp. 8. Available: https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/sites/g/files/djuvja3256/files/acquiadam/1075436.1.0%20Fidelity%20Digital%20Assets_Institutional%20Investor%20Study%20Whitepaper_fnl.pdf [Accessed: Sept. 2, 2024].
. D. Miori, M. Cucuringu. (2024, Jan). “Clustering Uniswap v3 traders from their activity on multiple liquidity pools, via novel graph embeddings.” Digital Finance. [Online]. Vol. 6, pp. 115. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42521-024-00105-4 [Accessed: Sept. 6, 2024].
. A. Kalacheva, P. Kuznetsov, I. Vodolazov, and Y. Yanovich. (2024, Oct.). “Detecting Rug Pulls in Decentralized Exchanges: The Rise of Meme Coins.” SSRN. [Online]. pp. 3. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4981529 [Accessed: Dec. 6, 2024].
. L. Heimbach, Y. Wang and R. Wattenhofer. (2021, May.). “Behavior of Liquidity Providers in Decentralized Exchanges.” arXiv. [Online]. pp. 12. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.13822 [Accessed: Sept. 20, 2024].
. A. Brini and J. Lenz. (2024, Apr.). “A Comparison of Cryptocurrency Volatility-benchmarking New and Mature Asset Classes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04962, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.04962. [Accessed: Sept. 29, 2024].
. H. Park. (2021, Apr.). “Influence of Risk Appetite on Investment Decisions: A Malliavin Calculus Approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00911, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.00911. [Accessed: Oct. 2, 2024].
. A. Lehar, C. Parlour, and M. Zoican. (2024, May). “Fragmentation and optimal liquidity supply on decentralized exchanges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13772, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.13772. [Accessed: Oct. 9, 2024].
. J. R. Jensen, V. V. Wachter , and O. Ross. (2021, Mar.). “An Introduction to Decentralized Finance (DeFi),” Computer Science and Information Technologies Quarterly, vol. 26, pp. 4, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://journals.rtu.lv/index.php/CSIMQ/article/viewFile/csimq.2021-26.03/2570. [Accessed: Oct. 11, 2024].
. J. Hasbrouck, T. J. Rivera, and F. Saleh. (2022, Aug.). “The Need for Fees at a DEX: How Increases in Fees Can Increase DEX Trading Volume,” The American Finance Association Journal of Finance. [Online]. Available: https://afajof.org/management/viewp.php?n=43204. [Accessed: Oct. 20, 2024].
. C. Liu and M. A. Sustik. (2021, Jun.). “Elasticity Based Demand Forecasting and Price Optimization for Online Retail,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08274, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.08274. [Accessed: Oct. 21, 2024].
. A. A. Aigner and G. Dhaliwal. (2021, Jun.). “Uniswap: Impermanent Loss and Risk Profile of a Liquidity Provider,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.14404, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.14404. [Accessed: Oct. 22, 2024].
. “LFJ Dex API (1.0.0).” Internet: https://lfj.dev/ [Accessed: May. 15, 2024].
. “LFJ Documentation.” Internet: https://docs.lfj.gg/ [Accessed: April. 26, 2024].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit papers with this journal agree to the following terms.
