Sushiswap

SushiSwap V3 (Katana) generates trader-paid swap fees and routes 100% of those fees to liquidity providers (LPs), with $0 protocol revenue recorded (24h, 30d, and all-time). That makes SushiSwap V3 a pure “LP-first” fee marketplace: the protocol does not currently take a measurable cut.

What LPs actually earned (recent realized take):

• 24h: $8.7K fees on $10.2M volume → ~0.085% effective fee rate (8.7K / 10.2M).
• 30d: $447.7K fees on $438.2M volume → ~0.102% effective fee rate (447.7K / 438.2M).
• LP share: 100.0% (LP Fees 24h = $8.7K).
• Protocol take rate: effectively 0% based on $0 revenue.

Fee trend signal:

• 7d fees: $80.4K → ~$11.5K/day
• 30d fees: $447.7K → ~$14.9K/day This indicates the most recent week is running below the 30-day average fee pace.

Scale context: SushiSwap V3 runs across many chains, with aggregate TVL $86.4M and 30d volume $438.2M. Fee history spans 1,022 days, which helps evaluate persistence of fee generation over time (though fee levels remain volume-dependent).

SushiSwap V3 is a concentrated-liquidity DEX; LP returns come primarily from swap fees. Across tracked pools: 84 pools, $37.2M pool TVL, 3.3% weighted average APY and 1.8% median APY. Only 2 pools show reward incentives, so most yield is “fees-only.”

Top pools (by TVL) and current yields

Risk-adjusted takeaways

• More conservative LPing (lower expected IL): pairs with tighter relative price behavior (e.g., WBTC-WETH often has smaller relative swings than alt/WETH, reflected in lower current APY of 1.1%).
• Balanced fee-farming: DAI-WETH (6.3%) / USDC-WETH (5.8%) / WETH-USDT (6.1%) have higher fee yields but carry material IL because one side is USD-stable and the other is volatile.
• Aggressive/active LPing: lower-TV L or more niche pools can have very low current APY (e.g., VCRED-USDT: 0.0%), so size alone doesn’t guarantee fees—activity does.

Concentrated liquidity can improve fee efficiency if you actively manage ranges; if you do not rebalance, realized APY can diverge sharply from displayed averages.

No on-platform single-token staking, LP token staking, or lock/veToken yield is evidenced here: there are no staking APR/APY figures, no lock durations, and no token-specific staking requirements shown in the current metrics.

What this means in practice:

• Your primary passive-income route on SushiSwap V3 is LP fee income (and, in a small minority of cases, pool incentives—only 2 of 84 pools are flagged as incentivized).
• Because protocol revenue is $0 and LP share is 100%, there is also no “protocol fee dividend” mechanism captured in these figures.

Practical alternatives if you want lower-touch yield:

• Use broad-range (less active) LP positions in deeper pools where fee generation is steadier (e.g., multi-million TVL pools like WBTC-WETH or DAI-WETH), accepting that APY is still driven by volume.
• If your goal is single-asset yield, you would need to look outside SushiSwap V3 itself (e.g., lending markets) and only use SushiSwap for swapping and LPing.

Bottom line: SushiSwap V3, as represented by these metrics, is a fee-earning DEX for LPs, not a staking hub.

Incentives are present but limited and not transparently quantifiable from the available pool snapshots.

What is clearly observable:

• Out of 84 total pools, only 2 pools are flagged as having reward incentives.
• For the largest pools listed, Reward APY is consistently shown as “N/A” and APY is entirely attributed to base (fee) APY (e.g., DAI-WETH APY 6.3% [base 6.3%, reward: N/A]; USDC-WETH APY 5.8% [base 5.8%, reward: N/A]).

What this implies for earners:

• SushiSwap V3 yield is currently dominated by organic trading fees, not liquidity mining.
• If you are specifically hunting emissions-based APR, SushiSwap V3 (in its current observed state) offers few targets—you must identify and concentrate only in the small set of incentivized pools.

No evidence of additional programs (in these notes):

• No points/season system, no trading fee rebates, no referral payouts, and no named campaigns are evidenced here.

Actionable takeaway: treat incentives as opportunistic add-ons rather than a core return driver; base your LP decisions first on fee APY, TVL, and your tolerance for impermanent loss.

🛡️ Conservative (capital preservation focus)

1) Prioritize steadier relative-price pairs where you expect smaller divergence (e.g., WBTC-WETH on Ethereum). Current APY: ~1.1% (30d avg 3.8%).
2) Use wider ranges (less management) to reduce the chance of going out-of-range; accept lower fee density.
3) Size positions in the most liquid pools (e.g., $8.3M TVL WBTC-WETH) to reduce execution/friction when rebalancing.
Expected APY range (fees): ~1%–4% depending on volume.

⚖️ Balanced (moderate risk/reward)

1) Split across 2–3 large pools with stronger recent fee yields, e.g., DAI-WETH (6.3%), WETH-USDT (6.1%), USDC-WETH (5.8%) on Ethereum.
2) Rebalance periodically: if price trends push your position out of range, fee earning can drop sharply in concentrated-liquidity AMMs.
3) Monitor 30d averages vs spot APY: USDC-WETH shows 5.8% current vs 29.3% 30d avg, signaling fee conditions can change fast.
Expected APY range (fees): ~4%–12%, with meaningful IL risk.

🔥 Aggressive (max yield focus)

1) Run tighter ranges around current price in high-activity pools (e.g., USDC-WETH / DAI-WETH) to amplify fee capture per unit of liquidity.
2) Actively manage ranges (daily/weekly) to stay in-range and compound fees.
3) Only pursue incentive farming if you can identify the 2 incentivized pools and confirm reward APR on-chain/UI; otherwise you are mostly fee-only.
Expected APY range (fees-dominant): ~6%–30%+ is possible in high-fee periods (consistent with some 30d average APYs like 29.3%), but variance and IL risk are high.

Audit status: 0 audits are recorded and no audit reports are linked. From a risk-management standpoint, this is a material gap for an on-chain exchange handling meaningful flow.

Operational maturity signals (partial positives):

• Fee history spans 1,022 days, suggesting the system has been active long enough to observe multiple market regimes.
• Multi-chain footprint is broad, but that also expands operational and deployment surface area.

Bug bounty / formal assurance:

• No bug bounty program details are evidenced here.

Impermanent loss (IL) — numeric sensitivity (50/50 LP intuition):
While SushiSwap V3 uses concentrated liquidity (which can change outcomes), a useful baseline is the standard 50/50 AMM IL sensitivity to relative price moves:

• If one asset moves +20% vs the other, IL is approximately ~0.6%.
• If one asset moves +50%, IL is approximately ~5.7%.
• If one asset doubles (+100%), IL is approximately ~13.4%. This is directly relevant to top volatile pairs such as WBTC-WETH, LINK-WETH, and SUSHI-WETH; stable/volatile pairs like USDC-WETH or DAI-WETH can experience large relative moves as ETH trends.

Bottom line: the absence of recorded audits and bounty details keeps smart-contract and deployment risk above average, even if fee history indicates long-running usage.

SushiSwap V3’s earning profile is simple: LPs capture 100% of swap fees (protocol revenue recorded as $0) with moderate average yields (weighted avg 3.3% APY, median 1.8%) and occasional spikes in high-activity pools (e.g., USDC-WETH 30d avg APY 29.3%). It is best suited to LPs who can manage concentrated-liquidity positions and accept IL.

Top 3 strengths
1) LP-first economics: 100% fee share to LPs; no measurable protocol skim.
2) Meaningful throughput: $438.2M 30d volume supports fee generation.
3) Clear, fee-driven yield: most pools’ APY is explicitly base (fee) APY with rewards largely absent (less reliance on emissions).

Top 3 weaknesses
1) Security assurance gap: 0 recorded audits and no linked reports.
2) Limited incentives: only 2 of 84 pools show reward incentives; most yield is fee-only.
3) Yield variability: recent 7d fees (~$11.5K/day) trail the 30d pace (~$14.9K/day), showing sensitivity to market activity.

One-sentence recommendation: Use SushiSwap V3 primarily for fee-based LPing in the deepest pools, and only size aggressively if you can manage ranges and tolerate IL plus unaudited-contract risk.