關於 high efficiency meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

📜 [專欄新文章] Uniswap v3 Features Explained in Depth

✍️ 田少谷 Shao

📥 歡迎投稿： https://medium.com/taipei-ethereum-meetup #徵技術分享文 #使用心得 #教學文 #medium

Once again the game-changing DEX 🦄 👑

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Outline

0. Intro1. Uniswap & AMM recap2. Ticks 3. Concentrated liquidity4. Range orders: reversible limit orders5. Impacts of v36. Conclusion

0. Intro

The announcement of Uniswap v3 is no doubt one of the most exciting news in the DeFi place recently 🔥🔥🔥

While most have talked about the impact v3 can potentially bring on the market, seldom explain the delicate implementation techniques to realize all those amazing features, such as concentrated liquidity, limit-order-like range orders, etc.

Since I’ve covered Uniswap v1 & v2 (if you happen to know Mandarin, here are v1 & v2), there’s no reason for me to not cover v3 as well ✅

Thus, this article aims to guide readers through Uniswap v3, based on their official whitepaper and examples made on the announcement page. However, one needs not to be an engineer, as not many codes are involved, nor a math major, as the math involved is definitely taught in your high school, to fully understand the following content 😊😊😊

If you really make it through but still don’t get shxt, feedbacks are welcomed! 🙏

There should be another article focusing on the codebase, so stay tuned and let’s get started with some background noise!

1. Uniswap & AMM recap

Before diving in, we have to first recap the uniqueness of Uniswap and compare it to traditional order book exchanges.

Uniswap v1 & v2 are a kind of AMMs (automated market marker) that follow the constant product equation x * y = k, with x & y stand for the amount of two tokens X and Y in a pool and k as a constant.

Comparing to order book exchanges, AMMs, such as the previous versions of Uniswap, offer quite a distinct user experience:

AMMs have pricing functions that offer the price for the two tokens, which make their users always price takers, while users of order book exchanges can be both makers or takers.

Uniswap as well as most AMMs have infinite liquidity¹, while order book exchanges don’t. The liquidity of Uniswap v1 & v2 is provided throughout the price range [0,∞]².

Uniswap as well as most AMMs have price slippage³ and it’s due to the pricing function, while there isn’t always price slippage on order book exchanges as long as an order is fulfilled within one tick.

In an order book, each price (whether in green or red) is a tick. Image source: https://ftx.com/trade/BTC-PERP

¹ though the price gets worse over time; AMM of constant sum such as mStable does not have infinite liquidity

² the range is in fact [-∞,∞], while a price in most cases won’t be negative

³ AMM of constant sum does not have price slippage

2. Tick

The whole innovation of Uniswap v3 starts from ticks.

For those unfamiliar with what is a tick:

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tick.asp

By slicing the price range [0,∞] into numerous granular ticks, trading on v3 is highly similar to trading on order book exchanges, with only three differences:

The price range of each tick is predefined by the system instead of being proposed by users.

Trades that happen within a tick still follows the pricing function of the AMM, while the equation has to be updated once the price crosses the tick.

Orders can be executed with any price within the price range, instead of being fulfilled at the same one price on order book exchanges.

With the tick design, Uniswap v3 possesses most of the merits of both AMM and an order book exchange! 💯💯💯

So, how is the price range of a tick decided?

This question is actually somewhat related to the tick explanation above: the minimum tick size for stocks trading above 1$ is one cent.

The underlying meaning of a tick size traditionally being one cent is that one cent (1% of 1$) is the basis point of price changes between ticks, ex: 1.02 — 1.01 = 0.1.

Uniswap v3 employs a similar idea: compared to the previous/next price, the price change should always be 0.01% = 1 basis point.

However, notice the difference is that in the traditional basis point, the price change is defined with subtraction, while here in Uniswap it’s division.

This is how price ranges of ticks are decided⁴:

Image source: https://uniswap.org/whitepaper-v3.pdf

With the above equation, the tick/price range can be recorded in the index form [i, i+1], instead of some crazy numbers such as 1.0001¹⁰⁰ = 1.0100496621.

As each price is the multiplication of 1.0001 of the previous price, the price change is always 1.0001 — 1 = 0.0001 = 0.01%.

For example, when i=1, p(1) = 1.0001; when i=2, p(2) = 1.00020001.

p(2) / p(1) = 1.00020001 / 1.0001 = 1.0001

See the connection between the traditional basis point 1 cent (=1% of 1$) and Uniswap v3’s basis point 0.01%?

Image source: https://tenor.com/view/coin-master-cool-gif-19748052

But sir, are prices really granular enough? There are many shitcoins with prices less than 0.000001$. Will such prices be covered as well?

Price range: max & min

To know if an extremely small price is covered or not, we have to figure out the max & min price range of v3 by looking into the spec: there is a int24 tick state variable in UniswapV3Pool.sol.

Image source: https://uniswap.org/whitepaper-v3.pdf

The reason for a signed integer int instead of an uint is that negative power represents prices less than 1 but greater than 0.

24 bits can cover the range between 1.0001 ^ (2²³ — 1) and 1.0001 ^ -(2)²³. Even Google cannot calculate such numbers, so allow me to offer smaller values to have a rough idea of the whole price range:

1.0001 ^ (2¹⁸) = 242,214,459,604.341

1.0001 ^ -(2¹⁷) = 0.000002031888943

I think it’s safe to say that with a int24 the range can cover > 99.99% of the prices of all assets in the universe 👌

⁴ For implementation concern, however, a square root is added to both sides of the equation.

How about finding out which tick does a price belong to?

Tick index from price

The answer to this question is rather easy, as we know that p(i) = 1.0001^i, simply takes a log with base 1.0001 on both sides of the equation⁴:

Image source: https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

Let’s try this out, say we wanna find out the tick index of 1000000.

Image source: https://ncalculators.com/number-conversion/log-logarithm-calculator.htm

Now, 1.0001¹³⁸¹⁶² = 999,998.678087146. Voila!

⁵ This formula is also slightly modified to fit the real implementation usage.

3. Concentrated liquidity

Now that we know how ticks and price ranges are decided, let’s talk about how orders are executed in a tick, what is concentrated liquidity and how it enables v3 to compete with stablecoin-specialized DEXs (decentralized exchange), such as Curve, by improving the capital efficiency.

Concentrated liquidity means LPs (liquidity providers) can provide liquidity to any price range/tick at their wish, which causes the liquidity to be imbalanced in ticks.

As each tick has a different liquidity depth, the corresponding pricing function x * y = k also won’t be the same!

Each tick has its own liquidity depth. Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Mmm… examples are always helpful for abstract descriptions 😂

Say the original pricing function is 100(x) * 1000(y) = 100000(k), with the price of X token 1000 / 100 = 10 and we’re now in the price range [9.08, 11.08].

If the liquidity of the price range [11.08, 13.08] is the same as [9.08, 11.08], we don’t have to modify the pricing function if the price goes from 10 to 11.08, which is the boundary between two ticks.

The price of X is 1052.63 / 95 = 11.08 when the equation is 1052.63 * 95 = 100000.

However, if the liquidity of the price range [11.08, 13.08] is two times that of the current range [9.08, 11.08], balances of x and y should be doubled, which makes the equation become 2105.26 * 220 = 400000, which is (1052.63 * 2) * (110 * 2) = (100000 * 2 * 2).

We can observe the following two points from the above example:

Trades always follow the pricing function x * y = k, while once the price crosses the current price range/tick, the liquidity/equation has to be updated.

√(x * y) = √k = L is how we represent the liquidity, as I say the liquidity of x * y = 400000 is two times the liquidity of x * y = 100000, as √(400000 / 100000) = 2.

What’s more, compared to liquidity on v1 & v2 is always spread across [0,∞], liquidity on v3 can be concentrated within certain price ranges and thus results in higher capital efficiency from traders’ swapping fees!

Let’s say if I provide liquidity in the range [1200, 2800], the capital efficiency will then be 4.24x higher than v2 with the range [0,∞] 😮😮😮 There’s a capital efficiency comparison calculator, make sure to try it out!

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

It’s worth noticing that the concept of concentrated liquidity was proposed and already implemented by Kyper, prior to Uniswap, which is called Automated Price Reserve in their case.⁵

⁶ Thanks to Yenwen Feng for the information.

4. Range orders: reversible limit orders

As explained in the above section, LPs of v3 can provide liquidity to any price range/tick at their wish. Depending on the current price and the targeted price range, there are three scenarios:

current price < the targeted price range

current price > the targeted price range

current price belongs to the targeted price range

The first two scenarios are called range orders. They have unique characteristics and are essentially fee-earning reversible limit orders, which will be explained later.

The last case is the exact same liquidity providing mechanism as the previous versions: LPs provide liquidity in both tokens of the same value (= amount * price).

There’s also an identical product to the case: grid trading, a very powerful investment tool for a time of consolidation. Dunno what’s grid trading? Check out Binance’s explanation on this, as this topic won’t be covered!

In fact, LPs of Uniswap v1 & v2 are grid trading with a range of [0,∞] and the entry price as the baseline.

Range orders

To understand range orders, we’d have to first revisit how price is discovered on Uniswap with the equation x * y = k, for x & y stand for the amount of two tokens X and Y and k as a constant.

The price of X compared to Y is y / x, which means how many Y one can get for 1 unit of X, and vice versa the price of Y compared to X is x / y.

For the price of X to go up, y has to increase and x decrease.

With this pricing mechanism in mind, it’s example time!

Say an LP plans to place liquidity in the price range [15.625, 17.313], higher than the current price of X 10, when 100(x) * 1000(y) = 100000(k).

The price of X is 1250 / 80 = 15.625 when the equation is 80 * 1250 = 100000.

The price of X is 1315.789 / 76 = 17.313 when the equation is 76 * 1315.789 = 100000.

If now the price of X reaches 15.625, the only way for the price of X to go even higher is to further increase y and decrease x, which means exchanging a certain amount of X for Y.

Thus, to provide liquidity in the range [15.625, 17.313], an LP needs only to prepare 80 — 76 = 4 of X. If the price exceeds 17.313, all 4 X of the LP is swapped into 1315.789 — 1250 = 65.798 Y, and then the LP has nothing more to do with the pool, as his/her liquidity is drained.

What if the price stays in the range? It’s exactly what LPs would love to see, as they can earn swapping fees for all transactions in the range! Also, the balance of X will swing between [76, 80] and the balance of Y between [1250, 1315.789].

This might not be obvious, but the example above shows an interesting insight: if the liquidity of one token is provided, only when the token becomes more valuable will it be exchanged for the less valuable one.

…wut? 🤔

Remember that if 4 X is provided within [15.625, 17.313], only when the price of X goes up from 15.625 to 17.313 is 4 X gradually swapped into Y, the less valuable one!

What if the price of X drops back immediately after reaching 17.313? As X becomes less valuable, others are going to exchange Y for X.

The below image illustrates the scenario of DAI/USDC pair with a price range of [1.001, 1.002] well: the pool is always composed entirely of one token on both sides of the tick, while in the middle 1.001499⁶ is of both tokens.

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Similarly, to provide liquidity in a price range < current price, an LP has to prepare a certain amount of Y for others to exchange Y for X within the range.

To wrap up such an interesting feature, we know that:

Only one token is required for range orders.

Only when the current price is within the range of the range order can LP earn trading fees. This is the main reason why most people believe LPs of v3 have to monitor the price more actively to maximize their income, which also means that LPs of v3 have become arbitrageurs 🤯

I will be discussing more the impacts of v3 in 5. Impacts of v3.

⁷ 1.001499988 = √(1.0001 * 1.0002) is the geometric mean of 1.0001 and 1.0002. The implication is that the geometric mean of two prices is the average execution price within the range of the two prices.

Reversible limit orders

As the example in the last section demonstrates, if there is 4 X in range [15.625, 17.313], the 4 X will be completely converted into 65.798 Y when the price goes over 17.313.

We all know that a price can stay in a wide range such as [10, 11] for quite some time, while it’s unlikely so in a narrow range such as [15.625, 15.626].

Thus, if an LP provides liquidity in [15.625, 15.626], we can expect that once the price of X goes over 15.625 and immediately also 15.626, and does not drop back, all X are then forever converted into Y.

The concept of having a targeted price and the order will be executed after the price is crossed is exactly the concept of limit orders! The only difference is that if the range of a range order is not narrow enough, it’s highly possible that the conversion of tokens will be reverted once the price falls back to the range.

As price ranges follow the equation p(i) = 1.0001 ^ i, the range can be quite narrow and a range order can thus effectively serve as a limit order:

When i = 27490, 1.0001²⁷⁴⁹⁰ = 15.6248.⁸

When i = 27491, 1.0001²⁷⁴⁹¹ = 15.6264.⁸

A range of 0.0016 is not THAT narrow but can certainly satisfy most limit order use cases!

⁸ As mentioned previously in note #4, there is a square root in the equation of the price and index, thus the numbers here are for explantion only.

5. Impacts of v3

Higher capital efficiency, LPs become arbitrageurs… as v3 has made tons of radical changes, I’d like to summarize my personal takes of the impacts of v3:

Higher capital efficiency makes one of the most frequently considered indices in DeFi: TVL, total value locked, becomes less meaningful, as 1$ on Uniswap v3 might have the same effect as 100$ or even 2000$ on v2.

The ease of spot exchanging between spot exchanges used to be a huge advantage of spot markets over derivative markets. As LPs will take up the role of arbitrageurs and arbitraging is more likely to happen on v3 itself other than between DEXs, this gap is narrowed … to what extent? No idea though.

LP strategies and the aggregation of NFT of Uniswap v3 liquidity token are becoming the blue ocean for new DeFi startups: see Visor and Lixir. In fact, this might be the turning point for both DeFi and NFT: the two main reasons of blockchain going mainstream now come to the alignment of interest: solving the $$ problem 😏😏😏

In the right venue, which means a place where transaction fees are low enough, such as Optimism, we might see Algo trading firms coming in to share the market of designing LP strategies on Uniswap v3, as I believe Algo trading is way stronger than on-chain strategies or DAO voting to add liquidity that sort of thing.

After reading this article by Parsec.finance: The Dex to Rule Them All, I cannot help but wonder: maybe there is going to be centralized crypto exchanges adopting v3’s approach. The reason is that since orders of LPs in the same tick are executed pro-rata, the endless front-running speeding-competition issue in the Algo trading world, to some degree, is… solved? 🤔

Anyway, personal opinions can be biased and seriously wrong 🙈 I’m merely throwing out a sprat to catch a whale. Having a different voice? Leave your comment down below!

6. Conclusion

That was kinda tough, isn’t it? Glad you make it through here 🥂🥂🥂

There are actually many more details and also a huge section of Oracle yet to be covered. However, since this article is more about features and targeting normal DeFi users, I’ll leave those to the next one; hope there is one 😅

If you have any doubt or find any mistake, please feel free to reach out to me and I’d try to reply AFAP!

Stay tuned and in the meantime let’s wait and see how Uniswap v3 is again pioneering the innovation of DeFi 🌟

Uniswap v3 Features Explained in Depth was originally published in Taipei Ethereum Meetup on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

👏 歡迎轉載分享鼓掌

Alumine Five of Stenheim

Stenheim is a relatively late entrant to the high-end speaker field. It was founded in 2010 by a collective of mainly ex-Goldmund engineers, and its products have inherited an unmistakable aesthetic and, to a lesser extent, sonic DNA, although it was a significantly evolved character that was to emerge in the shape of the debut model, the compact, two-way Alumine Two. It’s a developmental divergence that has continued and, if anything, accelerated with the emergence of each subsequent product. The latest Stenheim speakers, developed under the auspices of new owner Jean-Pascal Panchard, definitely have their own, unambiguous identity, both visually and musically.

I’ve been seriously looking forward to the arrival of the Alumine Five. Previous experience with the brand has included impressive exposure to the various versions of the enormous and enormously impressive Ultime Reference models, as well as a brief but highly rewarding flirtation with the stand-mounted Alumine Two in my own system. The possibility of combining the sense of musical articulation, enthusiasm and communication I experienced from the Alumine Two, with more than a hint of the clarity, scale and authority so effortlessly delivered by the Reference models, all in a package that, if not exactly affordable, at least isn’t completely out of the question, makes the Alumine Five a distinctly interesting proposition.

Yet, confronted with the Alumine Five in the flesh, there’s little to hint at the extraordinary promise lurking within. Resolutely rectangular in true Stenheim style, the Five’s aluminum cabinet, with its plate-to-plate construction, stands just 48" tall, 15" deep and presents a broad 11" face to the world, dimensions based on golden-ratio numbers. The front baffle is split by a physical break between the upper midrange-treble enclosure and the lower bass cabinet, independently ported by the laminated full-width slots above and below, a physical separation that is mirrored by the contrasting inlaid strips that help visually break up the one-piece side panels. The regular lines, smooth surfaces, flawless matte finish and lack of visible fixings could easily result in a bland, almost featureless appearance. But those trim strips and the offset midrange and treble drivers do just enough to give the Five a subtle hint of individual style without resorting to the sort of gauche and ostentatious flourishes that so often pass as design.

The result is a refreshingly clean, classical appearance that will blend seamlessly with a range of different decors. Despite the lack of grilles (although they are available as an option, does anybody really spend this kind of money on a speaker and then compromise the performance by fitting covers?), the beautifully profiled baffle and absence of visible fixings makes for a genuinely neat, finished appearance that matches the superb surface finish on the cabinet. The end result just looks right, in a way that makes you wonder why you’d want grilles anyway.

The first hint of its potent sonic capabilities comes when you try to pick it up. Each comparatively compact cabinet tips the scales at 220 pounds. That’s a grunt-inducing, two-man lift. Now, take a look at the figures for bandwidth and sensitivity, and an in-room response that digs down as far as 28Hz combined with 94dB efficiency should raise your eyebrows, especially given the compact cabinet dimensions. Which brings us to the first experiential disconnect: boxes this size shouldn’t produce this much bass or do it so easily. Nor should they weigh so much -- although therein lies the clue to this particular conundrum. When it comes to bass extension, it’s not the external dimensions of the box that matter, but its internal volume. Just like the Crystal Cable Minissimo, a thin-wall cabinet makes for a much larger internal volume than the external dimensions might suggest -- especially if we apply the expectations of more conventional wood-based construction. Throw in the sheer weight of the aluminum panels and the combination of mass and physical dimensions would subconsciously suggest massively thick walls -- and a correspondingly limited internal volume. Instead, what we have here is a deceptively large volume, which, combined with the inertia of the heavy cabinet and the mechanical stability provided by the material, makes for an effective mechanical reference for driver movement, meaning that more of the energy your amplifier sticks into the speaker comes out as sound and (at least in theory) it will be more precisely rendered.

So far, not very much that’s new. It’s not like Stenheim (or Magico, or YG Acoustics) has exclusivity when it comes to aluminum cabinets. But what does make Stenheim different is the unique material they use in damping their cabinet panels. Of course, the separate enclosures and the internal baffles they demand make for an inherently heavily braced structure, but look inside a dismantled Alumine Five and you’ll find strategically placed pads stuck to the cabinet walls. These three-layer, self-adhesive pads combine a heavy damping layer (adjacent to the cabinet wall itself) with added foam and impervious layers, allowing the low-volume pads to influence both the mechanical behavior of the cabinet itself and the enclosed volume. It’s an interesting solution because it manages to overcome the weakness so often audible in simple, braced aluminum cabinets (the all-too-recognizable resonant signature of the material itself) while maximizing the benefits (large volume and rigidity) by obviating the need to stuff the internal space full of wadding or long-haired wool. In fact, if the Stenheims were stood behind a sonically transparent curtain, you’d be hard-pressed to recognize the music as emanating from an aluminum cabinet at all. The absence of the bleached, grainy or lean colorations, the lack of sterile, mechanistic reproduction, is one big half of the Stenheim story, living, breathing proof that it’s not what you use but how you use it that counts.

The other half is down to the drive units, and after the cabinets, those come as quite a surprise, both the lineup and the chosen materials. In stark contrast to the use of the latest, precision CNC techniques, complex damping pads and finishing options, the Alumine Five's drivers are as traditional as they come, with a coated silk-dome tweeter and pulp or laminated paper midrange and bass drivers. The cone drivers use textile double-roll surrounds and massive magnets more normally found in pro-audio applications, and while Stenheim doesn’t build its own drivers, the company works closely with its chosen supplier (PHL, definitely not one of the usual suspects) to specify the electrical parameters, mechanical characteristics and precise details of the surface coating.

The use of such lightweight cone materials and large motors aids the system efficiency, while a hybrid second-order/Linkwitz-Riley crossover, the result of extended listening and evolution, ensures phase coherence and excellent out-of-band attenuation and makes for easy non-reactive load characteristics, despite the three-way topology. The other aspect of the driver lineup that might be considered slightly unusual is the use of a large-diameter (6 1/2") midrange unit -- although less so since Vandersteen’s patent on the approach lapsed some years ago, resulting in a rash of companies suddenly exploring the possibilities of the topology.

Perhaps more important, in the case of the Alumine Five, it means that you are getting the tweeter and midrange drivers from the Ultime Reference series speakers, teamed here with a pair of 10" woofers but without the benefit of a super tweeter. Even so, Stenheim quotes bandwidth out to 35kHz, which should suffice for most purposes. The review speakers arrived with the optional second set of terminals installed, allowing for biwiring or, more significantly, biamping, an upgrade opportunity that makes this an option you should take. If, in the meantime, you are single-wiring the speakers, make sure you factor in a set of jumpers that match your speaker cables: the Alumine Five's overall sense of musical coherence makes the benefits especially obvious. Likewise, good wiring practice is essential, both in terms of cable dressing and diagonal connection (red to midrange/treble, black to bass, with jumpers arranged accordingly).

Aside from the speaker's substantial weight, the parallel sides and flat surfaces of the four-square cabinet make setting up the Fives an absolute joy. Precise, repeatable, angular adjustments are easily achieved, while changes in attitude are just as straightforward, helped by the beautifully profiled stainless-steel spiked feet and deeply cupped footers. Both the cones and their locking rings have nice, large ports to take the supplied pry bars, but it’s worth greasing the threads before installation. One other thing to watch out for: the spikes are seriously (refreshingly) sharp -- sharp enough to penetrate a thick rug and score the floor below, so be careful where you stand the speakers once the feet are installed. Final positioning disposed the speakers on a broad front with minimal toe-in. When it came to dialing in their considerable musical energy, the most critical factor proved to be height off the ground, with tiny adjustments of the spikes making profound differences to the weight and pace of the presentation. Likewise, equal weighting of the four spikes was crucial to a proper sense of grounded weight and dynamic authority.
........................................................

Price: $60,000 per pair.
Warranty: Five years parts and labor.

(Source: The Audio Beat)

Francis Fong Po-kiu, honorary president of the Hong Kong Information Technology Federation, said a block on the cable project would be a big blow.

"Nowadays we live in the era of the internet, we store data on the internet and use it for live streaming, video or even audio calls," he noted. "Cancellation of the cable may not affect citizens in general, but IT industries will suffer the most as all businesses - especially those dealing with cloud services, big data and artificial intelligence - rely heavily on internet capacity."

He said US officials may be looking to block the project after rumors about the Hong Kong government planning to cut Telegram or online forum Lihkg, which carry much protest-related material, from the local internet.

"If there's no free flow of information here they won't see the need to give us more internet capacity," he said. "Also, an additional cable would provide faster internet services, meaning Chinese hackers may take advantage of it and hack into US networks with high efficiency."
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/sections-news_print.php…