Indexed metadata

Optimal Block Time for AMM Liquidity Providers under Jump-Diffusion Prices

Nils Bundi

Source record

Source: arXiv

Published: Aug 31, 2026

arXiv: 2608.30321

Open original source ↗

Source abstract

Loss-versus-Rebalancing (LVR) is the dominant adverse-selection cost borne by liquidity providers on automated market makers. Under geometric Brownian motion, arbitrage profit scales with the probability of a profitable block, which vanishes as the block time Δt0Δt \to 0; this is the standing argument for ever-shorter blocks. Modeling the reference price instead as a jump-diffusion, I show that the constant-product LVR rate splits into a diffusion channel carrying the known multiplier F(γ/(σΔt))F(γ/(σ\sqrt{Δt})) and a jump channel λVG(γ;m,δ2)λV \cdot G(γ;m,δ^2) carrying no ΔtΔt, the two interacting only through an explicitly bounded remainder. The block schedule therefore governs only one channel. For symmetric jump laws the jump channel is moreover an exact lower bound, (Δt)λVG>0\ell(Δt) \ge λV G > 0, so the rate does not vanish as Δt0Δt \to 0, and descends slowly, as Δt\sqrt{Δt}. At Ethereum's calibrated 12-second slot the rate is 471 bp/yr against a floor of 125, so only three quarters of LP loss is schedule-addressable. At Solana's 400 ms slot the jump channel already dominates. Netting the rate against per-block consensus cost, the LP-side optimal block time is invariant in pool size and in every jump parameter (λ,m,δ)(λ,m,δ): jumps shift the level of LP loss but not the planner's marginal tradeoff. Volatility, the fee tier, and consensus cost set the optimum, near 8 s. However, LVR is only one input to block-time welfare, so this bounds the LP-side contribution rather than settling the design question.

Evidence graph

No public relationships recorded yet.

Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.