When people talk about liquidity provision in DeFi, it’s often framed in abstract terms: “earning fees,” “providing depth,” or “supporting the market.”When people talk about liquidity provision in DeFi, it’s often framed in abstract terms: “earning fees,” “providing depth,” or “supporting the market.”

What LPs Are Actually Getting Paid For on Stabull

2026/03/31 06:35
5 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

By Jamie McCormick, Co-CMO, Stabull Labs

The 12th article in the 15 part “Deconstructing DeFi” Series.

Over the past few weeks, the Stabull team has been reviewing non-UI trading activity flowing through our pools across all three chains we support — Base, Ethereum, and Polygon. These behaviours are equally easy to trace on each network, and we see the same or very similar execution patterns repeating across different pools, assets, and chains.

For this series, many of the concrete examples focus on Base not because it is unique, but because the acceleration in transaction volume on Base going into the New Year was what initially triggered the investigation. Once we began tracing those flows, it quickly became clear that the same dynamics are present across the rest of the protocol as well.

What we found across all three networks is that liquidity providers are not just being paid for “being there.”

They are being paid for reliability inside execution paths.

Understanding that distinction is key to understanding why non-UI volume matters, and why it often represents higher-quality yield than traditional retail-driven trading.

Liquidity as infrastructure, not inventory

In many AMMs, liquidity behaves like inventory sitting on a shelf. It waits for someone to come along and trade against it.

On Stabull, liquidity increasingly behaves like infrastructure.

It is:

  • embedded into automated execution flows 
  • selected by solvers and routing engines 
  • relied upon as a stable conversion step 

This means LPs are not just facilitating discretionary swaps. They are enabling systems to function.

When a bot, aggregator, or solver routes through a Stabull pool, it is doing so because it expects:

  • predictable pricing 
  • low failure risk 
  • consistency across market conditions 

That expectation is what LPs are compensated for.

Why non-UI volume is often better volume

Retail UI swaps tend to be:

  • sporadic 
  • sentiment-driven 
  • sensitive to incentives 
  • highly cyclical 

Non-UI volume looks very different.

It is:

  • repeatable 
  • programmatic 
  • strategy-driven 
  • indifferent to marketing or UX 

From an LP perspective, this matters because non-UI volume tends to:

  • occur more frequently 
  • arrive in smaller, repeatable trade sizes 
  • persist across market regimes 

That translates into steady fee accrual rather than bursts of activity followed by long quiet periods.

What LPs are being paid for, concretely

Based on the transactions we reviewed across Base, Ethereum, and Polygon, LPs are effectively being compensated for:

  • Execution certainty

    Trades can complete atomically without reverting. 
  • Price alignment

    Oracle-anchored pricing keeps pools aligned with off-chain reference prices. 
  • Low slippage at practical trade sizes

    Especially important for automated strategies. 
  • Composability

    Pools can be dropped into multi-leg execution paths without bespoke logic. 

Every time a transaction chooses a Stabull pool instead of an alternative venue, it is making a trade-off in favour of those properties.

Fees are the reward for providing them.

The “toll booth” model revisited

As described in the previous article, liquidity provision on Stabull resembles a toll booth.

LPs are not:

  • lending assets 
  • underwriting credit risk 
  • relying on borrower repayment 

They are:

  • enabling transactions to pass through 
  • charging a small, predictable toll each time 

Importantly, this toll is paid regardless of whether the end user knows Stabull exists. LPs earn fees whenever liquidity is used, not when attention is captured.

Why fee quality matters more than fee size

A single large trade can generate more fees than dozens of small ones — but it can also be unpredictable.

What we observed instead was:

  • many small to medium trades 
  • routed repeatedly through the same pools 
  • as part of ongoing strategies 

This kind of volume is less exciting to look at on a per-transaction basis, but far more valuable over time.

It compounds.

How this fits into the broader LP picture

For LPs on Stabull, yield typically comes from two sources:

  1. Swap fees

    Generated by real transaction flow and paid in liquid output currencies. 
  2. STABUL incentives

    Distributed via the Liquidity Mining Program through Merkl to support early growth and attract liquidity. 

The key distinction is that swap fees reflect actual usage. Incentives help accelerate adoption, but usage is what sustains yield long-term.

As non-UI volume grows, the balance shifts naturally toward organic fees.

Why this is still early

The transactions reviewed represent a snapshot, not an endpoint.

Many execution systems:

  • gradually test liquidity 
  • start with small trade sizes 
  • increase routing only after reliability is proven 

That means today’s non-UI volume often precedes larger, more consistent flows later.

From an LP perspective, this is often the most attractive phase: when utilisation is rising, but liquidity depth has not yet caught up.

What LPs should take away

The important takeaway is not just that LPs are earning fees.

It’s why they are earning them.

Stabull LPs are being paid for:

  • providing stable execution infrastructure 
  • enabling automated systems to function 
  • sitting quietly inside the plumbing of DeFi 

As Stabull becomes more embedded in execution paths across multiple chains, LPs benefit not from hype, but from repetition.

Looking ahead

In the next article, we’ll zoom out again and look at who is actually driving this non-UI activity — breaking down the roles of bots, solvers, and aggregators, and how each one interacts with Stabull in different ways.

About the Author

Jamie McCormick is Co-Chief Marketing Officer at Stabull Finance, where he has been working for over two years on positioning the protocol within the evolving DeFi ecosystem.

He is also the founder of Bitcoin Marketing Team, established in 2014 and recognised as Europe’s oldest specialist crypto marketing agency. Over the past decade, the agency has worked with a wide range of projects across the digital asset and Web3 landscape.

Jamie first became involved in crypto in 2013 and has a long-standing interest in Bitcoin and Ethereum. Over the last two years, his focus has increasingly shifted toward understanding the mechanics of decentralised finance, particularly how on-chain infrastructure is used in practice rather than in theory.

Market Opportunity
ConstitutionDAO Logo
ConstitutionDAO Price(PEOPLE)
$0.006304
$0.006304$0.006304
-1.02%
USD
ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

SEC decisions scrutinized as senator seeks records on crypto enforcement rollbacks

SEC decisions scrutinized as senator seeks records on crypto enforcement rollbacks

The post SEC decisions scrutinized as senator seeks records on crypto enforcement rollbacks appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. U.S. securities regulators have
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/03/31 08:08
Crypto Supercycle in 2025? DeepSeek Ranks the Best Altcoins to Buy Right Now

Crypto Supercycle in 2025? DeepSeek Ranks the Best Altcoins to Buy Right Now

The post Crypto Supercycle in 2025? DeepSeek Ranks the Best Altcoins to Buy Right Now appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Crypto Supercycle in 2025? DeepSeek Ranks the Best Altcoins to Buy Right Now Sign Up for Our Newsletter! For updates and exclusive offers enter your email. As a crypto writer, Krishi splits his time between decoding the chaos of the markets and writing about it in a way that doesn’t put you to sleep. He’s been at it for nearly two years in the crypto trenches. Yes, he regrets missing the magnificent rallies that came before that (who doesn’t!), but he’s more than ready to put his money where his words are. Before diving headfirst into crypto, Krishi spent over five years writing for some of the biggest names in tech, including TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, and PC Gaming, covering everything from gadgets and cybersecurity to gaming and software. When he’s not scouring and writing about the latest happenings in crypto, Krishi trades the forex market while keeping crypto in his long-term HODL plans. He’s a Bitcoin believer, though he never lets that bias creep into his writing. This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy Center or Cookie Policy. I Agree Source: https://bitcoinist.com/crypto-supercycle-2025-best-altcoins-to-buy-now-deepseek/
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:45
Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:26