Targeted Fee Generation excels at maximizing capital efficiency and returns for sophisticated liquidity providers (LPs) by concentrating capital around specific price ranges. This is the model of concentrated liquidity Automated Market Makers (AMMs) like Uniswap V3 and Trader Joe's Liquidity Book. For example, a Uniswap V3 LP can earn up to 400x higher fees than a V2-style pool by focusing capital within a 1% price band, but this requires active management and exposes LPs to greater impermanent loss risk.
LABS
Comparisons
Targeted Fee Generation vs Broad Fee Generation: A DEX Liquidity Strategy Showdown
A technical comparison of concentrated liquidity (targeted fees) and full range liquidity (broad fees) for DEX providers. We analyze capital efficiency, impermanent loss, fee yield, and optimal use cases for protocol architects and liquidity managers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Trade-off in Modern DEX Design
Decentralized Exchange (DEX) architecture is defined by a fundamental choice in revenue strategy: targeting specific liquidity or enabling broad participation.
Broad Fee Generation takes a different approach by distributing fees across all liquidity in a pool, as seen in classic constant-product AMMs like Uniswap V2, Balancer V1, and Curve's stable pools. This results in a more passive, set-and-forget experience for LPs with lower impermanent loss in volatile conditions, but it trades off raw capital efficiency. The TVL in these "simpler" pools often remains high due to their predictability and lower management overhead.
The key trade-off: If your protocol's priority is maximizing LP yields and attracting professional market makers for deep, efficient markets in specific assets (e.g., ETH/USDC), choose a Targeted Fee model. If you prioritize LP simplicity, broad asset support, and reducing management friction for a diverse, long-tail asset portfolio, a Broad Fee generation architecture is superior. The decision hinges on whether you are optimizing for capital efficiency or user accessibility.
tldr-summary
Targeted vs. Broad Fee Generation
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of two dominant fee generation strategies, highlighting their core strengths and ideal use cases.
01
Targeted Fee Generation (e.g., MEV-Boost, Flashbots)
Maximizes extractable value from specific transactions. This strategy focuses on arbitrage, liquidations, and front-running opportunities. It matters for high-frequency trading protocols and searchers who need to capture value from predictable on-chain events. Requires sophisticated infrastructure like block builders and relays.
02
Broad Fee Generation (e.g., Base Fee, Priority Fee)
Generates consistent, predictable revenue from general network usage. This strategy relies on base transaction fees and user-paid tips. It matters for general-purpose L1s and L2s (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum) seeking stable, protocol-level revenue tied directly to network demand and congestion.
03
Choose Targeted for High-Value, Low-Frequency Events
Ideal for protocols where the majority of value is concentrated in a few, high-stakes transactions. Examples:
- DEX Arbitrage on Uniswap v3 pools.
- Liquidations on Aave or Compound.
- NFT floor sweeps during market volatility. Revenue is sporadic but can be extremely high per event.
04
Choose Broad for Predictable, Scalable Revenue
Ideal for foundational infrastructure that processes millions of small transactions. Examples:
- L2 Rollups (Optimism, Base) scaling Ethereum.
- Payment Networks requiring stable fee forecasts.
- Social/Gaming dApps with high user volume. Revenue scales linearly with adoption and is easier to model.
FEE MECHANISM ARCHITECTURE
Feature Comparison: Targeted vs. Broad Fee Generation
Direct comparison of fee generation models for blockchain protocols and applications.
| Metric / Feature | Targeted Fee Generation | Broad Fee Generation |
|---|---|---|
Primary Revenue Source | Specific protocol actions (e.g., swaps, mints) | Base layer block space (e.g., gas, transaction fees) |
Fee Predictability for User | Fixed or formula-based (e.g., 0.3% swap fee) | Market-driven, highly volatile |
Protocol Revenue Scalability | Tied to specific dApp/activity volume | Scales with overall network adoption |
Value Capture Efficiency | High (directly monetizes utility) | Low (competes with spam & arbitrage) |
Example Implementation | Uniswap V3, Aave, Lido | Ethereum base fee, Solana priority fees |
Developer Control Over Economics | ||
Susceptible to MEV Extraction | Lower (within defined bounds) | Higher (open auction) |
pros-cons-a
Concentrated Liquidity vs. Traditional AMMs
Pros and Cons: Targeted Fee Generation (Concentrated Liquidity)
A direct comparison of capital efficiency and risk profiles for liquidity providers. Use this to decide which model fits your protocol's market depth and volatility needs.
01
Concentrated Liquidity: Superior Capital Efficiency
Higher fees per dollar deployed: LPs concentrate capital within a custom price range, competing for order flow only where it's most active. On Uniswap V3, this can lead to 200-400x higher capital efficiency for stablecoin pairs compared to V2. This matters for professional market makers and protocols maximizing yield on strategic positions.
02
Concentrated Liquidity: Customizable Risk/Return
Granular control over exposure: LPs can set precise upper and lower price bounds, effectively acting as range-bound limit orders. This allows for strategies like providing liquidity only around expected volatility (e.g., during an options expiry) or avoiding impermanent loss in a predicted sideways market. This matters for sophisticated LPs hedging specific views.
03
Traditional AMM (e.g., Uniswap V2): Simplicity & Passive Exposure
Zero management overhead: Liquidity is distributed across the entire price curve (0 to ∞). LPs earn fees from all trades, requiring no active management or price predictions. This 'set and forget' model matters for retail LPs, long-term holders of asset pairs, and protocols prioritizing decentralization and composability over max yield.
04
Traditional AMM (e.g., Uniswap V2): Predictable Impermanent Loss
Uniform exposure simplifies modeling: While IL still occurs, its behavior is well-understood and proportional to price divergence across the full range. This predictability matters for risk-averse treasuries (e.g., DAOs) and automated strategies that rely on stable, calculable outcomes rather than optimizing for narrow bands.
pros-cons-b
Targeted vs. Broad Strategy Comparison
Pros and Cons: Broad Fee Generation (Full Range Liquidity)
Key strengths and trade-offs of concentrated vs. full-range liquidity for fee generation.
01
Broad Fee Generation: Key Strength
Capital Efficiency for Stable Assets: Earns fees across the entire price curve, making it ideal for stablecoin/pegged asset pairs (e.g., USDC/USDT). Protocols like Curve Finance dominate this model, generating billions in fees from minimal price drift.
02
Broad Fee Generation: Key Weakness
Low Yield on Volatile Pairs: Capital is spread thin. For assets with high volatility (e.g., ETH/ALT), most liquidity sits unused, leading to poor Annual Percentage Yield (APY) compared to concentrated strategies. Requires significantly more TVL for comparable returns.
03
Targeted Fee Generation: Key Strength
Maximized Returns in Ranges: Concentrates capital where most trades occur (e.g., ±5% around price). Protocols like Uniswap V3 enable >1000x capital efficiency, allowing LPs to achieve higher fees with less capital, perfect for active market-making.
04
Targeted Fee Generation: Key Weakness
Active Management & Impermanent Loss Risk: Requires constant monitoring and rebalancing. If the price moves outside your set range, you stop earning fees and are exposed to significant impermanent loss. Tools like Gamma Strategies or Arrakis Finance add complexity/cost.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each Strategy: A Decision Framework
Targeted Fee Generation for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for most protocols. Strengths: Maximizes revenue from core users and high-value actions. Essential for protocols like Uniswap V3 (concentrated liquidity fees), Aave (borrowing spreads), and Compound (interest rate margins). This strategy aligns incentives directly with power users who generate the most value, allowing for sustainable treasury growth and targeted incentive programs (e.g., fee discounts for veToken voters).
Broad Fee Generation for DeFi
Verdict: Strategic for growth and ecosystem expansion. Strengths: Lowers barriers to entry, fostering mass adoption. Ideal for new DEXs like PancakeSwap on BSC or Trader Joe on Avalanche competing for volume, or lending protocols aiming for total market dominance. Small fees across a vast user base can sum to significant revenue, but requires massive scale to compete with targeted models on mature chains like Ethereum.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
Choosing between targeted and broad fee generation models is a strategic decision that defines your protocol's economic resilience and growth trajectory.
Targeted Fee Generation excels at creating deep, predictable revenue streams by focusing on high-value, specific on-chain activities. This model, exemplified by protocols like Uniswap V3 with its concentrated liquidity or dYdX's perpetual swaps, monetizes sophisticated user actions. The result is often higher fee-per-transaction metrics, with some DeFi protocols generating millions in daily fees from a relatively narrow set of sophisticated interactions. This approach builds a strong, defensible economic moat around a core utility.
Broad Fee Generation takes a different approach by casting a wide net, capturing small fees from a massive volume of generalized transactions. This is the strategy of base-layer blockchains like Solana, which leverages high throughput (often 2-3k TPS for user transactions) and low fees to drive ubiquitous usage, or L2 rollups like Arbitrum that batch thousands of transactions. The trade-off is lower per-action revenue but vastly greater network effects and resilience through diversification; fees come from NFTs, DeFi, gaming, and social apps, not a single vertical.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing revenue from a defined, high-value user segment (e.g., a specialized DeFi derivative platform or an NFT marketplace for blue-chip collections), choose a Targeted model. If you prioritize ecosystem growth, censorship resistance, and building a foundational layer where fees are a secondary metric to total economic activity (e.g., a general-purpose L1 or L2), choose a Broad model. Your choice fundamentally aligns with whether you are building a premium product or a public utility.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall