Skip to main content

Curve vs Astroport PCL Models

The primary differences between Curve and Astroport's passive concentrated liquidity models can be summarized by focusing on their fee structures, liquidity depth, and code implementations:

  • Fee structure and distribution: Curve accumulates all fees within the pool and periodically withdraws them using a special admin endpoint called ClaimAdminFees. On the other hand, Astroport distributes admin fees instantly after every swap, without the need for a ClaimAdminFees endpoint.
  • Liquidity management: In Curve, the accumulated fees continue to "work" within the pool, contributing to the overall liquidity which may result in slightly deeper liquidity compared to Astroport. In Astroport, admin fees are instantly sent to the Maker contract to be distributed. This reflects a different approach to liquidity management that better fits Astroport's tokenomics and fee-sharing model.
  • Repegging algorithm and internal EMA price oracle: Both protocols use the same repegging algorithm and internal EMA price oracle, ensuring similar levels of stability and accuracy in price tracking.
  • Code implementation: While both protocols are influenced by Curve's V2 whitepaper, Astroport's code implementation is unique and not directly based on Curve's source code. This results in differences in features and functionality between the two protocols.
  • Imbalanced withdrawal: Curve has a feature called imbalanced withdrawal, allowing liquidity providers to withdraw specific proportions of tokens in a pool. Astroport currently does not have this feature and only allows for balanced withdrawals.