How Liquidity Pools Work – A Complete Review

In 2025, liquidity pools sit at the heart of DeFi. Every time you swap tokens on a decentralized exchange, earn yield by depositing into an automated market maker (AMM), or provide liquidity on a cross-chain DEX, you’re interacting with liquidity pools.

They’ve grown from an experimental concept in early DeFi into a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure layer. This review breaks down exactly how liquidity pools work, how they price assets, where returns come from, what the latest data shows about their size and usage, and what risks you take when you use them.

1. What is a liquidity pool?

A liquidity pool is a smart contract that holds tokens supplied by users (liquidity providers, or LPs) and uses a programmed formula to enable trading between those tokens without a traditional order book.

Instead of:

• A buyer posting a bid

• A seller posting an ask

• An exchange matching orders

…you have one pool that always quotes a price based on its internal balances. Anyone can trade against the pool or add/remove liquidity from it.

Key roles:

• Liquidity providers (LPs) deposit tokens into the pool.

• Traders swap one token for another using the pool.

• The smart contract enforces the pricing formula, fees and accounting.

In return for providing liquidity, LPs typically earn:

• A share of trading fees paid by traders.

• Sometimes incentive rewards in the form of governance tokens or other emissions.

2. Constant-product AMMs: the classic “x·y = k” model

The most famous liquidity pool model is the constant-product automated market maker (AMM), often summarized by the formula:

x · y = k

Where:

• x = quantity of token A in the pool

• y = quantity of token B in the pool

• k = a constant product

The pool adjusts prices automatically so that after each trade, the product of the two reserves (x and y) remains constant (ignoring fees for simplicity).

2.1 How pricing works

Suppose a pool holds:

• 10 ETH

• 20,000 USDC

Then:

• x = 10 (ETH)

• y = 20,000 (USDC)

• k = 10 × 20,000 = 200,000

The implied price of ETH in this pool is:

• Price of ETH in USDC = y / x = 20,000 / 10 = 2,000 USDC per ETH

Now a trader wants to buy 1 ETH with USDC.

To maintain x·y = k, the pool must end at:

• New x′ = 10 − 1 = 9 ETH

• k must still equal 200,000 (ignoring fees)

So:

• x′ · y′ = k → 9 · y′ = 200,000 → y′ = 22,222.22 USDC

The trader must add enough USDC to increase the USDC reserve from 20,000 to 22,222.22:

• USDC in = 22,222.22 − 20,000 ≈ 2,222.22

So to buy 1 ETH, the trader effectively pays ~2,222.22 USDC. That’s higher than the starting price of 2,000 USDC — this difference is slippage caused by the trade itself moving the price.

Price after the trade is:

• New price = y′ / x′ ≈ 22,222.22 / 9 ≈ 2,469.14 USDC per ETH

The more you trade relative to the pool size, the more you move the price.

2.2 Slippage and depth

This example shows:

• Large trades vs small pools cause big price moves and high slippage.

• Deep pools (with large reserves) can handle big trades with smaller price impact.

This is why TVL and “pool depth” matter: deeper liquidity means better execution for traders and more stable LP returns.

3. Where fees and yields come from

Most AMM pools charge a fixed fee on every trade. A common range is:

• 0.01% to 0.3% for “standard” pairs

• Higher for volatile or exotic pairs

These fees are usually split:

• 100% (or close) to LPs, proportional to their share of the pool.

• Sometimes a small share to protocol treasuries or buyback mechanisms.

3.1 Example: fee income for LPs

Imagine:

• A pool trades 10 million USD of volume in a day.

• Swap fee = 0.3%.

Total fees generated:

• 10,000,000 × 0.003 = 30,000 USD per day

If you own 1% of the pool, your share of daily fees is:

• 1% of 30,000 = 300 USD per day

Annualized (assuming similar volume):

• 300 × 365 ≈ 109,500 USD per year on your share of the pool.

Of course, real volumes fluctuate, prices move, and impermanent loss changes your position value. But this simplified example shows how trading fees can generate yield.

3.2 Incentive rewards

In addition to fees, many protocols distribute:

• Governance tokens

• Reward tokens

• Boosted yields

to liquidity providers. These incentives are a key driver of TVL, especially for newer protocols or chains trying to bootstrap liquidity.

As of late 2025, incentive farming has become more targeted and “time-boxed” than in the early DeFi boom. Instead of indefinite high emissions, many protocols now:

• Use shorter incentive programs

• Target specific pools (e.g., stable pairs, core assets)

• Gradually reduce rewards to stabilize token supply

This reflects lessons learned from earlier unsustainable “yield farm” cycles.

4. DeFi liquidity in 2025: TVL, chains and concentration

By late 2025, DeFi total value locked (TVL) has rebounded strongly from previous bear-market lows. Across major chains, aggregate TVL is in the tens of billions of dollars (and at times, above 100 billion), with significant concentration in a handful of ecosystems such as:

• Ethereum mainnet

• Major Ethereum Layer-2 networks

• High-throughput chains like Solana

• Other EVM-compatible chains with established DeFi ecosystems

Automated market maker DEXes and their associated liquidity pools account for a large share of this TVL, alongside lending markets and liquid staking protocols.

Trends visible in 2025 include:

• Growing share of volume on Layer-2s: Congestion and gas costs on mainnet have pushed more trading and liquidity into rollups and side-chains, where transaction costs are lower and users can interact more frequently.

• Consolidation into blue-chip pools: Liquidity is increasingly concentrated in pools involving major assets (ETH, BTC-pegged tokens, leading stablecoins, LSTs, and blue-chip DeFi tokens) rather than long-tail meme and microcap tokens.

• Rise of concentrated and hybrid AMMs: Next-generation AMMs now combine constant-product, stable-swap, and dynamic fee logic to improve capital efficiency and reduce impermanent loss for LPs.

The net effect: liquidity pools today handle larger volumes and more diverse instruments, but the market also recognizes risk better, leading to a “barbell” structure where deep blue-chip pools coexist with many thin, speculative pools.

5. Beyond x·y = k: different types of liquidity pools

Constant-product AMMs are just one flavor. Over time, new designs have emerged to solve specific pain points.

5.1 Stable-swap (curve-style) pools

Stable-swap pools focus on assets that should trade around the same price, such as:

• Stablecoin A vs stablecoin B

• Liquid staking token vs its underlying (e.g., staked ETH vs ETH)

Instead of x·y = k, these pools use a hybrid formula that:

• Behaves more like a constant sum near the 1:1 peg (very low slippage)

• Gradually transitions to constant product behavior as the price diverges

Result:

• Extremely low slippage for trades near the peg

• Ideal for stablecoins, synthetic assets, and LSTs

• Better capital efficiency for LPs in these specific markets

Stable-swap pools are now a core part of DeFi’s plumbing, especially for stablecoin routing and yield strategies.

5.2 Concentrated liquidity pools

Concentrated liquidity lets LPs specify a price range within which their capital is active, instead of spreading it uniformly from zero to infinity.

For example:

• You provide liquidity to an ETH/USDC pool only between 1,800 and 2,500 USDC per ETH.

• Within that range, your capital acts like a large share of the total pool, earning more fees.

• Outside that range, your liquidity becomes inactive (and you effectively hold just one of the assets, depending on where price moved).

Benefits:

• Much higher capital efficiency: more fees per dollar of liquidity.

• Tighter spreads for traders since liquidity is concentrated where trading actually happens.

Drawbacks:

• More active management: if price moves outside your range, you need to rebalance or widen your range.

• Potential for greater impermanent loss when price escapes the chosen band.

By 2025, concentrated liquidity has become standard on many major DEXes and is the dominant model for high-volume pairs.

5.3 Single-sided and multi-asset pools

Some protocols let you:

• Provide liquidity with a single asset (the protocol pairs it internally), or

• Join multi-asset pools with 3+ tokens (e.g., baskets of stablecoins or index-like pools).

These designs aim to:

• Simplify user experience (no need to manage token ratios).

• Diversify risk across more than two assets.

• Support complex routing and index-like products.

However, under the hood, these pools still follow a pricing formula and carry similar risks (pricing divergence, impermanent loss, smart-contract risk).

6. Impermanent loss: the hidden cost of LPing

One of the most misunderstood aspects of liquidity pools is impermanent loss (IL).

Impermanent loss is the difference between:

• The value of your LP position if you withdraw from the pool now
  vs

• The value you would have had if you simply held the underlying tokens outside the pool.

It arises because when prices move, the AMM rebalances your holdings automatically: if one token goes up relative to the other, you end up holding more of the underperforming token and less of the outperforming one.

6.1 Simple impermanent loss example

You deposit:

• 1 ETH (worth 2,000 USD)

• 2,000 USDC

Total value: 4,000 USD.

You own 1% of an ETH/USDC constant-product pool at that moment.

Later, the external price of ETH doubles to 4,000 USD, and arbitrageurs trade against the pool until its internal price matches the market.

If you had just held your tokens:

• 1 ETH → 4,000 USD

• 2,000 USDC → 2,000 USD

• Total = 6,000 USD

Inside the pool, your share will adjust so you hold less ETH and more USDC. In a standard constant-product scenario, your LP position value might end up around 5,657 USD instead of 6,000 USD. The difference (~343 USD) is impermanent loss.

The loss is called “impermanent” because if prices return to the original ratio, the loss disappears. But in many real market moves, the price does not revert; in practice, impermanent loss often becomes effectively permanent.

6.2 When fees can offset IL

In popular pools with high volume, fee income can offset or exceed impermanent loss over time. As an LP, you hope that:

• Trading fees earned > Impermanent loss taken

This depends heavily on:

• Volatility of the pair

• Fee tier

• Volume relative to pool size

• How long you stay in the pool

Stable-swap pools and closely correlated assets typically experience much lower IL, making them attractive for more conservative LPs.

7. Key risks of liquidity pools

Liquidity pools unlock new opportunities but also introduce risk vectors every LP and trader should understand.

7.1 Smart-contract and protocol risk

Liquidity pools are code. If there’s a bug or logic error, attackers can:

• Drain the pool

• Manipulate prices

• Exploit oracle weaknesses

Cross-protocol composability (e.g., using LP tokens as collateral elsewhere) amplifies this risk, because a single bug can cascade through many systems.

Mitigations:

• Prefer audited, battle-tested protocols.

• Avoid depositing large amounts into new or unaudited pools.

• Be cautious with complex strategies that stack many contracts.

7.2 Impermanent loss and volatility

For volatile pairs, impermanent loss can be severe. If one token moons while the other stagnates, LPs may underperform simple holding significantly.

Mitigations:

• Use stable or correlated pairs (e.g., stablecoins, LSTs vs ETH).

• Choose stable-swap or concentrated-liquidity designs tailored to your risk tolerance.

• Monitor positions instead of “set and forget” in volatile markets.

7.3 Oracle manipulation and price shocks

Even AMMs that do not rely on external oracles can indirectly suffer from manipulations when:

• Thin pools are pushed to extreme prices via a flash loan or large trades.

• Those distorted prices are then used by other protocols that treat the AMM price as an oracle.

Mitigations:

• Trade and LP in pools with deep liquidity.

• Protocol designers should use robust oracles that aggregate across multiple sources and time windows.

7.4 Liquidity fragmentation

As DeFi expands across multiple chains and Layer-2s, liquidity becomes fragmented:

• Same token has different pools on different networks.

• Depth is split, which can worsen execution and increase IL risk.

Aggregators and cross-chain DEXes try to route around fragmentation, but it remains a structural challenge.

8. The evolving role of liquidity pools in 2025

By late 2025, liquidity pools are not just for token swaps. They underpin a whole stack of DeFi primitives:

• DEXes: Swap tokens, route trades across multiple pools and chains.

• Lending markets: Use LP tokens as collateral or provide pool-based borrowing and lending.

• Yield strategies: Vaults, structured products, and automated strategies rebalance between pools.

• Derivatives and perps: AMM-like designs for perpetual futures and options markets.

• Cross-chain routing: Liquidity pools on both sides of a bridge support wrapped assets and synthetic flows.

Trends shaping liquidity pools now include:

• Capital efficiency focus: Concentrated liquidity and hybrid formulas aim to do more with less capital.

• Protocol-owned liquidity: Instead of renting liquidity from mercenary yield farmers, many projects now own their own LP positions to stabilize markets and reduce reliance on external incentives.

• Layer-2 dominance for retail: Retail swaps, small-size trades, and active LP management increasingly happen on L2s where gas costs are low, while mainnets act as settlement and high-value hubs.

• Regulatory awareness: Some jurisdictions have begun examining whether LPs or protocol teams carry specific obligations; this may influence pool design and operations over time.

9. How to evaluate a liquidity pool before you jump in

If you’re considering providing liquidity or trading heavily through a pool, here’s a practical framework.

9.1 For liquidity providers

Check:

1. Pool size and depth

   • Deeper pools tend to have more consistent volume and less extreme IL relative to fees.

2. Fee tier and volume

   • High volume × reasonable fee = potential for strong fee APR.

3. Asset pair characteristics

   • Stable vs volatile; blue-chip vs long-tail; correlation and historical volatility.

4. Protocol maturity and audits

   • Security track record, audits, bug bounties, incident history.

5. Incentives vs sustainability

   • Are yields strongly reliant on temporary rewards, or mostly fee-driven?

6. Your time horizon and management style

   • Will you actively manage ranges (for concentrated pools), or do you need a more passive pool?

9.2 For traders

Check:

1. Slippage and price impact

   • How far will the price move for your trade size?

2. Fees across routes

   • Sometimes routing through two pools (A → B → C) is cheaper than a direct trade.

3. Liquidity on your swap size

   • Thin pools might show a good price for tiny swaps but become costly at size.

4. Gas costs and chain choice

   • On some chains, network fees dominate; on L2s, they may be negligible.

Using aggregators and smart order routing can help you find the best combination of pools for your trade.

10. Conclusion – Liquidity pools as programmable markets

Liquidity pools changed how markets work in crypto. Instead of matching individual buyers and sellers, DeFi uses programmable liquidity:

• Anyone can become a market maker by depositing into a pool.

• Prices adjust through simple, transparent formulas.

• Fees and yields flow automatically via smart contracts.

In 2025, these pools have grown into a core financial primitive, handling billions in TVL and large daily volumes across many chains. Designs have evolved from simple x·y = k curves to sophisticated concentrated and stable-swap models, tuned for capital efficiency and specific asset types.

Yet, the fundamentals remain:

• LPs earn fees (and sometimes incentives) in exchange for taking on market risk and impermanent loss.

• Traders benefit from always-on liquidity, but pay fees and slippage that depend on pool depth and design.

• Protocol and contract risk is real, so security and conservatism matter — especially when large sums are involved.

ALSO READ: How Bonds Become Vehicles for Money Laundering Now