Quickswap V2 liquidity earns swap fees while relative price changes alter token exposure

Reserve ratios and changing token exposure

V2's constant-product reserves connect fee income with changing exposure as traders add one asset to the pool and remove some of the other. Arbitrage trades bring the pool's relative price toward prices elsewhere. To move the pool toward a token's higher relative price, traders remove that token and add its partner. Your LP share follows that mix.

A wallet retaining the starting quantities keeps its original token exposure. The pool adjusts exposure as people trade, giving up some upside during a sustained relative price move. Both assets can rise in a common valuation currency while the LP position still trails holding. Both can also fall. Absolute profit or loss and impermanent loss answer different questions, so a positive balance change doesn't settle whether supplying liquidity improved the outcome.

V2 deposit proportions and ownership parameters

Adding liquidity through the V2 router matches token amounts to an existing pool's reserve ratio in raw token units. Each token's decimals determine the corresponding human-readable quantities. Equal value at the pool price doesn't mean equal token counts. A mismatched direct deposit can donate excess tokens because LP minting follows the smaller proportional contribution. The router reverts a deposit if the reserve-matched amount falls below its minimum or execution occurs after the deadline. Those limits address price movement during entry; they don't restrict how the position's token mix changes afterward.

In the curve formula, x and y are reserve balances and k is their product. The LP share uses the balance and total supply of the same pair contract. Supply includes the locked initial units. New liquidity and protocol fee minting can change your fraction, so an ownership estimate from entry isn't a permanent share. Withdrawals reduce supply as the pool burns redeemed LP units.

Swap fees retained in reserves

The classic V2 swap charge and the provider's share of fee growth are different quantities, so the trading fee alone doesn't establish LP income. The classic V2 pair contract charges 0.30% of the token amount received as swap input. That fee stays within the pool's balances. LP holders participate through their claim on those balances, which also change with trading.

The factory's feeTo setting controls whether protocol fee accounting is active. A nonzero recipient enables it. On liquidity additions or removals, the contract can mint LP tokens to that recipient from reserve-product growth. Income calculations therefore need the deployed factory's current fee configuration.

Protocol fee minting increases total LP supply, reducing existing holders' proportion. It doesn't increase the pair's swap charge.

Swap fee accrual doesn't add more LP tokens to your wallet. Existing units redeem against the pool's evolving balances. An unchanged LP token count can therefore accompany fee earnings. A higher position value alone can't isolate those earnings from asset price effects.

When do V2 fees outweigh impermanent loss?

V2 fees outweigh impermanent loss when the position's accumulated fee benefit exceeds the fee-free shortfall against holding the starting token quantities over the same period. Costs attributable to providing liquidity reduce that advantage. Separately valued farm rewards can add income, but they don't change the underlying rebalancing mechanism.

Let r equal the exit relative price divided by the entry relative price, using the same token as the pricing unit. Ignoring fees, a balanced V2 position's relative return against holding is 2 × sqrt(r) / (1 + r) - 1. The model assumes equal starting values and price alignment through arbitrage. A negative value measures the proportional shortfall against holding, before fees.

A return to the entry price ratio removes that modelled shortfall. It doesn't promise a return to the original cash value.

View full-size image

Pool volume and separate farming rewards

Fee income follows trading volume relative to liquidity, while farm rewards depend on a separate incentive programme available only for eligible positions. More swap volume generates more gross fees at an unchanged fee rate. More competing liquidity divides those fees among more LP units. A pool with substantial deposits can earn less in fees per dollar of liquidity than a smaller pool receiving similar volume. Repeated trading also explains why endpoint prices alone can't predict total fee income.

View full-size image

V2 farms can reward deposited LP tokens for selected pairs. Those rewards supplement the pool position's trading income. Eligibility, allocations and the reward token's value can change independently of pool trading. A combined annualised estimate needs separate fee and incentive components for a meaningful comparison. High incentive income during one period doesn't establish what a later deposit will earn.

Withdrawal values and net proceeds

Liquidity removal converts LP tokens into a proportional share of the pool's balances at execution, so the returned quantities can differ from those originally deposited. The contract burns the redeemed LP units and transfers both underlying assets. Trading fees already sit within those balances. Adding a separate estimate of the same fees to the withdrawal value would count them twice.

Network fees reduce the economic benefit of entry and exit. Their cost depends on the network and the transactions actually required.

A holding benchmark values the original token quantities using the same endpoint prices as the withdrawn assets. This keeps market movement separate from the liquidity strategy. Later deposits and partial withdrawals require corresponding additions or deductions in the holding benchmark. Include farm rewards at their relevant value, then deduct costs attributable to the LP position. If the intended outcome requires swapping withdrawn tokens, include that conversion's fees and price impact too.

V2 liquidity, holding and concentrated ranges

V2 keeps liquidity available across its full price curve, while holding preserves token quantities and concentrated liquidity limits active capital to a selected price range. V2 therefore avoids the need to choose and maintain an active range. Its broader distribution can use capital less efficiently than in-range concentrated liquidity. The V2 loss formula doesn't describe a concentrated position's range-dependent exposure.

View full-size image

Holding the original tokens removes pool rebalancing and pool fee income from the comparison. Supplying V2 liquidity adds market-making exposure in exchange for trading income and incentives where the position qualifies. When the extra earnings don't cover divergence and additional costs, holding has the higher comparable value.