Supernova (CL)

What you earn from trading activity

• LP share of swap fees: 0.0%
• Protocol take rate: 100.0%
• Fees (24h): $4.3K
• Protocol revenue (24h): $4.3K → fee capture ratio = 100% (revenue/fees)
• LP fees (24h): $0

This means liquidity providers do not earn trading fees on Supernova (CL) under the current configuration; all swap fees accrue to the protocol.

Effective fee load (realized)

While per-pool fee-tier percentages are not disclosed here, the realized fee intensity can be inferred from volume:

• 24h: $4.3K fees on $6.6M volume → ~0.065% realized fees as a share of volume.
• 30d: $252.9K fees on $615.4M volume → ~0.041% realized fees as a share of volume.

Fee trend (47 days of history)

• 7d fees: $40.3K → ~$5.76K/day
• 30d fees: $252.9K → ~$8.43K/day
• Latest 24h: $4.3K (below both the 7d and 30d daily averages)

Implication: your LP PnL is not fee-driven; it is primarily (often entirely) incentive-driven, so sustainability depends on reward emissions rather than organic trading economics.

Supernova (CL) is a concentrated liquidity market maker (CLMM) on Ethereum with $3.8M TVL across 26 pools. Reported yields are dominated by incentives: base APY is 0.0% in the listed top pools.

Top pools (ranked by TVL)

Risk-adjusted takeaways

• Most conservative LPing: stablecoin pairs (USDC-USDT, GHO-USDT) reduce price-volatility IL; returns are still incentive-dependent.
• Moderate risk: blue-chip volatile pairs like LINK-WETH (still IL-prone, but less tail-risk than smaller tokens).
• Highest risk / highest headline APY: WETH-USDT, USDC-WETH, WBTC-USDT—very high incentive APYs typically imply high emissions and frequent rebalancing needs, with meaningful risk of ending up out-of-range in CLMM.

Because LPs earn no trading fees, your only edge comes from choosing incentives that persist (watch 30d avg APY vs current APY) and managing CL ranges to limit inventory drift.

There is no documented, quantifiable staking yield (single-token staking, LP-token staking APRs, or lock-based yield rates) available here, so staking cannot be evaluated as a reliable earning route.

What can be verified:

• The app navigation includes “LOCKS” and “VOTES”, suggesting a governance/locking module exists.
• However, no lock durations, reward APR/APY, eligibility rules, or token requirements are provided in the available materials.

Practical alternative for “passive income” on Supernova (CL)

Given the current economics:

• LPing is the primary earning path, but it is not fee-based (LP share of swap fees = 0.0%).
• Most pool returns are incentive rewards (e.g., USDC-USDT reward APY 98.8%, LINK-WETH reward APY 130.9%, etc.).

What to do if you want lower-maintenance yield

• Prefer stablecoin pools (USDC-USDT, GHO-USDT) to reduce inventory swings.
• Use wider CL ranges (less management) at the cost of lower capital efficiency.
• Track 30d average APY vs current APY to avoid chasing short-lived spikes.

Until lock/vote mechanics publish concrete parameters (APR, emissions schedule, lock terms), treat Supernova earnings as LP-incentive farming rather than staking-based passive income.

Supernova’s yields are overwhelmingly driven by incentive rewards, not trading fees.

What the numbers show (incentives are the product)

• 25 of 26 pools have reward incentives.
• Weighted average APY: 7022.0%
• Median APY: 619.4%
• In major pools, APY = reward APY with base APY = 0.0% (i.e., no fee yield routed to LPs).

Concrete examples (all reward-driven):

• WETH-USDT: 36803.3% APY (reward 36803.3%, base 0.0%)
• USDC-WETH: 13082.6% APY (reward 13082.6%, base 0.0%)
• WBTC-USDT: 8007.2% APY (reward 8007.2%, base 0.0%)
• USDC-USDT (stable): 98.8% APY (reward 98.8%, base 0.0%)

Program surfaces in the product

The interface explicitly lists modules for “INCENTIVES” and “VOTES”, and includes “LIQUIDITY” as a core workflow. In practice, this aligns with the observed yield composition: rewards are the primary distribution mechanism to LPs.

How to evaluate incentive quality (actionable)

• Compare current APY vs 30d avg APY. For instance, USDC-USDT shows 98.8% current vs 40.4% 30d avg, suggesting incentives may fluctuate.
• Treat extreme APYs (e.g., >10,000%) as highly emission-sensitive; your realized return depends on reward token price stability and how long the incentives persist.

Net: incentives exist at scale, but they are also the main source of yield risk on the platform.

Below are three actionable playbooks that match Supernova’s actual payout mechanics: rewards-first LPing (since LP fee share is 0%).

🛡️ Conservative (capital preservation focus)

1) Provide liquidity to USDC-USDT (stable/stable) with a wider range for lower maintenance.
2) If you want even lower volatility exposure, consider GHO-USDT (stable/stable).
3) Re-check incentives weekly using 30d avg APY as a sanity anchor.

• Expected APY range (based on listed pools): ~5%–100% (GHO-USDT 5.9%, USDC-USDT 98.8%, with USDC-USDT 30d avg 40.4%).

⚖️ Balanced (moderate risk/reward)

1) Split capital between USDC-USDT and one blue-chip volatile pair like LINK-WETH.
2) Keep volatile CL ranges wider to reduce out-of-range risk.
3) Harvest rewards periodically and convert to your target asset to reduce reward-token price risk.

• Expected APY range: ~100%–400% (LINK-WETH 130.9%; XAUT-USDT 364.1% as another mid-range option).

🔥 Aggressive (max yield focus)

1) Target the highest incentive pools (e.g., WETH-USDT 36803.3%, USDC-WETH 13082.6%, WBTC-USDT 8007.2%).
2) Use tight CL ranges and actively rebalance; returns depend on staying in-range and emissions persistence.
3) Prefer pools where 30d avg APY remains extremely elevated (e.g., WETH-USDT 22578.8%, USDC-WETH 27346.0%)—still highly risky.

• Expected APY range: 1,000%–36,000%+ (entirely reward-driven; can compress rapidly if incentives change).

Across all profiles: because swap fees do not pay LPs, always treat rewards as the core yield driver and size positions accordingly.

Audit and assurance

• Audits: 0 (no audit firms, scopes, or dates available).
• Bug bounty: no published details available here.

On-chain/operational context that matters for earners

• Chain: Ethereum
• TVL: $3.8M (relatively small, which can increase the impact of incentive changes and liquidity migrations)
• Fee history: 47 days (short operating history in the available dataset)

Key risks specific to earning on Supernova (CL)

1) Smart contract risk (elevated): unaudited status increases tail risk for LP funds.
2) Economic design risk: LPs earn 0% of swap fees; yield relies on incentive emissions, which can be changed or discontinued.
3) CLMM liquidity management risk: concentrated positions can go out-of-range, causing your capital to sit in one asset and reducing reward efficiency.

Impermanent loss (IL) — scenario estimates (theoretical)

No pool-level IL stats are provided (7d IL is listed as N/A), so below are standard AMM IL scenario estimates for a full-range position (CL can be worse if you go out-of-range):

For a price change factor (r) (e.g., +50% ⇒ r=1.5), IL ≈ (2\sqrt{r}/(1+r) - 1).

• ±20% move (r=1.2): ~-0.4% IL
• ±50% move (r=1.5): ~-2.0% IL
• 2× move (r=2.0): ~-5.7% IL

Pairs like WETH-USDT, USDC-WETH, WBTC-USDT, WBTC-WETH are therefore exposed to meaningful IL/inventory risk, on top of emissions and contract risk.

Overall, security posture is below institutional standards until reputable audits and formal risk controls are published.

Supernova (CL) can generate outsized yields only via incentive rewards, but the platform currently routes 0% of swap fees to LPs and has no audits, so earnings are high-variance and risk-heavy.

Top 3 strengths

1) Extremely strong incentive yields: weighted average APY 7022.0%, median 619.4%.
2) Deep enough activity for its size: $615.4M 30d volume vs $3.8M TVL.
3) Multiple high-TVL pools: e.g., USDC-USDT $913.6K TVL, WBTC-USDT $601.0K, WETH-USDT $450.3K.

Top 3 weaknesses

1) LPs earn no swap fees: LP share 0.0%, protocol take 100%.
2) Unaudited contracts: 0 audits and no disclosed bug bounty.
3) Emission dependence: base APY is 0.0% in major pools; incentives can change quickly (current vs 30d avg often diverges).

One-sentence recommendation

Use Supernova (CL) only if you are explicitly farming incentives and can actively manage CL positions and risk; it is not suitable as a fee-driven, set-and-forget LP venue.

Quick-reference table