Ferra (DLMM)

How fees are split

Ferra routes trading fees primarily to liquidity providers (LPs), with a smaller protocol cut:

• LP share of fees: 79.8%
• Protocol take rate: 20.2% (protocol “revenue”)

From recent realized data:

• Fees (24h): $129 → LP fees (24h): $103 and protocol revenue (24h): $26
• Fees (7d): $1.4K
• Fees (30d): $7.6K
• All-time fees: $91.5K; all-time revenue: $18.3K

Fee capture ratio (what the protocol keeps)

The protocol’s fee capture is mechanically the take rate:

• Revenue / Fees ≈ 20.2%

Activity context (what supports fee generation)

• TVL: $1.1M
• Volume: $3.2M (24h), $11.0M (7d), $31.7M (30d)

Fee trend signal (166 days of history)

Over 166 days, all-time fees of $91.5K imply a long-run average of about $551/day. By comparison:

• Current 7d average ≈ $200/day ($1.4K / 7)
• Current 30d average ≈ $253/day ($7.6K / 30)

That gap indicates recent fee generation has been below the longer-run average, so LPs should treat headline APRs as potentially mean-reverting.

Note: Separate dashboard metrics also cite $338 fees (24h) and $7.7K fees (30d) at the product level; the split above uses the explicit LP/protocol breakdown where available.

Ferra positions itself as a “dynamic liquidity platform” on Sui, and its Liquidity page shows pool-level TVL, 24h volume, 24h fees, and an APR estimate (“Estimated based on the last 24h trading activity & boosted incentives (if any)”).

Below are the most actionable pools by current APR and/or capacity (TVL). Base APY is approximated by annualizing (24h fees × 79.8% LP share) / TVL; Reward APY is the remainder vs the displayed APR.

Risk-adjusted takeaways

• More conservative LPs: USDSUI (lower displayed APR but closer to fee-driven), and larger-TVL pools (e.g., USDC/SUI) with wider ranges to reduce repositioning frequency.
• Aggressive LPs: very high APR pools like CETUS and HAEDAL are tiny TVL and likely incentive-driven—expect sharp APR decay and higher volatility/exit liquidity risk.

Impermanent loss (IL) exposure (by pair type)

• Stablecoin-involved pairs (USDC/SUI, USDSUI, suiUSDT, USDB): still exposed to IL if the non-stable leg moves.
• Volatile/long-tail pairs (CETUS, WAL, HAEDAL, TRUTH): highest IL + token-specific risk; best for smaller, actively managed allocations.

APR note: Ferra’s pool APRs are explicitly last-24h-based and can swing materially day-to-day.

Ferra’s current product surface (Swap/Liquidity/Portfolio/Quests/Feeds) does not show any single-token staking, LP-token staking, lock/veToken mechanics, or auto-compounding vaults with stated APYs/lock durations.

What to do instead (passive-ish alternatives on Ferra)

• Provide liquidity in higher-capacity pools and rely on the LP fee share (79.8% of fees go to LPs).
• Target pools with visible “Mining” incentives (the Liquidity table includes a “Rewards … per day in Mining” field and an APR that incorporates boosted incentives).
• Use stablecoin-linked exposure where possible (e.g., USDSUI) to reduce volatility-driven drawdowns, acknowledging that anything paired vs SUI remains exposed to SUI price moves.

If/when Ferra adds staking/locking, the key diligence items to demand before participating are: (1) clear reward token and emissions schedule, (2) lock durations and early exit rules, (3) whether rewards are escrowed/vested, and (4) whether protocol revenue is shared with stakers.

Ferra’s main explicit incentive levers are Liquidity Mining rewards and a Points multiplier for LPs.

1) Liquidity Mining (“per day in Mining”)

On the Liquidity page, pools include a Rewards field shown as “per day in Mining”, and the displayed APR is stated to be “Estimated based on the last 24h trading activity & boosted incentives (if any).”

Concrete examples of incentive-heavy pools (high APR vs fee-only base):

• CETUS pool: 160.25% APR on $161.17 TVL (fee-only annualized base is ~66.8%, implying a large incentive component)
• HAEDAL pool: 118.03% APR on $4,520.11 TVL (fee-only base ~75.4%)
• USDC/SUI: 112.16% APR on $103,170.82 TVL with $266.17 24h fees (fee-only base ~75.0%)

2) Points system with multipliers (up to 3x)

Ferra states: “You can earn multiplier points (up to 3x) by adding liquidity.” Pools also show a “Points” column with explicit multipliers (e.g., TRUTH shows 1.5).

Practical implication: if Points are used for campaigns/eligibility, LPs can increase their “credit” per dollar by choosing pools or configurations that grant higher multipliers.

3) Quests

The navigation includes a “Quests” section, indicating structured tasks/campaigns exist in-app (useful for reward-driven activity), even though specific quest payouts/requirements are not displayed in the visible excerpts.

Below are three playbooks designed to match Ferra’s current reality: small TVL ($1.1M) with meaningful volume ($31.7M/30d) and a strong LP fee share (79.8%), plus pool-specific “Mining” boosts and LP “Points.”

🛡️ Conservative (capital preservation focus)

Target: lower volatility + steadier, fee-driven yield.
1) Prefer stablecoin-linked pools (e.g., USDSUI ~10.13% APR, ~$33.4K TVL), where the fee-only component is most of the return (~8.1% by annualizing 24h fees).
2) If using SUI pairs (e.g., USDC/SUI), use wider ranges to reduce out-of-range risk and maintenance.
Expected APY range (observed): ~8–12% (varies with fees and incentives).

⚖️ Balanced (moderate risk/reward)

Target: mix fee yield + moderate incentives.
1) Allocate across 2–3 pools: one larger pool like USDC/SUI (112.16% APR; ~$103K TVL) plus a mid-risk pool like USDB (18.92% APR; ~$57.8K TVL).
2) Rebalance monthly: rotate away if incentives fade (APR is explicitly last-24h-based).
Expected APY range (observed): ~15–40% (blended; can be higher if USDC/SUI incentives persist).

🔥 Aggressive (max yield focus)

Target: incentive capture + small-cap pools.
1) Farm the highest incentive-skew pools with tight risk limits: CETUS (160.25% APR; $161 TVL), HAEDAL (118.03% APR; $4.5K TVL), WAL (82.27% APR; $3.6K TVL).
2) Treat these as short-duration trades: enter when APR is elevated, exit when APR compresses or liquidity thins.
3) Prefer pools with Points multipliers (up to 3x) when the campaign value of Points is relevant to you.
Expected APY range (observed): ~80–160%+, with high volatility and liquidity risk.

Audits

Ferra lists 2 audits and provides audit resources at: https://docs.ferra.ag/resources/audit

The publicly visible summary does not include the audit firm names or audit dates in-line, so users should open the audit links and verify:

• contracts covered (DLMM/CLMM/DAMM engines, factories, routers)
• findings severity and whether fixes were verified
• whether deployed addresses match audited commits

Bug bounty / ongoing assurance

No bug bounty, immunefi program, or payout tiers are stated in the visible materials. In the absence of an explicit bounty, assume disclosure incentives are weaker than best-in-class programs.

On-chain maturity / track record

• Fee history: 166 days of data exists (useful as a minimum liveness signal).
• No incident history is listed here; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Impermanent loss (IL) math for top volatile pairs (50/50 AMM benchmark)

IL depends on relative price movement. For a 50/50 position, if the volatile asset moves by factor r, IL ≈ 2·√r / (1+r) − 1.

• If SUI (or a volatile token) doubles (r=2) vs the other leg: IL ≈ 5.72%
• If it triples (r=3): IL ≈ 13.40%
• If it moves 5× (r=5): IL ≈ 25.46%

Practical mapping on Ferra:

• USDC/SUI and suiUSDT: meaningful IL risk driven by SUI volatility.
• CETUS / WAL / HAEDAL / TRUTH pools: IL plus token-specific downside and thin-TVL exit risk.

Overall, “2 audits” is a positive baseline, but the lack of clearly surfaced bounty details and the small-TVL, high-APR pools warrant conservative sizing.

Ferra’s earning potential is real but uneven: LPs receive the majority of fees (79.8%), and certain pools show extremely high short-term APRs (e.g., CETUS 160.25%, USDC/SUI 112.16%), yet returns are highly incentive- and volatility-dependent and concentrated in small-TVL pools.

Top strengths

1) LP-friendly revenue split: LPs keep 79.8% of fees (protocol takes 20.2%).
2) High turnover relative to TVL: $31.7M 30d volume on $1.1M TVL supports fee generation.
3) Clear LP incentives: visible “Mining” rewards and Points multipliers (up to 3x) for adding liquidity.

Top weaknesses

1) No visible staking/locking products for passive single-asset yield.
2) APR instability: APR is explicitly based on last 24h activity and boosted incentives.
3) Liquidity concentration risk: some of the highest APR pools have very small TVL (e.g., $161), raising slippage/exit risk.

Recommendation: Best for active LPs who can monitor APR and manage IL; less attractive for set-and-forget passive income seekers.