Capital inefficiency is crippling DEXs

Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) have the potential to revolutionize finance — but without solving their capital inefficiency issues, they will always struggle to keep up with their centralized counterparts.

Let’s be honest: Capital efficiency is the name of the game. It’s about making every dollar — or token, or coin — work as hard as possible. Unlike CEXs, which have a more predictable liquidity structure, DEXs rely on independent liquidity providers (LPs) to contribute their assets to liquidity pools. These pools act as shared reserves that facilitate trades on decentralized exchanges without the need for intermediaries.

When traders execute a trade, they draw from these pools, paying a small fee to the LPs in return. If that capital isn’t being put to work efficiently, liquidity dries up, trading slows down and fees begin to spike — all of which undermines the competitiveness of the decentralized ecosystem.

Read more from our opinion section: Web3 doesn’t need flashy — it needs functional

To address these challenges, it’s important to understand that profitability often relates to factors that are permanently outside an LP’s control. Market conditions, asset demand and price fluctuations all affect the fees they earn. During high trading volumes, LPs can see decent returns. But when the market cools down, they’re stuck with lower activity and fewer fees.

LPs also face the risk of impermanent loss, which occurs when the value of assets in a liquidity pool fluctuates due to price discrepancies. In volatile markets, these fluctuations can lead to losses, even after accounting for fees earned. This was a major pain point with earlier models like Uniswap v2’s Automated Market Maker (AMM), which spread liquidity too broadly across price ranges. As a result, LP capital often sat idle in price bands with little trading activity, leading to an inefficient use of assets.

Read more: Uniswap token pumps following governance fee switch proposal

Let’s break this down with an example. Imagine a liquidity pool for trading Jupiter (JUP) and USDT. Suppose that an LP spreads its assets from $0 to infinity, allocating a huge portion of capital to price ranges that’ll never see any action — say, between $0 and $1 or $100,000 and $1 million. That means a big chunk of their liquidity ends up just sitting there, unproductive, and the LP earns nothing on that capital.

One solution to this problem is called concentrated liquidity. Rather than spreading their assets across a wide and inefficient range, LPs can concentrate liquidity near Jupiter’s current price, within a narrower band where trading is more likely to occur. This method optimizes capital allocation, leading to greater efficiency and better returns through fees.

By allowing LPs to focus their capital in areas of active trading, they can ensure that their assets are continuously productive. This kind of targeted strategy helps LPs mitigate risks like impermanent loss and also improves overall exposure over time, increasing the likelihood of ongoing returns.

It’s important to note that not every LP has the same appetite for risk — some are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns, while others prefer safer and more predictable investments. Offering a range of risk-return options is essential for DEXs looking to attract a broad spectrum of participants. Flexibility is key: The more choices LPs have in terms of managing their capital, the more likely they are to remain engaged with a given decentralized platform.

Read more: Grow the DEX pie by patching ‘value leaks,’ says Paradigm’s Robinson

A relatively new concept known as virtual-margin liquidity may soon help LPs strike the right balance between risk and reward. This strategy allows LPs to adjust capital exposure based on their personal goals, making it easier to manage investments. With LPs empowered to manage their liquidity more effectively, DEXs would benefit from deeper, more stable liquidity pools and fewer instances of capital inefficiency. Personally, I believe that this kind of flexibility is exactly what DEXs need to reach mass adoption and compete more effectively with centralized exchanges.

The bottom line is if DEXs don’t step up their capital efficiency game, they’re going to fall further behind centralized exchanges. CEXs already offer more stable trading experiences, deeper liquidity and lower fees for large trades. DEXs can’t afford to ignore these advantages if they want to grow. On the flip side, if DEXs embrace strategies like concentrated liquidity and virtual-margin liquidity, they can turn the tide. Addressing these issues head-on will help decentralized exchanges build trust, attract more liquidity providers and position themselves as a viable alternative to centralized platforms.