  Geometric Mean Market Makers (G3M) such as Uniswap, Sushiswap or Balancer are
key building blocks of the nascent Decentralised Finance system. We establish
non-arbitrage bounds for the wealth process of such Automated Market Makers in
the presence of transaction fees and highlight the dynamic of their so-called
Impermanent Losses, which are incurred due to negative convexity and
essentially void the benefits of portfolio diversification within G3Ms.
  We then turn to empirical data to establish if transaction fee income has
historically been high enough to offset Impermanent Losses and allow G3M
investments to outperform their continually rebalanced constant-mix portfolio
counterparts. It appears that the median liquidity pool had a net nil ROI when
taking Impermanent Losses into account. The cross-sectional dispersion of ROI
has however been high and the pool net ROI ranking has been significantly
autocorrelated for several weeks. This suggests that G3M pools are not yet
efficiently arbitraged as agents may access ex-ante knowledge of which G3M
pools are likely to be far better investment proposals than others.
  We finally focus on the UniswapV3 protocol, which introduced the notion of
concentrated liquidity ranges and show that such a position can be replicated
by leveraging a classic UniswapV2 pool while simultaneously hedging part of the
underlying token price exposition. As such, the herein described Impermanent
Loss dynamics also apply to UniswapV3 pools.
