Introducing the Blockworks MCPLearn more

Get a demoExplore data

Swimming in red: Fluid’s ETH-USDC pool springs a leak

Risks in concentrated liquidity design to be addressed, along with LP compensation

article-image

Donihendraa/Shutterstock and Adobe modified by Blockworks

share

This is a segment from the 0xResearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.


Fluid’s flagship ETH-USDC pool has recorded more than $8.5 million in cumulative losses since launch, according to a Dune dashboard by Paradigm researcher Dan Robinson. The issue: a rebalancing mechanism that not only underperformed during volatility, but appears to be systematically unprofitable, even outside of rebalance windows.

The pool, launched in December 2024, was designed to auto-rebalance liquidity once ETH’s price moved beyond ±10%. That design worked well during periods of modest volatility, but as ETH dropped from around $3,800 to $1,560 and then rebounded to $2,400, rebalancing dragged down liquidity provider (LP) capital. CEX-DEX arbitrage opportunities swamped any trading fee income LPs received.

The markout data paints a grim picture. As the chart shows, LP PnL has been consistently negative, not just during rebalances. This contradicts the assumption that fee income from the concentrated liquidity AMM model would offset rebalancing-related losses. Instead, it appears the entire design structure allowed MEV-extractive trades to bleed LP value, even under normal conditions.

Since the May 11 governance post detailing the problem, Fluid co-founder Samyak Jain has been playing defense.

As Sorella Labs CEO, who goes by @0xvanbeethoven, noted, LPs lost millions in rebalancing-driven losses — effectively subsidizing arbitrage with no meaningful upside.

Critics argue the problem isn’t simply rebalance frequency, but the fact that arbitrageurs are able to consistently extract value, while LPs are structurally disadvantaged. 

Fluid’s team has responded to the criticism, drawing parallels to the early days of Uniswap v3. Referencing a similar debate around using markouts as a proxy for LP returns, they point to prior commentary from Uniswap researchers, such as Xin Wan, who argued that short-interval markouts can be misleading and don’t fully account for fee accrual or LP lifecycle behavior.

The planned Fluid v2 upgrade — targeted for June or July — will introduce dynamic fees, permissionless pools, and custom LP ranges. It may also work out the LP issues in other ways.

“There are multiple things that can be added including adding them via hooks on v2,” chief operating officer DMH told Blockworks. “I actually like [the] Angstrom solution but have to study it more,” he added.

As proposed interim relief, the Fluid team suggests distributing 500,000 FLUID tokens (0.5% of supply) over a year to affected ETH-USDC LPs, plus $400,000/month in rewards until DEX v2 launches.

Rather than widening the rebalance band to reduce loss frequency, Fluid also proposes narrowing the range from ±10% to ±7.5%, increasing fee accrual per unit of liquidity, although that would also increase rebalancing events and potential losses.

This short-term fix has raised eyebrows. “If your pool is losing money on average, increasing concentration will increase both losses and variance,” wrote Dan Robinson. “So concentrating liquidity more would be a double whammy.”

Even if DEX v2 gives LPs more control, it assumes users will be able to model volatility risk and pick defensible ranges, a challenge even protocol governance struggled to get right in v1.

It’s to Fluid’s credit that the team has acknowledged the issue publicly, citing their own $1 million LP position as evidence of skin in the game. They also emphasize that correlated pairs (like cbBTC–WBTC) have performed well, and so the ETH-USDC pool’s struggles are not representative of the broader DEX performance.

Still, the damage to LP trust is real. Whether DEX v2 can reverse that dynamic will be the true test of Fluid’s unified architecture.

For now, the ETH-USDC pool stands as a cautionary tale: capital efficiency can cut both ways, especially when market volatility meets rigid strategy design.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Tags

Decoding crypto and the markets. Daily, with Byron Gilliam.

Upcoming Events

Marina Bay Sands Singapore

October 7, 2026

DAS Asia is a a single-day summit at Marina Bay Sands Singapore featuring conversations between the builders, investors, and global leaders are shaping the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in Asia & North America.

Hilton Park Lane, London

November 10-11, 2026

DAS London is a two-day summit at the Hilton Park Lane in London featuring conversations between the builders, allocators, and policy makers who are shaping the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in the UK, Europe, and North America.

Javits North

March 30-April 1, 2027

DAS NYC is a three-day summit at Javits North bringing together the builders, allocators, and policymakers shaping the future of digital assets across institutional finance and global markets.

recent research

Sponsored Article Template - DoubleZero White.png

Research

Every distributed system inherits the physical limitations, or advantages, of the network it runs on. Physics-bound systems can optimize their execution layers, compress their state, and parallelize their runtime, and still lose time they cannot recover to the speed of light through fiber and the routing decisions of carriers that are not optimized for consensus. The public internet routes traffic by least cost, not best performance. For a system where the order and timing of messages determine who earns and who loses, that is a structural tax and a measurable networking design flaw for traders.

The daily brief, in your inbox

Markets, protocols, and policy, read by 200K+ professionals.

Blockworks Inc.133 W 19th St., New York, NY 10011

Solutions

InvestorsExchangesEnterprisesOnchain Businesses

© 2026 Blockworks Inc.

TermsPrivacy PolicyPrivacy CenterNews Archive