Returns are Uniswap can be +positive if the fees collected exceed impermanent loss. Wazz's wallet still being up 14% tells me they've been collecting enough fees to cover the ~30% drop in price we've seen since late August, nice! But the collected fees can also be much higher on Panoptic (up to 3x higher), enough to offset IL in the long term. How? Vanilla LP positions in Uniswap generate returns that are based on realized volatility: the amount of (real) trading activity that happens when a position is in range accrues (real) fees. But pricing a convex financial product based realized volatility typically underprices what the market is willing to pay for it: the market typically pays for that convexity based on implied volatility, with IV > RV On Panoptic, users can purchase that cheap convexity: buyers are effectively shorting an LP position and reimburse the initial seller the fees that would have been collected times a spread term of the form (1 + ∆). That ∆ depends on the buying demand at that strike, and it acts a bit like the implied volatility for the buyer: it defines how much more are they willing to pay than the realized volatility for that convexity. Panoptic has locked users out of managing their position since the security incident in August. (We'll be coming back with v2 soon!). But we can still look at how open positions have fared since that time. This is a position that was opened by the Panoptic team to allow as many users to withdraw their funds before we performed our whitehat. @panopticintern sold calls at a strike that had 0.965ETH of buying open interest to help free up capital. That position was sized such that the buyer was paying 3.25x time the Unsiwap fees for that position (!) Over the past 3 months, that position accumulated ~1200 USDC in streaming fees, whereas the exact same position on Uniswap would have earned ~400 USDC in premia. That extra ~800 in revenues comes from the option buyer's wallet, not from swappers. TLDR; two identical positions, one on Panoptic and one on Uniswap v3, have the exact same risks from impermanent loss, but the one on Panoptic earned 3x more fees.