As presented in the last Uniswap Community Call, we are sharing below insights on the performance and on what happened post-incentives analysis of Uniswap’s incentive program across Arbitrum, Base, Scroll, and Blast.
Incentivized Pool Performance Analysis
Analyzing incremental TVL per USD spent, we found that pools with low impermanent loss consistently delivered the best ROI during the campaign.
- Stable pairs (e.g., FRAX/USDT) performed well in both TVL and volume growth, placing them at the top of the efficiency chart.
- Pseudo-stable/LST pools (e.g., wstETH/WETH) attracted significant TVL but failed to generate proportionate volume.
- Volatile pairs with less popular tokens (e.g., SYN/WETH, WETH/AXGT) showed the lowest ROI and struggled to maintain liquidity post-incentive.
TVL to Volume Efficiency
Our analysis comparing TVL gains vs. volume gains per USD spent reveals distinct patterns among pool types.
- Stable pairs (e.g., FRAX/USDT) delivered high ROI across both TVL and volume, clustering in the top right of the chart.
- LST/Pseudo-stable pairs (e.g., wstETH/WETH) showed high TVL retention but failed to drive sustained trading activity.
- ETH-stablecoin pairs (e.g., WETH/USDT) proved to be the most volume-efficient, translating TVL into trading activity more effectively.
Post-Incentivization TVL Trends
Adjusting for market conditions, we analyzed how TVL evolved after incentives ended across scoped chains.
- Base performed the best in TVL retention, with gains primarily driven by WETH/USDC.
- Arbitrum’s pools saw a sharp post-campaign drop, particularly in stable and pseudo-stable pairs due to large liquidity removals.
- Blast’s and Scroll’s incentivized pools failed to leave any lasting impact, showing little retention post-incentive.
Arbitrum
Main insights:
- The incentivized Arbitrum as a whole experienced a significantly TVL loss post-campaign, contrasting with total Uniswap and total Camelot TVL.
- There seems to be a recovery lately
If we split the incentivized pools between Stable (e.g. USDC/USDT), Pseudo-stable (e.g. wstETH/ETH) and Volatile (e.g. USDC/WETH), we notice that the only sticky TVL is on volatile pools. The additional TVL gained by incentivizing safer pools is the one with the most short-lived post campaign impact.
Base
Main insights:
- Despite a successful campaign on Base and a decent post-campaign impact, Aerodrome’s TVL significantly outperform the incentivized pools until 150 days after the campaign (~mid Dec’24).
- The Incentivized Uniswap performance is mainly driven by the USDC/WETH and USDC/USDT pools. Liquidity Providers completely abandonned
cbETH/ETH 0.05%in favor ofcbETH/ETH 0.01%andWETH/USDT 0.05%
We notice the same trends than Arbitrum with regards to the post-campaign impacts split by pool type.
Blast and Scroll
Both Scroll and Blast faced challenges in sustaining TVL post-campaign, with declines influenced by broader market dynamics.
Final Takeaways & Next Steps
- High-cap ETH/stablecoin and stablecoin pairs (WETH/USDT, wstETH/USDC) yielded the best TVL and volume efficiency.
- Stable and pseudo-stable pools had strong incentive-period performance but suffered the largest post-campaign liquidity losses.
- Volatile pools showed the best long-term retention but had the highest cost to attract TVL.
What’s Next
We’re excited to announce that the Uniswap Impact Terminal is almost ready. Development is wrapping up, and we’ll be launching the interactive data terminal next week. This will provide the community with deep insights into the impact of analyzed incentives.
Your Input is Welcome!
We want to ensure our analysis provides the most valuable insights to the Uniswap community. Drop your feedback below—we’d love to refine our work based on community insights! 