Slippage During the UST Depeg

In the aftermath of the UST depeg and collapse of Luna, a lot of ink has been spilled analyzing events and chain data to understand why the depeg happened. For a good analysis of this topic, we recommend Nansen’s excellent article and Jump Crypto’s retrospective.

At Integral, we are most interested in the experience of large traders on chain. So outside of causes for the depeg, we were curious to understand how traders fared in the days leading up to and after the peg broke.

To do this we looked at large transactions of buying/selling UST to 3crv pool from May 1 – 14, 2022. For each trade, we look at the input USD amount and the output USD amount to approximate slippage and found some interesting results. We’ve included some of our findings and data visualizations in the post below.

From May 11, 2022 through May 13, 2022 we found 21,214 trades in total in the UST/3crv pool. We filtered out these to only include trades that involves UST. These could be buying or selling UST to another stablecoin in the wormholev2_3crv pool. The pool had massive volumes, peaking at almost $1.2b on the 10th of May.

Source: curvefi.wormhole_v2_evt_TokenExchangeUnderlying table on Dune Analytics

The First Domino

As noted by many chain sleuths, wallet 0x8d was created solely to receive money from the Terra bridge and sell into the Curve pool. To add to the drama, the transaction was done using a Flashbots private transaction only 10 minutes after the Luna Foundation Guard removed significant liquidity from the Curve pool.

Despite the large scale of the sale, the price paid wasn’t egregious. There was only .6% slippage, incredible given the large transaction amount. Despite the imminent collapse, the first large trade of the story went through at a price 1 UST = 0.9942 USDC.

Later, traders did not fare so well. We singled out additional large volume trades to analyze.

Among 21,214 transactions related to UST:

  • There were 37 trades with more than 10mm volume (as computed by the input token price and amount).
  • 853 trades with more than 1mm volume.
  • 2,031 trades are higher than 500K volume.
  • 8,352 trades with more than 100K volume.

We then looked at the ratio between the input amount (in USD) and the output amount based on the data set.

We first noticed that there are several trades whose output amounts (in USD) are more than 10% different from the input amount (in USD). After further examining the data, these trades are likely done by MEV bots and arbitrageurs to profit from the price dislocation of various on-chain venues.

Therefore, we filter out trades with more output amount than the input amount and output amounts less than 90% of the input amounts. This left 4,750 trades among the trades greater than $100k volume.

Here is a histogram of the slippage among all these remaining trades.

The total volume (in USD) of all the remaining trades is $2.94bn. The total slippage cost (in USD) of all these trades is $53.6 mil. That makes total slippage for all trades a staggering 1.82%!

We also ran the rank correlation between slippage and trade size among these trades, the rank correlation is a surprising -21.7%. Typically, one would expect that slippage is higher among larger trades. In this unusual period, it was not the case. Here, we show the scatter plot between slippage and trade size.

There are a few interesting observations:

  • There is no clear relation between larger trades and higher slippage.
  • Many trades were round numbers in the multiples of $100K.
  • There are quite a few trades with 2% slippage. This seems to be a common setting that traders or aggregators have to guard against large slippage.
  • Some of the largest trades have the lowest slippage.

One way to see the magnitude of slippage before and after the depeg is to look at the same plot above but for the before and after periods.

The following chart shows the slippage of large trades mentioned above between May 1 and May 7. Most trades have very little slippage. The largest slippage is about 3.5% with some trades’ slippage at 2%.

It’s a different world when looking at large trades between May 8 and 13. Certainly, there were a lot more large trades. But the trade slippage values are much larger, with the largest slippage observed being around 10%.

Last but not least, we look at the mean slippage for these trades and the UST prices (in USD) daily during the period. The UST prices are the average of the daily high and low prices from CoinMarketCap. Unsurprisingly, the further away the UST price is from the peg, the higher the average slippage among the trades are.

We hope you enjoy this blog post. If you would like to reach out to us to discuss it more deeply, or want to suggest a topic for us, feel free to email us info@integral.link.

Tags

Integral Insights

Updates

June 13th, 2024

Integral Insights May ‘24

Business

June 6th, 2024

How to Participate in the Arbitrum Rewards Campaign

125,000 $ARB will be dedicated to a 3-month liquidity mining program focusing on store-of-value (SoV) token pairs such as WETH-USDC, WETH-USDT, WETH-wstETH, and WETH-ARB.

Updates

June 6th, 2024

Unlock High Yields with Integral's $225K ARB Grant from Arbitrum Foundation – Join Our Liquidity Mining Program Today

Integral has been awarded a significant grant of 225,000 $ARB from the Arbitrum Foundation under the Long-Term Incentive Pilot Program (LTIPP). This funding will drive the growth and adoption of Integral on Arbitrum, benefiting the entire ecosystem. With 125,000 $ARB dedicated to a 3-month liquidity mining program focused on key token pairs like WETH-USDC and WETH-ARB, liquidity providers can enjoy high yields and reduced trading costs. Additionally, 100,000 $ARB will be allocated to incentivize integrations with aggregators, solvers, and vaults, fostering a more interconnected DeFi environment. Join us and be part of this exciting journey to enhance liquidity and trading on Arbitrum!

Updates

May 9th, 2024

Integral Insights April ‘24

The combined average daily volume across Ethereum and Arbitrum is now at 8.8 million USD, a remarkable 22% increase compared to last month.

Product

April 25th, 2024

Introducing New Pool Analytics: Elevate Your Liquidity Provision Experience

A standout feature in our latest update is the "LP vs Hold" tab, which provides a comparative analysis of various holding strategies against Integral's LP positions.

Business

April 1st, 2024

Integral Insights March ‘24

We achieved several important milestones, including a new all-time-high daily volume for Arbitrum and the addition of four new pools on the Ethereum mainnet.

Updates

March 4th, 2024

Integral Insights February ‘24

Another milestone was reached on February 21st when Integral processed over $2 billion in cumulative volume.

Updates

February 1st, 2024

Integral Insights: January ‘24

Our initial launch with the ETH-RPL pool was a success, quickly elevating us to the second most utilized liquidity pool for this pair’s trading.

Research

January 17th, 2024

Is Liquidity Fragmentation Really That Bad?

When the token evolves into a store of value, it attracts outside traders, focusing on trading costs and slippage. This is when concentrated liquidity truly shines.

Updates

January 2nd, 2024

2023 Review

At Integral, our focus remains on developing a sustainable product for on-chain trading, serving both traders and liquidity providers.

Updates

December 12th, 2023

Integral Now Rewards Liquidity Providers with Trading Fees on Ethereum Mainnet

This enhancement enables liquidity providers (LPs) to directly receive a portion or all trading fees from Integral pools.

Updates

December 6th, 2023

Integral Insights: November ‘23

During November, Integral processed an average of approximately 6 million in volume with around 1.5 million in TVL. The system’s overall capital utilization sits at around 350%. It is the 10th most used DEX on Ethereum.

Updates

November 28th, 2023

Integral Now Rewards Liquidity Providers with Trading Fees

This enhancement enables liquidity providers (LPs) to directly receive a portion or all trading fees from Integral pools.

Research

November 15th, 2023

How Do University Blockchain Societies Gain So Many Votes?

Explore how university blockchain societies like FranklinDAO and Michigan Blockchain have grown into influential players in DAO governance, utilizing delegated votes and strategic partnerships to shape the future of DeFi protocols like Uniswap, Compound, and Aave.

Updates

November 6th, 2023

Integral Insight: October ‘23

We give an update for our work in October and highlight a profitable LP position from a long-term user.

Research

October 26th, 2023

Understanding the Stakes in Lido’s Growing Share of Staked ETH

The community is arguing whether a protocol may have too much control over the Ethereum network. Lido controls a large percentage of staked ETH, which could have consequences for the network’s future security and neutrality.

News

October 14th, 2023

Changes to Staking and Farming

Looking back at our progress so far and to the future with new updates to staking and farming.

Updates

October 11th, 2023

Integral Insight: September ‘23

We give an update for our work in September with utilization going up on higher volume for our new pools.

Research

October 11th, 2023

The Hottest Narratives of the Summer

What were the hottest narratives of the summer? Our DeFi research team delves into the growth of trading bots, RFV traders and more in this overview.

Research

October 2nd, 2023

Uniswap Governance: A Deep Dive

Governance is considered a critical component for the decentralization and community-driven development of DeFi protocols. We take a look at one of the largest goverance ecostystems in DeFi, Uniswap. In this blog post, we'll discuss the landscape of Uniswap's governance, pulling data from empirical research to dissect the system's delegates and proposals, revealing some interesting findings.