{"id":25912,"date":"2026-05-03T15:49:33","date_gmt":"2026-05-03T15:49:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/"},"modified":"2026-05-03T15:49:33","modified_gmt":"2026-05-03T15:49:33","slug":"phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/","title":{"rendered":"Phantom Wallet Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss: Understanding Risks Before Depositing to Raydium"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Solana user holds SOL and USDC, sees advertised yields of 15% or higher on liquidity pools, and considers depositing both assets to Raydium through their Phantom Wallet browser extension. The interface is simple: connect wallet, select the pair, approve tokens, deposit liquidity. Within weeks, the user checks their position and discovers that despite earning swap fees, the dollar value of the deposited assets has declined more than the fees recovered. This is impermanent loss, and it represents the most common financial surprise for DeFi beginners attempting to compound returns through yield farming.<\/p>\n

The mechanics are straightforward in theory but often misunderstood in practice. When a user deposits two assets into a liquidity pool, they are providing inventory to a decentralized exchange. The protocol charges traders a percentage fee for swaps, and liquidity providers share those fees proportionally to their stake. However, the pool automatically adjusts the ratio of assets to maintain a constant product formula. If the price of one asset moves significantly relative to the other, the pool rebalances the user’s position by selling the appreciated asset and buying the depreciated one. That rebalancing, executed at unfavorable prices compared to the external market, creates a loss relative to simply holding the original assets. Understanding when this loss outweighs the fee income is essential before committing capital to Raydium or any other pool.<\/p>\n

\"Phantom<\/p>\n

How constant product pools force unfavorable rebalancing<\/h2>\n

Raydium and similar automated market makers (AMMs) use the formula x \u00d7 y = k, where x and y represent the quantities of two tokens in the pool and k is a constant. When a trader swaps one token for another, they add to one side of the equation and remove from the other, pushing the price higher or lower depending on the trade direction. A liquidity provider who deposits equal dollar amounts of two assets initially owns a 50-50 split. As trading occurs and prices move, the pool’s internal ratio drifts from 50-50 toward whichever asset is appreciating.<\/p>\n

Consider a concrete example: a user deposits 100 SOL and 10,000 USDC into a Raydium SOL-USDC pool when SOL trades at $100. The initial pool state might contain 1,000 SOL and 100,000 USDC, so the deposited liquidity represents 10% ownership. Over the next month, SOL appreciates to $150. Traders buy SOL with USDC, which increases the USDC in the pool and decreases the SOL. To maintain x \u00d7 y = k, the pool must offer less and less SOL per USDC. The formula forces the pool to sell SOL at worse and worse prices as the external market price rises.<\/p>\n

At $150 per SOL, the user’s 10% share of the pool no longer contains 100 SOL and 10,000 USDC. Instead, the rebalancing has left the position with approximately 82 SOL and 12,200 USDC. The user has been forced to sell 18 SOL at prices averaging higher than the current market rate, locking in a loss. The position is now worth approximately 82 \u00d7 $150 + 12,200 = $12,300 + 12,200 = $24,500, compared to the initial $20,000 investment. However, if the user had simply held the original 100 SOL and 10,000 USDC without depositing to the pool, those assets would now be worth 100 \u00d7 $150 + 10,000 = $25,000. The difference, $500, is the impermanent loss. It is called “impermanent” because it disappears if SOL returns to $100; the user’s position is then rebalanced back to the original 100 SOL and 10,000 USDC plus any fees earned.<\/p>\n

The practical implication is that impermanent loss occurs whenever the price ratio between two assets diverges significantly. The larger the divergence, the greater the loss. A user depositing to a stablecoin pair such as USDC-USDT experiences minimal impermanent loss because the assets move in lockstep. A user depositing SOL-COPE, where COPE is a volatile altcoin, faces substantial risk if the two assets trade independently.<\/p>\n

Calculating the breakeven point between losses and fees<\/h2>\n

Fee income from swaps can offset or exceed impermanent loss, but only under specific conditions. Raydium pools typically charge 0.25%, 0.65%, or 1% per trade, depending on the pool tier. These fees are distributed to liquidity providers proportionally. In the SOL-USDC example above, the 10% owner receives 10% of all fees. If the pool processes $1 million in swaps at a 0.25% fee, the owner earns $250, and their 10% share is $25.<\/p>\n

Whether this fee income compensates for impermanent loss depends on trading volume and price volatility. A simplified formula approximates impermanent loss as approximately (2 \u00d7 sqrt(price ratio change) – 1) \u00d7 initial capital. For a 50% price increase (price ratio of 1.5), impermanent loss is roughly 2 \u00d7 sqrt(1.5) – 1 = 2 \u00d7 1.225 – 1 = 0.45, or 45% of the capital at the peak of the divergence. A user with $10,000 in liquidity faces $4,500 in impermanent loss at that point.<\/p>\n

Earning back $4,500 requires fee income proportional to the pool’s trading volume and the user’s ownership stake. If the pool has $100 million in total liquidity and the user owns 0.01% of it, earning fees depends on how much volume the pool captures. A pool with $10 million daily volume and a 0.25% fee generates $25,000 in daily fees. The user’s 0.01% share is $2.50 per day, or roughly $900 per year. Recovering $4,500 of impermanent loss would take five years. That calculation assumes the price ratio remains at the 50% divergence; if it continues moving, impermanent loss continues growing.<\/p>\n

The critical insight is that fee-earning potential must be evaluated against both the probability and magnitude of price divergence. A pair with $50 million in daily volume and high transaction fees benefits liquidity providers more than a pair with $1 million in daily volume. Conversely, a pair with two assets moving independently faces higher impermanent loss and lower likelihood of recovery. The decision to deposit to a Raydium pool should begin with asking whether the expected fee income, given realistic volume assumptions, is sufficient to offset the likely impermanent loss given the asset pair’s historical volatility.<\/p>\n

Volatility as the primary driver of impermanent loss<\/h2>\n

Two assets with high trading volume but stable prices generate consistent fee income with minimal impermanent loss. Two assets with volatile prices but low trading volume generate large impermanent losses and insufficient fees to recover them. This distinction is crucial because advertised yields often highlight the best-case scenario: high fee rates in popular pools. They do not account for whether volatility will erode the position.<\/p>\n

Analyzing historical volatility can inform the decision. If SOL has traded between $90 and $110 over the past three months and USDC holds steady at $1, the expected price divergence is limited. Impermanent loss in that range is manageable. If a newer asset like COPE has traded between $0.50 and $5.00 in recent weeks, the volatility is extreme, and impermanent loss becomes the dominant factor. A user should calculate the maximum likely loss by assuming a price move equivalent to the highest historical volatility observed in the asset pair. If that loss exceeds the estimated annual fee income by a substantial margin, the pool is not a sound investment.<\/p>\n

Software tools can assist with this analysis, but they are only as accurate as the assumptions. Phantom Wallet<\/a> provides the interface for depositing to Raydium, and several third-party analytics platforms display historical volume and fee data for specific pools. However, none of these tools can predict future volatility or price movements. Users must recognize that any yield farming decision is a bet on the future behavior of the asset pair, not a guaranteed return.<\/p>\n

When concentrated liquidity amplifies both returns and risks<\/h2>\n

Advanced users may encounter concentrated liquidity pools, where liquidity providers deposit assets into a narrow price range rather than across the entire possible range. Concentrated liquidity increases the fee per dollar deployed because trades move through that price range more quickly, generating higher relative returns. However, concentration also increases impermanent loss within that range and introduces the risk of the price moving entirely outside the concentration range, after which no fees are earned until liquidity is re-positioned manually.<\/p>\n

The mathematics of concentrated liquidity can appear attractive: a 10\u00d7 concentration can theoretically earn 10\u00d7 the fees within the chosen range. That advantage evaporates if the price moves significantly, because the liquidity provider then owns a position composed almost entirely of the asset that appreciated and none of the other asset. The fee income from that range is no longer earned. Repositioning liquidity requires paying transaction fees and exposing the user to transaction cost variability as network conditions change. For DeFi beginners, concentrated liquidity introduces operational complexity that is often not worth the theoretical yield improvement.<\/p>\n

Raydium offers both stable and concentrated liquidity pools. The stable model is simpler and more suitable for users unfamiliar with active liquidity management. The concentrated model is most appropriate for users who monitor positions frequently and are willing to adjust allocations in response to price movements. A user depositing funds and forgetting about them should avoid concentration, as they will almost certainly miss an opportunity to rebalance before impermanent loss exceeds recoverable fee income.<\/p>\n

Transaction costs and the hidden erosion of returns<\/h2>\n

Depositing and withdrawing liquidity from a Raydium pool incurs transaction fees in SOL. On the Solana network, these fees are typically between $0.00025 and $0.005 per transaction, depending on network congestion. Smaller than Ethereum or other networks, but not zero. A user depositing $1,000 and withdrawing it weeks or months later pays at least $0.0005 in SOL, or roughly $0.05 at current SOL prices. That may seem trivial, but it is not the only cost.<\/p>\n

Token approval transactions, which allow the pool contract to transfer the user’s assets, may incur separate fees. Slippage during the actual deposit may cause the user to receive slightly fewer liquidity provider tokens than expected if price movements occur during the transaction’s execution. Over the course of a user’s interaction with a pool\u2014deposits, fee collection attempts, withdrawals\u2014these small costs accumulate. For a strategy with thin margins, where fee income barely exceeds impermanent loss, transaction costs can flip the result from profitable to unprofitable.<\/p>\n

Users should factor transaction costs into their breakeven calculation. If a pool is expected to earn $50 in fees over three months but costs $20 in SOL transaction fees to deposit, manage, and withdraw, the net gain is $30. That is materially different from assuming the full $50 is profit. Additionally, token price volatility means a user’s SOL fee balance may change in value between the time the transaction is submitted and the time the block is confirmed. Network priority fees during congestion can also cause fees to spike unpredictably.<\/p>\n

Selecting pools with realistic yield expectations<\/h2>\n

Raydium displays advertised yields for its liquidity pools, often ranging from 15% to over 100% annually. These figures are historical calculations based on recent fee income extrapolated across a full year. They assume that trading volume will remain constant and that the user’s ownership stake will remain constant, neither of which is guaranteed. A pool with $100 million in liquidity earning $100,000 per day in fees would be advertised at 36.5% annual yield. If that volume drops to $50 million per day, the yield drops to 18.25%. If the price of one asset in the pair jumps 50%, impermanent loss may exceed the entire year’s fee income in a single day.<\/p>\n

Conservative users should discount advertised yields by 50% or more when evaluating pools, especially those containing volatile assets. A pool advertised at 30% yield should be evaluated as if it offers 15% or less. That adjustment accounts for uncertainty about future volume, volatility, and impermanent loss. If a pool’s downside-adjusted yield is still attractive, it may be worth capital allocation. If the advertised yield is just 20% and the downside adjustment is 50%, the user is looking at 10% expected returns, which is reasonable but not exceptional given the risks involved.<\/p>\n

Additionally, users should verify that liquidity pools they are considering actually contain adequate trading volume. A pool with $1 million in liquidity but only $10,000 in daily volume is unlikely to generate sufficient fee income to recover impermanent loss. Third-party analytics tools can display volume data for Raydium pools. Consulting these before committing capital is far more prudent than discovering low volume after the fact.<\/p>\n

Risk mitigation through position sizing and diversification<\/h2>\n

No individual liquidity pool should represent more than 5-10% of a portfolio, given the combination of impermanent loss and fee income uncertainty. A user with $10,000 to deploy to DeFi protocols might allocate $500-$1,000 to any single pool, with the remainder spread across other strategies or held as a reserve. This reduces the impact of a single poor pool allocation on overall returns and allows the user to learn from smaller mistakes before committing larger amounts.<\/p>\n

Diversification across multiple asset pairs can also reduce risk. A user might deposit to SOL-USDC, SOL-COPE, and USDC-USDT simultaneously. The USDC-USDT pool has minimal impermanent loss and lower yields. The SOL-USDC pool has moderate volatility and moderate yields. The SOL-COPE pool has high volatility and high advertised yields. The user’s expected returns are dampened by the low-yield pair, but the portfolio as a whole is more resilient to unexpected price movements in any single asset.<\/p>\n

Hardware wallet integration through Phantom Wallet offers another control: all DeFi transactions can be approved at the hardware level, which prevents unauthorized access to connected protocols. This does not protect against user error\u2014depositing to the wrong pool or approving excessive token allowances\u2014but it does ensure that even if the computer running Phantom is compromised, an attacker cannot drain liquidity positions without physical access to the hardware device.<\/p>\n

Understanding withdrawal mechanics and temporary loss realization<\/h2>\n

Impermanent loss only becomes permanent when the user withdraws from the pool. Until withdrawal, the position can return to profitability if asset prices converge. However, once liquidity is removed, the loss is locked in. A user facing impermanent loss should not automatically exit the position in hopes of limiting losses. Instead, they should evaluate whether remaining in the pool offers a path to eventual recovery. If fee income is sufficient to offset impermanent loss over a realistic timeframe\u2014months or years, not weeks\u2014holding may make sense. If not, withdrawing and reallocating capital to lower-volatility strategies may be the better choice.<\/p>\n

The withdrawal process itself can introduce slippage, especially in low-liquidity pools. Removing a large percentage of the pool’s total liquidity can cause price movement during execution, leaving the user with fewer assets than the on-chain balance suggests. Withdrawing in smaller tranches across multiple transactions can reduce slippage but increases transaction costs. Users should preview the expected output before confirming a withdrawal and verify that slippage is within acceptable bounds, typically 0.5-2% for large withdrawals.<\/p>\n

One often-overlooked detail is that impermanent loss is not deductible as a loss for tax purposes in many jurisdictions. If a user deposits $10,000 and withdraws $9,500 due to impermanent loss, the $500 loss is often treated as a normal trading loss rather than a deduction. However, any fees earned during the holding period are taxable income. A user might owe tax on $300 of fees earned while realizing only a $500 total loss, resulting in a net tax liability. Tax treatment of liquidity pool positions varies by jurisdiction and accounting method; users should consult a tax professional before deploying significant capital to yield farming strategies.<\/p>\n

\n

Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n
\n

What is impermanent loss and why does it happen in Raydium pools?<\/h3>\n

Impermanent loss occurs when the price ratio between two assets in a liquidity pool changes significantly. The constant product formula forces the pool to sell the asset that is appreciating and buy the asset that is depreciating at unfavorable prices relative to the external market. The loss is “impermanent” because it reverses if prices return to their original ratio, but it becomes permanent if the user withdraws while prices are diverged.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

How do I calculate whether fee income will offset impermanent loss?<\/h3>\n

Estimate the pool’s daily fee income multiplied by your ownership percentage, then project that across your expected holding period. Compare the total estimated fees to the likely maximum impermanent loss based on historical volatility of the asset pair. If fees exceed the worst-case impermanent loss by a significant margin, the pool may be profitable. If the reverse is true, the pool is likely to result in a net loss despite advertised yields.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Should I use concentrated liquidity pools to earn higher fees?<\/h3>\n

Concentrated liquidity can earn higher fees per dollar deployed, but it also increases impermanent loss and requires active management. If the price moves outside your chosen concentration range, you earn no fees until you reposition. For users depositing and holding passively, standard liquidity pools are more suitable. Concentrated liquidity is best suited for experienced users who monitor positions frequently and adjust allocations in response to market movements.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Solana user holds SOL and USDC, sees advertised yields of 15% or higher on liquidity pools, and considers depositing both assets to Raydium through their Phantom Wallet browser extension. The interface is simple: connect wallet, select the pair, approve tokens, deposit liquidity. Within weeks, the user checks their position and discovers that despite earning […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\nPhantom Wallet Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss: Understanding Risks Before Depositing to Raydium - monika<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Phantom Wallet Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss: Understanding Risks Before Depositing to Raydium - monika\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A Solana user holds SOL and USDC, sees advertised yields of 15% or higher on liquidity pools, and considers depositing both assets to Raydium through their Phantom Wallet browser extension. The interface is simple: connect wallet, select the pair, approve tokens, deposit liquidity. Within weeks, the user checks their position and discovers that despite earning […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"monika\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-03T15:49:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/sitesv\/AG8ngQVgGYBwf28-t7pT39l7x-s-dHsffVdFRSO1TONYXkIwIG0DP-v_LMmTQ3R-M9hRy65KRkRQiQKecFgKoRS5jFAKiDEXMhfQDZhxntu9Xj5q-46-xBUuOorjCr14ilB38P73UiFDcnyqVpJitDkfic3M0LExiKUPmxjbzrvS4cL5nM3M25TxmrxPnGcitfgYMon2mz-UtVFleQdVPpyf\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"joeshpinemonika20\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"joeshpinemonika20\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/\",\"name\":\"Phantom Wallet Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss: Understanding Risks Before Depositing to Raydium - monika\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-03T15:49:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-03T15:49:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#\/schema\/person\/eb47d186628d8b8902d9e2aea60bb048\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/\",\"name\":\"monika\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#\/schema\/person\/eb47d186628d8b8902d9e2aea60bb048\",\"name\":\"joeshpinemonika20\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/87ed8e0fadc8622b3e2ef879428f765e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/87ed8e0fadc8622b3e2ef879428f765e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"joeshpinemonika20\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/author\/joeshpinemonika20\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Phantom Wallet Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss: Understanding Risks Before Depositing to Raydium - monika","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Phantom Wallet Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss: Understanding Risks Before Depositing to Raydium - monika","og_description":"A Solana user holds SOL and USDC, sees advertised yields of 15% or higher on liquidity pools, and considers depositing both assets to Raydium through their Phantom Wallet browser extension. The interface is simple: connect wallet, select the pair, approve tokens, deposit liquidity. Within weeks, the user checks their position and discovers that despite earning […]","og_url":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/","og_site_name":"monika","article_published_time":"2026-05-03T15:49:33+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/sitesv\/AG8ngQVgGYBwf28-t7pT39l7x-s-dHsffVdFRSO1TONYXkIwIG0DP-v_LMmTQ3R-M9hRy65KRkRQiQKecFgKoRS5jFAKiDEXMhfQDZhxntu9Xj5q-46-xBUuOorjCr14ilB38P73UiFDcnyqVpJitDkfic3M0LExiKUPmxjbzrvS4cL5nM3M25TxmrxPnGcitfgYMon2mz-UtVFleQdVPpyf"}],"author":"joeshpinemonika20","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"joeshpinemonika20","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/","url":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/","name":"Phantom Wallet Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss: Understanding Risks Before Depositing to Raydium - monika","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-03T15:49:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-03T15:49:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#\/schema\/person\/eb47d186628d8b8902d9e2aea60bb048"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/phantom-wallet-liquidity-pool-impermanent-loss-understanding-risks-before-depositing-to-raydium\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#website","url":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/","name":"monika","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#\/schema\/person\/eb47d186628d8b8902d9e2aea60bb048","name":"joeshpinemonika20","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/87ed8e0fadc8622b3e2ef879428f765e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/87ed8e0fadc8622b3e2ef879428f765e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"joeshpinemonika20"},"url":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/author\/joeshpinemonika20\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25912"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/36"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25912\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/developerpublish.com\/community\/joeshpinemonika20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}