curve.fi
Curve.fi liquidity pools mint LP tokens through supported liquidity deposits
Curve.fi liquidity pools accept supported asset deposits and mint liquidity provider (LP) tokens representing a share of their reserves. The amount minted depends on the pool calculation, existing balances, and applicable deposit fees. Some pools accept a single constituent asset after initialization; the first deposit can require every constituent. A successful deposit changes both the pool reserves and the recipient’s LP balance. Those shares carry exposure to the assets traders leave in the pool, which can differ from the deposit mix. Choosing a deposit therefore involves the accepted assets, minimum LP output, and withdrawal options available for that particular pool.
Supplying swap reserves through a pool share
A liquidity deposit supplies assets traders can exchange against, while the resulting LP tokens track the depositor’s participation in the pool. This suits the task of supplying trading liquidity and receiving the associated share of trading fees. It also commits the deposited assets to the pool’s changing composition.
Keeping an exact quantity of a particular asset serves a different purpose. An LP position does not reserve the original deposit separately for its owner. Trades change the quantities backing all shares, and subsequent withdrawal calculations use the resulting reserves. The distinction matters even when the deposit contains only one asset: the position acquires exposure to the pool as a whole.
Can I deposit only one of the pool assets?
A single asset deposit is possible when the selected pool and deposit method support it, but initialization can impose different requirements. Plain StableSwap NG pools, for instance, require every constituent when the LP token supply is empty.
After initialization, the same implementation permits deposit amounts of zero for some constituents. This allows an existing asset holding to enter a pool without first assembling every component. The minted amount still reflects the pool’s pricing and fee calculations.
Compatibility and deposit economics are separate questions. A contract can accept an asset while offering an unattractive amount of LP tokens for the proposed deposit. The expected output and minimum acceptable output address that second question.
Matching assets to the deposit contract
The deposit contract determines which token form it can accept and which account needs spending permission. A displayed asset name alone does not establish compatibility. The network, token contract, pool, and selected deposit method must describe the same intended position.
Direct pool deposits
A direct deposit supplies the pool’s constituent tokens through its liquidity function. For ERC-20 assets, the spending allowance must cover the contract actually transferring those tokens. An allowance for a different contract does not authorize this transfer.
Deposits through a helper contract
Some pool arrangements use a deposit helper, often called a zap, to accept underlying assets. The helper performs the additional operations necessary to obtain the tokens the pool holds.
Wrapped assets
A compatible helper can wrap an underlying asset before depositing it. Direct pool support for a wrapped token does not automatically establish direct support for its underlying asset.
Base pool assets
A metapool can hold another pool’s LP token as a constituent. A compatible helper can first deposit the underlying assets into that base pool. The resulting base pool shares then enter the metapool. These additional contracts extend the dependencies of the position.
Pool balances and the minted share
The minted LP amount measures the liquidity a deposit adds under the pool’s calculation. It is not simply the sum of token quantities sent. Different token denominations, rate adjustments, and existing reserves make that arithmetic unreliable.
StableSwap calculations use an invariant, a mathematical measure derived from the pool’s adjusted balances. For an established pool, the increase in that measure helps determine how many new shares the deposit receives. Applicable fees enter the calculation before the final mint amount.
StableSwap NG rejects a deposit when the calculated mint amount falls below the transaction’s minimum LP output. That minimum protects the number of shares received at execution. It does not protect their future market value. A refreshed quote can change because other transactions alter the reserves, even though the contract applies the same rule.
A single asset deposit blocked by an empty pool
Consider a hypothetical deposit into a plain pool with an empty LP token supply. The intended deposit contains only one constituent, the wallet has the necessary allowance, and the chosen method requires every constituent for initialization.
The transaction simulation rejects the deposit because some constituent amounts are missing. The depositor stops before submission, so no deposit transaction reaches the chain and this attempt creates no LP tokens. Reading the pool’s LP total supply independently confirms the empty starting state and explains the rejection.
The revised attempt supplies a positive amount of every required constituent. Before submission, the depositor checks those token balances and allowances, obtains a new mint estimate, and sets an acceptable minimum. Supplying every constituent resolves the initialization failure; the remaining transaction checks must also pass.
After a successful transaction, the receipt records the liquidity addition and LP mint. A separate balance read confirms the shares at the intended recipient. The pool now has an outstanding LP supply. That changes the entry condition: subsequent deposits can omit constituents where this implementation permits them. The initialization rule remains unchanged; the pool’s state has changed.
What confirms that my liquidity deposit completed?
A successful deposit transaction, its liquidity and mint records, and the recipient’s resulting balance together establish completion. A successful token approval alone establishes spending permission.
The transaction record identifies the contract called and whether execution succeeded. For a direct deposit, the liquidity event and LP token transfer record explain the reserve addition and minted amount. These records distinguish a completed deposit from a submitted transaction awaiting execution.
The receiving account also matters. Some deposit methods support a recipient different from the account supplying assets. Checking only the sender’s wallet can therefore miss the minted position. Contract addresses distinguish the intended LP token from another token with a similar name.
A combined deposit and stake operation can place the shares in a gauge immediately. In that case, the gauge’s credited balance completes the ownership record. An empty wallet LP balance by itself does not establish a failed deposit.
Trading fees inside the LP position
The portion of trading fees retained for liquidity providers contributes to the assets backing their shares. It need not increase the number of LP tokens in a wallet. Deposit costs and later withdrawal costs affect the overall outcome separately. A quoted yield also depends on activity and valuation assumptions, so it does not establish how much a particular deposit will earn.
Gauge staking after the deposit
A liquidity gauge tracks deposited LP tokens for reward accounting. Staking therefore adds another contract relationship after the pool has created the shares. A combined operation may perform both actions together, but the pool deposit and gauge credit remain distinct states.
A Curve liquidity gauge accepts the specific LP token its contract identifies. Shares from another pool do not become compatible merely because both pools contain similar assets. Reward availability also depends on the gauge’s configuration and reward allocation; a successful liquidity deposit does not establish an active reward stream.
Gauge custody changes where the position appears. Directly staked shares appear in the gauge balance rather than as freely held LP tokens. Withdrawing those shares from the gauge returns LP tokens; redeeming pool assets is a separate operation.
Withdrawing the assets a position can return
A withdrawal exchanges LP tokens for pool assets under the selected withdrawal method. Understanding the available outputs before depositing helps distinguish a suitable pool position from an unwanted asset commitment. The original deposit composition does not dictate the eventual withdrawal composition.
Proportional asset withdrawals
A proportional pool withdrawal returns constituent assets in the pool’s current reserve proportions. This method avoids asking the pool to concentrate the entire exit into one asset. Its output can still contain a larger share of an unwanted constituent than the depositor originally supplied.
Single asset and imbalanced withdrawals
Where supported, a single asset withdrawal returns the selected constituent after the pool’s withdrawal calculation. Available balances, price impact, and applicable fees affect the amount. Imbalanced withdrawal methods instead specify constituent amounts and limit how many LP tokens the transaction may burn.
The appropriate method changes with the required output. A proportional withdrawal fits an exit into the existing reserve mix. A single asset withdrawal fits a specific asset requirement only when the available amount and execution terms are acceptable.
Pool exposure after a successful mint
A successful mint proves execution, not preservation of the deposit’s purchasing power. Traders can change the reserve mix as relative asset prices move. Impermanent loss describes underperformance against retaining the original assets; fee income may offset that difference, but does not necessarily do so.
A loss of an asset’s peg can leave liquidity providers exposed to more of the weakening constituent. Closely related prices do not remove this possibility. Wrapped assets and nested pools add dependencies on their underlying contracts, while an exploit can impair the assets backing the shares.
The position remains suitable only while its asset exposure and available exit match the intended use. If the requirement changes to retaining one exact asset without pool conversions, holding that asset directly preserves that exposure. An accepted deposit does not remove the need to reassess a changed pool composition.
Details worth knowing about Curve.fi liquidity pools
Can I obtain LP tokens by sending assets directly to the pool address?
A plain token transfer does not automatically mint LP tokens. The pool’s liquidity function performs the accounting and minting required for a deposit. Sending tokens directly can leave them outside the intended deposit process, and recovery depends on the receiving contract. Use the supported deposit operation rather than treating the pool address as a payment destination.
Does revoking a deposit allowance withdraw an existing LP position?
Revoking a deposit allowance changes permission for future token transfers; it does not withdraw an existing LP position. The pool already holds the deposited assets, and the LP tokens represent the resulting share. Redemption requires a separate withdrawal operation. Revocation also does not reverse a transfer a previously completed transaction already executed.
What happens to a separate approval if the liquidity deposit fails?
A previously successful approval remains effective if a later deposit transaction fails, unless another operation changes the allowance. The approval and deposit have separate transaction outcomes. A failed deposit therefore does not prove the spending permission disappeared. The token’s allowance record shows the remaining authorization for the specified owner and spender.
Is an unchanged LP token balance evidence that the deposit earned nothing?
An unchanged LP token balance does not establish an unchanged position value. Fees retained for liquidity providers affect the assets backing the shares, while asset prices and pool composition also affect their value. A useful comparison considers the redeemable assets and their valuation, rather than treating growth in the LP token count as the only measure.
Must I supply every constituent when adding to an existing LP position?
An existing LP position does not itself require subsequent deposits to contain every constituent. The selected pool’s deposit rules and current state determine which combinations it accepts. Each addition receives its own quote and creates additional LP tokens. Holding earlier shares does not fix the exchange terms for a later deposit.