Beethovenx weighted pools with custom asset mixes and trading fees

Price correlation guides the pool-design choice

If the tokens don't track a common value, weighted math accommodates their independent prices without relying on the close price relationship stable pools are designed around. An automated market maker, or AMM, prices swaps against pool balances. Stable math emphasizes trading between correlated assets, with rate providers accounting for appreciating tokens where configured. A shared network doesn't establish price correlation. Choose between these designs through the assets' economic relationship, before comparing their allocations.

Equal weights, asymmetric weights and multi-asset allocations

Equal weights give each token the same target share of value; unequal weights deliberately concentrate exposure, while multi-asset configurations extend the mix beyond a pair. The allocation can still be concentrated even when several tokens appear in it. These configurations describe exposure, not a security rating. The underlying assets bring different dependencies into the position.

What does an 80/20 weighting actually measure?

An 80/20 weighting describes target shares of asset value at prices consistent with the pool's balances and weights, assigning the larger share to one asset without fixing the token quantities.

Value shares and token units

Tokens have different unit prices. Equal quantities therefore needn't produce equal value, and equal value needn't require equal quantities. A weighted pool's normalized weights sum to 100%. Those weights enter the pricing calculation alongside token balances. Comparing the quantities shown for different assets without considering their prices confuses units with allocation. Temporary differences between pool pricing and external prices can also move the market-valued proportions away from their targets.

BEETS and stS exposure

The Sonic maBEETS design pairs a dominant BEETS allocation with a smaller stS allocation. BEETS contributes its own market-price exposure, while stS represents liquid-staked S and accrues validator rewards through its exchange rate against S. The smaller allocation still introduces staking dependencies. Its weight doesn't describe a promised yield. Reliquary adds maturity-based governance and rewards to the maBEETS position, separately from the weighted pool's asset mix.

View full-size image

Pool balances and arbitrage reshape the holdings

When external prices diverge from prices implied by a pool's balances and weights, arbitrage trades adjust the token quantities the pool holds and draw its pricing toward the wider market. An asset appreciating relative to its companions can leave the pool through trading. Tokens offered in exchange increase the other balances. Arbitrage draws the value proportions toward their targets, while liquidity providers receive their share of trading fees. Weighted math generalizes the constant-product model by applying each token's normalized weight to its balance, using an invariant to constrain the pricing calculation.

The invariant doesn't preserve a constant dollar value for the position. Asset prices can fall together even when their relative proportions stay aligned. The pool's changing quantities also mean its eventual holdings can differ from the quantities originally contributed.

Can unequal weights prevent impermanent loss?

Unequal weights don't eliminate impermanent loss, the shortfall against holding the same starting assets when their relative prices change. This comparison measures the effect of providing liquidity: a pool can gain dollar value while trailing the value of those assets held separately.

The comparison needs the same starting mix on both sides. Comparing an 80/20 pool with an equally weighted holding confuses allocation choice with the effect of rebalancing. Fee income contributes to the position's net performance and may offset a shortfall against its holding benchmark.

A larger weight toward an appreciating asset can reduce the divergence loss associated with selling it during rebalancing, compared with an equally weighted pool holding the same assets. The direction of the relative price move matters. Asymmetry doesn't erase exposure to a declining asset.

There's also a trading trade-off. For a given total pool value, a smaller allocation leaves less value available in that asset. Swaps consuming a substantial share of that balance can face greater price impact. Total pool value alone doesn't describe the depth available for every pair.

A return to the original relative price relationship can reduce the divergence loss. Simply holding the position for longer doesn't restore that relationship or determine how much fee income accrues.

Fee income and token incentives need separate comparisons

Once the asset mix fits the intended exposure, reward comparisons need to distinguish trading income from underlying token yield and any incentives requiring a separate staked position.

Trading volume and the LP share

Pool-specific swap fees depend on the assets and AMM rules. The liquidity providers' share accrues inside the pool, increasing its backing without a separate fee claim. Beets Pool Tokens, or BPTs, represent those pool shares. A protocol fee share applies to collected fees; the pool's swap fee applies to the trade. A larger fee percentage doesn't establish larger income: trading volume and the protocol's share also matter. Compare fees with activity in the pool whose allocation you're evaluating.

Yield within the selected assets

A pool containing yield-bearing assets can receive another source of value growth through those assets. stS exposes its holders to compounded Sonic staking rewards. That component remains distinct from fees paid by traders. Its contribution follows the pool's exposure to stS, alongside changes in balances and market prices. Yield-bearing token income can also attract a protocol fee. The overall pool position remains exposed to its other assets.

Staked BPT incentives

Some pools offer additional incentives for staking BPTs. Holding an unstaked pool share doesn't automatically qualify for those rewards. BEETS incentives follow budget and gauge allocations, so reward availability can change independently of the weight configuration. A combined reward figure can therefore include components with different requirements. Separate automatically accruing income from rewards attached to a staked position when evaluating the same asset mix.

Deposit and withdrawal mixes change the quote

Proportional deposits require the full token mix in the pool's current balance ratios; unbalanced or single-token additions offer an alternative when some assets are missing, if the pool and interface support them.

Proportional liquidity

The required quantities follow the current pool holdings, which can differ from the original contribution quantities. A proportional addition preserves the existing balance relationship. In Balancer v3, proportional removal returns a share of each pool asset without swap price impact or the swap fee charged on non-proportional exits. Network transaction costs remain separate, and the returned token quantities reflect the pool's current holdings.

Single-token or unbalanced liquidity

Balancer v3 also supports unbalanced additions and single-token liquidity operations. These routes change the balance relationship and can involve swap fees and price impact. Available choices depend on pool configuration and interface support. One of the pool's tokens can therefore fund exposure to a broader pool mix without remaining the position's sole underlying asset. Compare the quoted BPT amount or withdrawal outputs for the supported operation, including its limits.

Does adding more tokens guarantee broader diversification?

Adding tokens doesn't guarantee broader diversification because several assets can share the same price drivers, network dependencies or underlying economic exposure. Token count is only one dimension. The weights show how much influence each asset has within the allocation. A heavily concentrated multi-asset mix can remain sensitive to its dominant holding. Yield-bearing wrappers also carry the dependencies of their underlying mechanism. Compare the economic exposures alongside the number of tickers.

Fantom and Sonic configurations belong to different pools

Comparisons spanning Fantom and Sonic need to distinguish the underlying tokens, because the older 80/20 maBEETS pairing used BEETS and wFTM while the Sonic design pairs BEETS with stS. During the migration, LP positions couldn't move intact because token contracts changed. The underlying assets required their own migration paths. Similar allocations across networks therefore don't establish interchangeable pool shares.

A network also doesn't identify a protocol version. Beets has Sonic pools using Balancer v2 and v3. The selected pool's version determines which implementation supports its pricing and liquidity operations.

Recovery states and asset dependencies qualify the choice

An exploit or recovery restriction changes how a pool comparison should be read, regardless of its displayed asset mix or historical rewards. Staked Sonic Symphony, a Sonic v2 Stable pool, is in recovery mode following an exploit affecting some v2 Composable Stable pools. That incident didn't affect v3 pools. Its scope doesn't establish the operating state of a separate weighted pool. A pool's classification and restrictions belong to that particular deployment.

Allocations containing stS also inherit staking-contract and validator dependencies. Distributing the underlying S across validators limits exposure to one validator's conduct, while slashing and contract vulnerabilities remain possible. An audit of stS doesn't certify every component of a pool holding it. If the allocation changes to include a different yield-bearing asset, the relevant contract dependencies and income mechanism change with it.