  Automated market making (AMM) protocols such as Uniswap have recently emerged
as an alternative to the most common market structure for electronic trading,
the limit order book. Relative to limit order books, AMMs are both more
computationally efficient and do not require the participation of active market
making intermediaries. As such, AMMs have emerged as the dominant market
mechanism for trust-less decentralized exchanges (DEXs). We develop a model the
underlying economics of AMMs from the perspective of their passive liquidity
providers (LPs). Our central contribution is a "Black-Scholes formula for
AMMs". Like the Black-Scholes formula, we consider the return to LPs once
market risk has been hedged. We identify the main adverse selection cost
incurred by LPs, which we call "loss-versus-rebalancing" (LVR, pronounced
"lever"). LVR captures costs incurred by AMM LPs due to stale prices that are
picked off by better informed arbitrageurs. In a continuous time Black-Scholes
setting, we are able to derive closed-form expressions for this adverse
selection cost, for all automated market makers, including constant function
market makers and those featuring concentrated liquidity (e.g., Uniswap v3).
Qualitatively, we highlight the main forces that drive AMM LP returns,
including asset characteristics (volatility) and AMM characteristics
(curvature/marginal liquidity). Quantitatively, we illustrate how our model's
expressions for LP returns match actual LP returns for the Uniswap v2 WETH-USDC
trading pair. Our model provides tradable insight into both the ex ante and ex
post assessment of AMM LP investment decisions. LVR can also inform the design
of the next generation of DEX market mechanisms -- in fact, in the short time
since our work has been released, "LVR mitigation" has already emerged as the
dominant challenge among practitioners in the AMM protocol designer community.
