Risk management for LPs: What every liquidity provider should know

Liquidity providers earn fees by taking on risk - but not every risk is worth taking. Here's how to evaluate the real economics of liquidity provision and why 1inch Aqua changes an important part of the risk equation.

Every LP’s position is a trade-off. By providing liquidity, you're effectively selling volatility in exchange for fees. The key question is always the same: Do the fees compensate you for the risks you're taking?

Sometimes they do. Often they don't. The problem is that many LPs never measure it. Understanding where fees come from - and how 1inch Aqua’s design helps avoids the risk of depositing and locking assets in an external contract - is essential before committing capital.

Impermanent loss is not a bug

The biggest risk for most LPs is impermanent loss. In a traditional AMM, the pool constantly rebalances your position. It automatically sells assets that are rising in price and buys assets that are falling. As a result, your portfolio gradually drifts away from what you would have earned by simply holding the same assets.

For example, in a 50:50 liquidity pool:

• if one asset doubles in price, your position underperforms simple holding by about 5.7%;
• if it increases fivefold, the gap grows to roughly 25%.

This isn't a flaw in the protocol. It's how AMMs work.

A more accurate way to think about this today is through loss-versus-rebalancing (LVR). Every time the market moves, arbitrageurs trade against the pool until its prices catch up with the broader market. In other words, LPs continuously quote prices that are slightly behind the market, while arbitrageurs capture the difference. Trading fees are meant to compensate LPs for this loss - but whether they actually do depends on market conditions.

More volume doesn't always mean better results

Many LPs assume higher trading volume automatically leads to better results for LPs. Not necessarily.

Retail order flow is generally beneficial because it generates fees without consistently exploiting stale prices. Arbitrage flow is different. While it also generates fees, it primarily exists to extract pricing inefficiencies from the pool.

As a result, a pool can process billions in trading volume while still delivering disappointing results to LPs.

Looking at APY or volume alone rarely tells the whole story.

Stable pairs aren't always stable

Pairs that appear low-risk can hide significant tail risk.

Stablecoin pools or liquid staking token pairs may generate modest, consistent fees for months. Then a depeg occurs.

When that happens, the pool naturally shifts your position toward the weaker asset. By the time prices stabilize, you may end up holding mostly the token that the market no longer wants.

Small, steady fees often come with rare but potentially severe downside.

Protocol risk still matters

Even well-designed protocols introduce risks beyond market movements.

Smart contract audits significantly improve security but cannot guarantee the absence of vulnerabilities. Oracle mechanisms can be manipulated under certain conditions. Governance also deserves attention: a protocol secured by a multisig with a timelock presents a different risk profile than one controlled by a single externally owned account.

It's also important to understand where yield comes from.

If most of an attractive APY is funded by token emissions rather than actual trading activity, you're effectively being compensated with dilution. Sustainable yield should have a clear economic source.

A useful rule: if it's unclear where the yield comes from, the yield may be coming from you. For a structured overview of how 1inch approaches protocol security, audits and operational risk controls, see the 1inch risk management whitepaper.

Don't overlook approvals

One of the most common - and most overlooked - risks has little to do with liquidity provision itself.

Unlimited token approvals can expose your wallet long after you've stopped using a protocol. If a contract is compromised, an unlimited allowance may allow an attacker to transfer approved tokens without requiring another transaction from you.

Old approvals are often forgotten, making them one of the most frequent operational security issues in DeFi.

Regularly reviewing and revoking unnecessary approvals is a simple habit that can significantly reduce risk.

Managing LP risk

No strategy eliminates risk, but disciplined risk management can improve long-term outcomes.

These are some factors LPs may consider when assessing a position:

• Position size can be viewed in relation to downside scenarios, rather than expected APY alone.
• Different pools carry different dominant risks. Volatile pairs are more exposed to price movements, while correlated assets may carry tail risks such as depegs.
• Performance can also be compared with simply holding the same assets, which may provide a more informative reference point than the APY shown in an interface.
• Token approvals are another area worth reviewing periodically, with permissions that are no longer needed potentially revoked.

Risk management starts with understanding what you're actually being paid for.

How Aqua changes the custody model

Most of the risks discussed above apply to liquidity provision regardless of the protocol.

However, one important aspect depends entirely on protocol design: what happens to your assets while they provide liquidity.

In traditional AMMs, tokens are deposited into liquidity pools and remain locked until withdrawn.

1inch Aqua takes a different approach. Instead of depositing assets into a pool, liquidity positions are quoted directly against the balances in your wallet. If a swap matches your position, the LP receives the trader's input tokens directly into their wallet, while the trader receives the LP's output tokens directly from that wallet. If no swap occurs, the assets never leave your wallet. 

This design changes several aspects of operational risk.

Since assets remain in your wallet, there's nothing to withdraw, exposure is limited to the assets actually held there, and token approvals can be revoked at any time on a per-token, per-network basis. Market and protocol risk stay the same no matter what custody model is used. What's different here is narrower: this design avoids the specific risk of depositing and locking assets in an external contract.

That doesn't mean market risk disappears.

LPs are still exposed to price movements, fees are never guaranteed, and Aqua, while audited, is still a relatively new protocol. Its audit history and the broader security posture are described in the 1inch risk management whitepaper. By keeping assets in users' wallets until execution, Aqua narrows custody-related risk specifically, without changing the market and protocol risks described above.

Know what risk you’re accepting

Liquidity provision isn't passive income. It's an active market position.

Every LP earns fees by taking on risk. The objective isn't to avoid risk entirely - it's to understand which risks you're accepting, how you're being compensated, and whether the trade-off makes sense.

The better you understand those trade-offs, the better equipped you'll be to build a sustainable liquidity strategy.

For 1inch news and updates subscribe to our newsletter

Disclaimer: This article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice, nor a recommendation or solicitation to engage in any transaction. Providing liquidity involves significant risk, including the potential loss of some or all of the assets deposited or held. Past performance and historical examples referenced here are not indicative of future results. 1inch Aqua is a relatively new protocol; smart contract audits reduce but do not eliminate the risk of vulnerabilities, and no statement in this article should be read as a guarantee of asset safety or return. Availability of 1inch products may be restricted in certain jurisdictions; it is your responsibility to confirm that your use complies with the laws applicable to you. Please conduct your own research and consult an independent professional advisor before making any decisions involving digital assets.