← LiquidityWise
Ethereum mainnetWhat this pool is, read from its own key. A v4 pool is not a contract of its own: it lives inside one PoolManager and is named by a hash of the five things that define it — the two currencies, the fee, the price step, and the hook.
This pool's key carries the dynamic-fee flag instead of a fee, so what a swap costs is decided by the hook at the moment it happens. This read did not observe one, and there is no fee here to report.
Taken by the protocol on top of the pool's fee, on every swap. Set by governance, and read from the pool's state on the chain.
The finest step at which a position's edges can be placed in this pool — its tick spacing of 10. Part of the pool's key in v4, so unlike v3 it needs no separate contract call.
0x0000000aa232009084bd71a5797d089aa4edfad4
This hook is permitted to change what a swap costs or pays. Any figure drawn from price history — a suggested range, a fee tier, a comparison against simply holding — assumes the pool charges what it says and pays what the curve says. Neither assumption is safe here, and none of it is visible in a price series.
This hook runs when a provider withdraws, and is permitted to refuse a withdrawal. Whether it ever does is not knowable from here.
These are read out of the hook's own address. v4 stores a hook's permissions nowhere: a hook is deployed to an address whose last fourteen bits spell out which callbacks the PoolManager will invoke, and the PoolManager checks those bits rather than asking the contract. So this says what the hook may do, never what it does — one permitted to rewrite the fee on every swap may always return the same fee, and that is not knowable from here.
Below is the range analysis. The range comes from prices that already happened, so it holds here exactly as it does for a pool with no hook — a hook cannot retroactively change where price went. What a hook can change is what a swap costs, so the rate this pool charged is measured from what it collected rather than taken from the fee above.
Uniswap v4 · Ethereum mainnet · fee set by its hook on every swap
0x90078845bceb849b171873cfbc92db8540e9c803ff57d9d21b1215ec158e79b3
Where a position in this pool would be active, as the price of one WETH in USDT.
2,409.11 – 3,133.8 USDT per WETH
12.31% below and 14.06% above the current price.
Current price 1 WETH = 2,747.44 USDT
The current price is inside this range. A position opened here would be active straight away.
Between these two prices a position earns its share of the pool's swap fees. Outside them it holds a single token and earns nothing until the price comes back.
If the price falls below the range, the position ends up holding only WETH; if it rises above it, only USDT.
From how much the price of WETH actually moved over the last 30 completed days — not from a forecast of where it goes next.
The standard deviation of one day's price change, over the window.
The same movement stretched over the horizon chosen below: one standard deviation, either way.
Chosen below. A wider range is left less often, and the same deposit spread over it is thinner at any one price.
30 daily changes went into it.
The range is centred on today's price and drawn the same distance up and down in ratio terms — halving and doubling are the same move — which is why the two percentages differ. It describes how far the price has moved, not where it will go: it is not a forecast, and the width is not a confidence level. Nothing here sizes a position or says how much of either token to deposit.
The same method at each width the form offers, so the trade-off can be seen rather than told: a wider range holds more of the days, and spreads the same deposit over more prices — which is the last column, and it is the arithmetic of the protocol rather than an estimate.
| Width | Range | Inside, of the last 30 days | Inside, on days it never saw | Fee share while inside |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tight (1σ) · shown above | 2,409.11 – 3,133.8 USDT | 21 of 30 | 84 of 90 | 1× |
| Medium (1.5σ) | 2,257.51 – 3,344.25 USDT | 29 of 30 | 84 of 90 | 0.68× |
| Wide (2σ) | 2,113.33 – 3,568.83 USDT | 29 of 30 | 86 of 90 | 0.52× |
| Very wide (3σ) | 1,855.72 – 4,068.33 USDT | 29 of 30 | 88 of 90 | 0.36× |
The first count is over the days each range was drawn from, so it says how that width was fitted, not how it held. The second is the check above, run for each width: the method stepped back a horizon and laid over the days that followed.
The last column is what the same deposit would take of the fees charged on a day the price stays inside that range, against the width shown above — so that one reads as one. It is the protocol's own position arithmetic rather than an estimate: a narrower range turns the same money into more liquidity over fewer prices. It assumes the rest of the pool's liquidity is unchanged, which a deposit large enough to move it would not leave true, and it says nothing about the days price spends outside.
The whole pool's, shared among everyone whose liquidity was active.
This pool's hook is permitted to take a share of a swap, and nothing in the source separates the hook's share from the liquidity providers'. The fees above are what the pool charged, which is a fact; tying a portion of them to this range would be a claim about a position nobody can check.
Of the last 30 days, 21 stayed entirely inside this range, 0 sat entirely outside it, and 9 crossed an edge.
A day that crossed an edge spent part of itself inside and part outside, and the source's daily high and low cannot say how much of each.
These are the same days the range was drawn from, so they show how it was fitted rather than testing how it holds up — and the range is centred on today's price, which nobody could have opened a month ago. Read them as how the pool's recent movement sits against the range, not as a backtest.
None of this is what a position would earn: it is what the whole pool charged. What a deposit would have taken of it — its share of the liquidity active while the swaps happened — is the panel directly below, and even that is fees and nothing else.
Not shown for this pool
For the same reason as the figure above it: a hook here may take a share of the swap, and nothing in the source separates its share from the providers'. A fraction of a total that cannot be attributed to this range cannot be attributed to a deposit in it either.
There is nothing to compare against: this pool declares no rate at all. The figures here are what its hook actually set.
This pool's key carries no fee. Its hook sets one per swap.
The window's fees over the window's volume, so a busy day counts for more than a quiet one.
The fee the pool states is one number. This is what swappers actually paid, divided back out of the same days as the figures above: a day's fees over that day's volume. It needs no extra request and nothing from the hook.
None of this is what reaches a liquidity provider. This pool's hook is permitted to take a share of a swap, and the source does not separate the hook's share from the providers'. What these figures say is what a swap cost, not who received it.
Across 3 folds, 84 of 90 days stayed entirely inside the band this method would have drawn.
Every figure above is fitted to the days it describes. These are not. The method was stepped back 30 days, run again on the prices before that point only, and centred on the price at that point — one somebody standing there would actually have seen. Then it was laid over the days that followed, and the whole thing repeated back through the history as many times as it had room for.
How many times the history had room to fit a band and then test it.
| Days checked | Fitted volatility | In / out / crossed |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-24 → 2026-07-24 | 62.44% | 30 / 0 / 0 |
| 2026-07-24 → 2026-08-23 | 44.86% | 25 / 3 / 2 |
| 2026-08-23 → 2026-09-22 | 69.35% | 29 / 0 / 1 |
Each row is one fold: the days it was checked over, the volatility its own fit measured — not the figure above — and how those days sat against the band that fit produced.
What a position in this range would be worth compared with simply holding the two tokens, at each price. Exact arithmetic rather than an estimate — but it counts price movement and nothing else. It says nothing about the fees a position would earn, and fees are precisely what a liquidity provider is paid for this difference.
| Price of WETH | Position against holding |
|---|---|
| 2,409.11 USDT | -3.39% |
| 2,572.72 USDT | -0.85% |
| 2,747.44 USDT | 0.00% |
| 2,934.26 USDT | -0.85% |
| 3,133.8 USDT | -3.39% |
The price this is measured from — the pool's current price.
This is what is usually called impermanent loss. It is only impermanent if price comes back: a position closed at a price other than the one it opened at has realised it.
The range above is two-sided: money on both sides of the price, earning fees for as long as the price stays between them. Split it at the price and each half is a different instrument. A position sitting entirely above the price holds one token and nothing else, and the pool sells that token for the other as the price rises through the band. Below the price it does the reverse. That is what a range order is, and both halves of this range are one.
Where the position sits. Its inner edge is the first price step past the one the price is in, so it starts out holding none of what it is converting into.
What the conversion works out at, if the price crosses the whole band.
Where the position sits. Its inner edge is the first price step past the one the price is in, so it starts out holding none of what it is converting into.
What the conversion works out at, if the price crosses the whole band.
That average is the geometric mean of the two bounds — exactly, and whichever way round the prices are written. It follows from the protocol's own formulas for what a position holds at each end of its band, and the amount put in cancels out of it: a hundred dollars and a million convert at the same price.
And only if the price crosses the whole band. One that turns back inside leaves the position holding some of each, at no single price at all — which is the same thing the range above it is for, arrived at by accident.
Everything above is about providing liquidity. This is about using it. A pool's liquidity is constant between the price steps it is built on, so a swap that stays inside the step the price is in can be priced from the protocol's own formulas with nothing assumed — and one step further cannot, because another position's liquidity may begin there and this application does not read the liquidity at every price.
What goes in before the price reaches the end of the step it is in. Not a limit: a larger swap works, and this page cannot say what it costs.
How far the swap's average sits from the price on the screen.
What goes in before the price reaches the end of the step it is in. Not a limit: a larger swap works, and this page cannot say what it costs.
How far the swap's average sits from the price on the screen.
That average is the geometric mean of the price now and the price the swap ends at — the same identity the one-sided positions above rest on, seen from the other side of the trade. A swap crossing a band pays it; a position sitting in that band receives it.
The two directions are not the same size because the price sits somewhere inside its step rather than in the middle of it. What is worth comparing between pools is the size itself: it is what this market absorbs before it moves, and it is the reason anybody breaks a large order into small ones instead of sending it at once.
The ticks, blocks and figures the page above is checked against.
Source reported -197,136.
A price step of 0.10% between usable edges.
USDT per WETH
Before snapping to the tick grid, in the pool's own direction.
Sample standard deviation of daily log returns, scaled by sqrt(365).
How much of the window had consecutive daily prices behind it.
2026-09-22 10:08 UTC
Writing the explanation…
None of these is a recommendation. A narrower range takes a larger share on the days it holds and nothing at all on the days it does not, and which of those matters more depends on what the position is for — which nothing here knows.
Nobody held these bands. Each is what the method would have suggested at that moment, laid over prices that then happened — and the days above, which the suggested range was drawn from, are not these days.
A few folds on one pool are not a measure of how often the method holds, and say nothing about what happens next. Consecutive fits overlap, too — a 31-close fit is longer than a step of one horizon — so the folds are not independent of each other.
Nothing here schedules the conversion and nothing guarantees it. This is not an order book: an order the price never reaches is the ordinary outcome rather than a failure, and there is no queue and no counterparty waiting. What there is instead is that the position collects the pool's fees while the price is inside the band, rather than paying them.
When the response arrived, not what it describes.
The v4 pools that trade WETH / USDT — the same two contracts. A v4 pair can be many pools: the fee is any number, the price step is free, and every hook makes another.
Depth at the current price ≈ 21,193.1 ETH
hook 0x0000000aa232009084bd71a5797d089aa4edfad4 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0.0801232 ETH
hook 0x0eeb8097c90a654364300fdfb6e6b62f9b9a70c0 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0.00000267005 ETH
hook 0xa6c8d7514785c4314ee05ed566cb41151d43c0c0 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
hook 0x7d151872e72e06fd27cd55f46a2ebcda6955c080 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
hook 0xf43b5192d166ceceb64255672ef159d0771cd080 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
no hook
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
hook 0x051c99a4583a7137833ad048af442909426d00c4 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
no hook
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
hook 0x9cb47ed75b3a1489f3aa943cc773149a86d40080 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
hook 0x363abbe2b287f12978391c234d4c7d28fb478080 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
hook 0x71632fa669f57cd1f6e7976619ed9e1593888080 · may change what a swap costs
Depth at the current price ≈ 0 ETH
hook 0x598630decebd63b12cb143e5208fe88d22af5080 · may change what a swap costs
38 more are not shown; they are shallower than these.
Ordered by depth at the current price — the pool's active liquidity and price, read from the PoolManager's storage — because a v4 pair is mostly pools somebody initialised and left, and depth is what tells those apart. It says how much a swap can draw on, and nothing about which pool is better: a deeper pool is a larger crowd sharing the same fees.
The v3 pools that trade WETH / USDT — the same two token contracts, at each fee tier.
Holds 955.5815 WETH + 1,389,938.1395 USDT
Holds 1,373.374 WETH + 5,964,368.2049 USDT
Holds 15,873.4641 WETH + 56,903,065.494 USDT
Holds 103.9787 WETH + 107,772.8014 USDT
A tier holding more liquidity is a larger crowd sharing the same swap fees, not a better place to be. Which one suits a position depends on how far the price moves and how often, and that is measured per pool — so the honest way to compare them is to open each and read its own figures. The horizon and multiplier you chose travel with the link.
These are the balances the two token contracts report for each pool, read from the chain rather than from an indexer. The indexer's own figure was measured against them and overstates what is there by between 1.3 and 13 times, so it is not shown. Two token amounts rather than one dollar figure, because every tier here holds the same two tokens and nothing has to be priced to compare them.
This Uniswap v4 position range expresses the value of one WETH in USDT. The current price is inside the band and sits somewhat closer to the lower edge than the upper edge. The band was drawn from the pair's recent movement, then laid over the period ahead as a way to read that movement. It is not a prediction. The wider alternatives kept price inside on more of the observed days, but each captured a smaller share of the fees charged on an inside day. This pool also has a hook: a contract called around swaps and deposits. It may refuse swaps or deposits and withdrawals, set what a swap pays, take a share of a swap, and refuse a donation.
Still being written…
Still being written…
Still being written…
If price falls below the lower edge, the position holds only WETH. If price rises above the upper edge, it holds only USDT. A move toward an edge changes the position gradually; there is no order book and nothing schedules a conversion. If price turns back, the position can hold some of each token rather than completing a conversion at one price. The one-sided comparisons show how each side's average conversion price differs from the current price, but they do not promise that price will reach an edge or cross the whole band.
The volatility figure says the pair made fairly substantial daily moves over the measurement window, and the movement accumulated into a broad band over the displayed horizon. The shown range contained most of the recent days, while some days crossed an edge. Those day counts describe the same past period used to draw the band, so they show how the band fit that history rather than proving what will happen next. A separate check on days the fit never saw kept price entirely inside during most of the checked days across the checked stretches; that is evidence from a few past stretches, not a verdict on the method.
The comparison with simply holding is exact for price movement only. It does not include fees paid to liquidity providers, gas, or the hook's possible share, and the pool's fee figures describe the whole pool rather than this position. Because this hook can set the charge on each swap, the pool's created fee is not a fixed rate for what swaps pay. The swap figures show how much the market absorbs before the price moves through the liquidity that was read; they are not a limit or a capacity for larger trades. This analysis also does not assess whether the pool or its tokens are trustworthy.
Written by gpt-5.6-luna. The figures above were not.