Thursday, 15 October, 2020
The Digital Investor
DeFi Investment Strategies: A Performance Review
In this edition of The Digital Investor, we evaluate the performance of different DeFi portfolios. We test three different approaches – hold ETH as it is the major asset that gives exposure to DeFi, buy/sell governance tokens of different DeFi platforms, and ‘earning’ governance tokens through yield farming. Within buy/sell we test three different strategies: momentum-based, rule-based, and DeFi Degen.
DeFi has been a strong driving force for the digital assets’ narrative this summer. Within DeFi there are multiple investment strategies one could adopt. We analyse the performance of different strategies in this digital investor and conclude that active buying and selling of governance tokens was the best strategy instead of just holding ether or yield farming.
In the third quarter of 2020, decentralized finance (DeFi) seized a major mind share of the cryptoasset industry. With billions of dollars on public blockchains, the intuitive next step is to generate yield through an on-chain credit system aka the blockchain banking layer. What happened in DeFi this summer is a step ahead in an experiment to transform and banking on the blockchain. DeFi is tinkering with different financial products right from borrowing and lending to derivatives. Currently, this movement is largely enabled by Ethereum blockchain as it offers compossibility needed for different money legos to interact with each other. Governance of these new money protocols is a major challenge and currently, governance token is the most popular solution. This token allows holders to vote on various proposals and entitles them to a share in profits of the protocol in some cases. Compound protocol ushered in a norm where the governance token is distributed through a mechanism called as liquidity mining wherein the protocol distributes its governance token to users based on their share of liquidity in the protocol. Tokens earned through liquidity mining can be thought of as the yield and therefore liquidity providers (LPs) are also known as yield farmers.
Yield farming activity gave way to a new investment theme in the digital asset ecosystem. Fundamentally, there were three distinct strategies to participate in this investment theme. In this article, we analyse and compare all of them. These are:
We analysed these strategies over four months from 01 June to 01 October 2020.
Three investment strategies
Figure 1 shows the different strategies we compare in this article.
The HODL ETH strategy consists of holding ETH through the four months. Buy and hold is a time-tested investment method that has worked over longer periods. We use this strategy as a benchmark to verify whether there is any merit in more actively managed strategies.
Another popular way to participate in the DeFi ecosystem is yield farming or liquidity mining as we have stated in our previous Digital Investor. A significant advantage of yield farming over the buy/sell strategy is that investors can provide liquidity in pools such ETH-stablecoin so that they are not swapping ETH or stablecoins for new tokens that are yet to prove their mettle.
Buy/Sell Governance Tokens
The buy/sell DeFi governance tokens strategy is a generic name that encompasses three different ways to trade tokens: (a) DeFi Degen, (b) Rules-based, and (c) Momentum-based buy/sell.
We considered the following tokens for these strategies: BAL (Balancer), COMP (Compound), CRV (Curve DAO Token), LEND (AAVE), SUSHI (SushiSwap), UNI (Uniswap), YAM (yam.finance) and YFI (yearn.finance). These tokens were discussed the most and were among the heavily traded within DeFi.
Comparison of three methods within Buy/sell governance token investment strategy
To start our analysis, we imagine an investor with a capital of USD 1,000. The returns for three different methods are a stunning 1978% for Rule-based investment, a mere 66% for Degen and a healthy 365% for momentum-based investment. The only reason the Degen portfolio has a 66% return is due to the UNI airdrop . Figure 2 illustrates the performance of different strategies. Note that the major difference in three different buy/sell strategies is due to the price performance of YFI. A rule-based approach would not have sold YFI to chase YAM as the former had not dropped by 30% from the peak and the latter had not risen by 50% of its listing day close. However, had the threshold been different (say 20%), the investor might have swapped YFI with YAM. Also, YAM plummeted from USD 138 to almost worthless in just over one day. A DeFi Degen would have lost the entire portfolio due to the YAM fiasco.
The return of the rule-based strategy is driven predominantly by the meteoric rise of YFI price from 0 to USD 40,000 and then settling around USD 30,000 in about 2 months.
Even though the rule-based strategy outperformed the other two, it was extremely difficult to execute. Nobody could have known that YFI would reach USD 45,000 within days after they purchased it at approximately USD 1,500. The most likely scenario is that they would have sold it for a handsome 6X within a month to chase the momentum further with other governance tokens.
While DeFi Degen (high risk) and rule-based approach (low risk) are at the two ends of the risk spectrum within buy/sell strategies, momentum-based strategy poses a moderate risk. And the momentum-based strategy was relatively easier to execute compared to the rule-based approach. If we remove the hindsight-bias, an investor was likely to chase momentum with moderate risk management. Therefore, we think that the momentum-based method best represents the buy/sell governance tokens strategy.
Portfolio performance of HODL ETH vs Momentum-based buy/sell investment strategies
When we analyse the performance of USD 1,000 invested in these two strategies, the momentum-based strategy outperforms holding ETH by approximately USD 3,100 or 310%. Each buy and sell would be conducted as a swap on UNISWAP with UNISWAP’s ERC20-ERC20 fees taken into consideration. In the simulation, these fees did not have much of an impact. But this portfolio was a recipient of the UNI airdrop. We assume if one is holding only ETH, they would not have received UNI airdrop and it makes a difference of USD 1,661 in the final portfolio value.
It is important to note that from the days that were decided to buy and sell into another DeFi token, a 24-hour deviation from that day would not have made that much of a difference except YAM. If the DeFi Degen portfolio held their YAM position for another day into August 14th during the crash, they would have an ending portfolio value in the low double digits.
HODL portfolio has a final value of USD 1,548 and while the momentum-based portfolio has a final value of USD 4,648. The Sharpe ratios of the two portfolios with bitcoin as a benchmark are 10.1 and 13.1 respectively.
While the momentum-based strategy offers a superior return compared to HODL, the strategy lost all its advantage twice versus the passive holding one. It means that to fully capture the advantage of this active strategy, the investor must be disciplined and available all the time.
Portfolio performance: HODL ETH and yield farming governance token strategies
An important consideration while yield farming is the transaction fee on Ethereum blockchain. Higher fee deters smaller yield farmers from switching liquidity from one platform to another. We estimate that the investor would have to spend USD 346 in total fee to be able to farm only four tokens.
We compare two different portfolio sizes: USD 1,000 and USD 10,000. We considered four protocols – Balancer (BAL), Compound (COMP), Yearn Finance (YFI), and Sushiswap (SUSHI).
We hypothesised that the timing to begin yield farming was vital, especially due to the dramatic increase in the price of YFI. The reason is, Yearn Finance distributed only 30,000 YFI tokens linearly within a few days. Investor’s share of liquidity would have been higher on day one as the total liquidity was only about one-fifth of its peak. Therefore, they would have earned more tokens on day one relative to other days.
As we notice in figure 5, the final portfolio value drops by a whopping 64% if YFI farming was delayed by just one day. In absolute terms, an ideal yield farming would have resulted in the final portfolio value of USD 48,011 as opposed to USD 17,267 in case of one day delay.
First of all, we want to stress that new projects were launched too quickly for anyone to thoroughly evaluate them. Participating in such projects demanded a thorough knowledge of how protocols interact with each other. For investors with relatively large capital and a good understanding of various DeFi projects, yield farming could have been fruitful. However, the investor had to remain alert all the time to generate optimal results from yield farming. It can be observed that with the constraints, buy/sell technique based on moderate risk management would have fetched the best results. The reason percentage returns drop significantly with higher capital is the UNI airdrop is worth USD 1,661 in both the cases. Calculations for adjusted-returns for all the scenarios discussed above where bitcoin was the reference suggest that DeFi Degen was the worst choice. As stated earlier if we remove the hindsight bias and assume that investor may not always be available for ideal yield farming, momentum-based buy/sell strategy, which assumes moderate risk within Buy/sell pack would have been the best choice for a portfolio.
Figure 7 (a) and 7 (b) - Summary of risk-adjusted returns
Understanding the yield and fee relationship
Understanding the yield cycle can help the investor in determining how quickly they should move their capital from one protocol to another. It starts with understanding the demand for blockspace and then establishing a relationship between yield and fee. The explosion of yield farming activity demands multiple interactions with the Ethereum blockchain and thus, demand for blockspace increased forcing the gas fees to go through the roof. For smaller yield farmers, gas fees became one of the biggest deterrents to enjoy hunting high yield from one protocol to another. You can read more about how high Ethereum gas fees could be an issue here in this PANews articlePANews articlelink1. Given the fee restriction, small farmers had to be meticulous with their farming activity.
The relation between yield and fee
Before going further, it is vital to understand where the yield comes from. In traditional finance, the yield comes from either liquidations or borrowers creating value from the loan. In DeFi the yield largely comes from the former (when the prices are not increasing all the time) and the standard over-collateralisation practice helps in ensuring yield for lenders. The investigation of the source of liquidations suggests that usually, overleveraged or small borrowers are the ones getting liquidated. Yields drop when the leverage reduces or when the small borrowers stop borrowing. The small borrowers stop borrowing when the fee becomes prohibitive for them to interact with the blockchain. Figure 7 shows the key questions one needs to ask to trace the origin of yield in DeFi systems and figure 8 shows a possible cycle through which fees have an impact on yield.
When fees are high the yields are pushed up and during such times markets are driven by frenzy. During such times investors need to move quickly. This also indicates that markets are overheated and may take a breather. This is exactly what happened during the mania phase of DeFi.
Figure 9 helps in determining where we are in the current cycle. Higher demand for Ethereum block-space during DeFi boom pushed the fees higher. The median transaction size has drastically fallen from 0.9 ETH to 0.2 ETH. However, the percentage of transactions that invoke contract calls has slightly increased suggesting that larger players are still interacting with Ethereum. Though the average fee has reduced (USD 9 to USD 2), it is orders of magnitudes higher than its long-term average (approximately USD 0.1). Further reduction in fee and more exciting projects such as Yearn Finance may be the signs to watch for the next DeFi hype cycle.
Even though our analysis is accountable to variation and could be open to challenge regarding the numbers or time frame used, it does paint a general picture of the different strategies that could have been deployed. Of course, these same strategies could produce different results depending on various time frames and assumptions. However, it does seem that an active strategy with appropriate risk management comes out on top of the passive one. Investors with larger disposable capital can take advantage of yield farming and enjoy relatively lower risk returns. However, performance from yield farming is heavily contingent upon knowledge and timing. Our observation suggests that DeFi activity has not stopped despite the correction. However, smaller investors seem to be limiting their interactions with Ethereum. This allows bigger players the time needed to carefully evaluate their options before the activity starts inching higher.
1UNI, the governance token of Uniswap DEX, was airdropped to all the addresses that had interacted with the Uniswap exchange at least once before 1 September 2020 ↵
2We verified this with a few addresses which held significant number of ETH and carried out more than 100 DeFi transactions. The avg. tx fee paid by the addresses was approximately USD 15 which is in-line with our consideration. Every time one has to conduct yield farming four different types of transactions are anticipated – approve contract (twice), deposit, stake, and withdraw. ↵
3An example of this would be - supply ETH to Compound, to borrow DAI against it, supply DAI and another asset to one of Uniswap’s liquidity pool, use the LP token to farm the latest governance token to maximise yield. Thus, 4 complex transactions are needed to farm a new token. And the process is reversed when one wishes to stop farming. ↵
Subscribe to the research newsletter and get weekly updates about the latest articles of SEBAresearch
Subscribe to newsletter↓
This document has been prepared by SEBA Bank AG (“SEBA”) in Switzerland. SEBA is a Swiss bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorized and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). This document is published solely for information purposes; it is not an advertisement nor is it a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any financial investment or to participate in any particular investment strategy. This document is for distribution only under such circumstances as may be permitted by applicable law. It is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject SEBA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction.
No representation or warranty, either express or implied, is provided in relation to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information contained in this document, except with respect to information concerning SEBA. The information is not intended to be a complete statement or summary of the financial investments, markets or developments referred to in the document. SEBA does not undertake to update or keep current the information. Any statements contained in this document attributed to a third party represent SEBA's interpretation of the data, information and/or opinions provided by that third party either publicly or through a subscription service, and such use and interpretation have not been reviewed by the third party.
Any prices stated in this document are for information purposes only and do not represent valuations for individual investments. There is no representation that any transaction can or could have been effected at those prices, and any prices do not necessarily reflect SEBA’s internal books and records or theoretical model-based valuations and may be based on certain assumptions. Different assumptions by SEBA or any other source may yield substantially different results.
Nothing in this document constitutes a representation that any investment strategy or investment is suitable or appropriate to an investor’s individual circumstances or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation. Investments involve risks, and investors should exercise prudence and their own judgment in making their investment decisions. Financial investments described in the document may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. Certain services and products are subject to legal restrictions and cannot be offered on an unrestricted basis to certain investors. Recipients are therefore asked to consult the restrictions relating to investments, products or services for further information. Furthermore, recipients may consult their legal/tax advisors should they require any clarifications. SEBA and any of its directors or employees may be entitled at any time to hold long or short positions in investments, carry out transactions involving relevant investments in the capacity of principal or agent, or provide any other services or have officers, who serve as directors, either to/for the issuer, the investment itself or to/for any company commercially or financially affiliated to such investment.
At any time, investment decisions (including whether to buy, sell or hold investments) made by SEBA and its employees may differ from or be contrary to the opinions expressed in SEBA research publications.
Some investments may not be readily realizable since the market is illiquid and therefore valuing the investment and identifying the risk to which you are exposed may be difficult to quantify. Investing in digital assets including cryptocurrencies as well as in futures and options is not suitable for every investor as there is a substantial risk of loss, and losses in excess of an initial investment may under certain circumstances occur. The value of any investment or income may go down as well as up, and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Past performance of an investment is no guarantee for its future performance. Additional information will be made available upon request. Some investments may be subject to sudden and large falls in value and on realization you may receive back less than you invested or may be required to pay more. Changes in foreign exchange rates may have an adverse effect on the price, value or income of an investment. Tax treatment depends on the individual circumstances and may be subject to change in the future.
SEBA does not provide legal or tax advice and makes no representations as to the tax treatment of assets or the investment returns thereon both in general or with reference to specific investor’s circumstances and needs. We are of necessity unable to take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situation and needs of individual investors and we would recommend that you take financial and/or tax advice as to the implications (including tax) prior to investing. Neither SEBA nor any of its directors, employees or agents accepts any liability for any loss (including investment loss) or damage arising out of the use of all or any of the Information provided in the document.
This document may not be reproduced or copies circulated without prior authority of SEBA. Unless otherwise agreed in writing SEBA expressly prohibits the distribution and transfer of this document to third parties for any reason. SEBA accepts no liability whatsoever for any claims or lawsuits from any third parties arising from the use or distribution of this document.
Research will initiate, update and cease coverage solely at the discretion of SEBA. The information contained in this document is based on numerous assumptions. Different assumptions could result in materially different results. SEBA may use research input provided by analysts employed by its affiliate B&B Analytics Private Limited, Mumbai. The analyst(s) responsible for the preparation of this document may interact with trading desk personnel, sales personnel and other parties for the purpose of gathering, applying and interpreting market information The compensation of the analyst who prepared this document is determined exclusively by SEBA.
Austria: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Austria nor is SEBA supervised by the Austrian Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht), to which this document has not been submitted for approval. France: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in France nor is SEBA supervised by French banking and financial authorities. Italy: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Italy nor is SEBA supervised by the Bank of Italy (Banca d’Italia) and the Italian Financial Markets Supervisory Authority (CONSOB - Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa), to which this document has not been submitted for approval. Germany: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Germany nor is SEBA supervised by the German Federal Financial Services Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht), to which this document has not been submitted for approval. Hong-Kong: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Hong-Kong nor is SEBA supervised by banking and financial authorities in Hong-Kong, to which this document has not been submitted for approval. This document is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in Hong-Kong where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject SEBA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. This document is under no circumstances directed to, or intended for distribution, publication to or use by, persons who are not “professional investors” within the meaning of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571 of the Laws of Hong Kong) and any rules made thereunder (the “SFO”). Netherlands: This publication has been produced by SEBA, which is not authorised to provide regulated services in the Netherlands. Portugal: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Portugal nor is SEBA supervised by the Portuguese regulators Bank of Portugal “Banco de Portugal” and Portuguese Securities Exchange Commission “Comissao do Mercado de Valores Mobiliarios”. Singapore: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in SIngapore nor is SEBA supervised by banking and financial authorities in Singapore, to which this document has not been submitted for approval. This document was provided to you as a result of a request received by SEBA from you and/or persons entitled to make the request on your behalf. Should you have received the document erroneously, SEBA asks that you kindly destroy/delete it and inform SEBA immediately. This document is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in Singapore where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject SEBA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. This document is under no circumstances directed to, or intended for distribution, publication to or use by, persons who are not accredited investors, expert investors or institutional investors as defined in section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act (Cap. 289 of Singapore) (“SFA”). UK: This document has been prepared by SEBA Bank AG (“SEBA”) in Switzerland. SEBA is a Swiss bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorized and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). This document is for your information only and is not intended as an offer, or a solicitation of an offer, to buy or sell any investment or other specific product.
SEBA is not an authorised person for purposes of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA), and accordingly, any information if deemed a financial promotion is provided only to persons in the UK reasonably believed to be of a kind to whom promotions may be communicated by an unauthorised person pursuant to an exemption under the FSMA (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the “FPO”). Such persons include: (a) persons having professional experience in matters relating to investments (“Investment Professionals”) and (b) high net worth bodies corporate, partnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts, etc. falling within Article 49 of the FPO (“High Net Worth Businesses”). High Net Worth Businesses include: (i) a corporation which has called-up share capital or net assets of at least £5 million or is a member of a group in which includes a company with called-up share capital or net assets of at least £5 million (but where the corporation has more than 20 shareholders or it is a subsidiary of a company with more than 20 shareholders, the £5 million share capital / net assets requirement is reduced to £500,000); (ii) a partnership or unincorporated association with net assets of at least £5 million and (iii) a trustee of a trust which has had gross assets (i.e. total assets held before deduction of any liabilities) of at least £10 million at any time within the year preceding the promotion. Any financial promotion information is available only to such persons, and persons of any other description in the UK may not rely on the information in it. Most of the protections provided by the UK regulatory system, and compensation under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme, will not be available.
© SEBA / Kolinplatz 15, 6300 Zug, Switzerland