Back to blog
Research

What Are Common Smart Contract Bugs? A Comprehensive Security Guide for 2025

Smart contracts have revolutionized the blockchain ecosystem, enabling trustless execution of agreements and powering the decentralized finance revolution. However, these self-executing programs are not immune to vulnerabilities. In fact, smart contract bugs have resulted in billions of dollars in losses, making security one of the most critical concerns in the blockchain space.
Talha Ahmad
5 min
Want Smarter Crypto Picks—Free?
See unbiased Token Metrics Ratings for BTC, ETH, and top alts.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
 No credit card | 1-click unsubscribe

Smart contracts have revolutionized the blockchain ecosystem, enabling trustless execution of agreements and powering the decentralized finance revolution. However, these self-executing programs are not immune to vulnerabilities. In fact, smart contract bugs have resulted in billions of dollars in losses, making security one of the most critical concerns in the blockchain space.

According to recent data, a staggering $2.2 billion was stolen from crypto platforms in 2024, representing over 20 percent higher losses than 2023. Understanding common smart contract bugs is essential for developers, auditors, and investors alike. This comprehensive guide explores the most critical vulnerabilities affecting smart contracts in 2025, their real-world impacts, and how to protect against them.

The Critical Importance of Smart Contract Security

Smart contracts control billions of dollars in crypto assets, making them prime targets for sophisticated attackers. Unlike traditional software, smart contracts deployed on blockchain networks are immutable—once deployed, they cannot be easily modified or patched. This permanence means that a single vulnerability can lead to devastating and irreversible financial losses.

The infamous DAO hack of 2016 exemplifies these risks. Attackers exploited a reentrancy vulnerability to drain over $60 million worth of Ether, an event so severe it led to an Ethereum hard fork and sparked ongoing debate about blockchain immutability versus security. More recently, the Cetus decentralized exchange hack in May 2025 resulted in an estimated $223 million in losses due to a missed code overflow check.

Smart contract security isn't just about protecting funds—it's about building trust, maintaining regulatory compliance, and ensuring the long-term viability of blockchain projects. As the industry matures, investors, institutions, and regulatory bodies increasingly require proof of security before engaging with blockchain platforms.

OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 for 2025

The Open Worldwide Application Security Project has developed the OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 for 2025, identifying today's leading vulnerabilities based on analysis of 149 security incidents documenting over $1.42 billion in financial losses across decentralized ecosystems. This comprehensive framework serves as the industry standard for understanding and mitigating smart contract risks.

The 2025 edition introduces updated rankings reflecting the evolving threat landscape, with notable additions including Price Oracle Manipulation and Flash Loan Attacks as distinct categories. These changes reflect the growing prevalence of DeFi exploits and demonstrate how attack vectors continue to evolve alongside blockchain technology.

1. Access Control Vulnerabilities: The Leading Threat

Access control flaws remain the leading cause of financial losses in smart contracts, accounting for a staggering $953.2 million in damages in 2024 alone. These vulnerabilities occur when permission checks are improperly implemented, allowing unauthorized users to access or modify critical functions or data.

Understanding Access Control Failures

Access control vulnerabilities arise from poorly implemented permissions and role-based access controls that allow attackers to gain unauthorized control over smart contracts. Common issues include improperly configured onlyOwner modifiers, lack of proper role-based access control, and exposed admin functions.

The 88mph Function Initialization Bug provides a stark example, where attackers successfully reinitialized contracts to gain administrative privileges. This pattern of unauthorized admin actions has repeatedly proven to be the number one cause of smart contract hacks.

Protection Strategies

Developers should implement robust authorization mechanisms by verifying the sender of messages to restrict access to sensitive functions. Follow the principle of least privilege by using Solidity's state variable and function visibility specifiers to assign minimum necessary visibility levels. Regular security audits specifically focused on access control patterns are essential.

Never assume that functions will only be called by authorized parties—always implement explicit checks. Consider using established frameworks like OpenZeppelin's AccessControl for standardized, battle-tested permission management.

2. Logic Errors: The Silent Killers

Logic errors represent the second most critical vulnerability category, causing $63.8 million in losses during 2024. These flaws in business logic or miscalculations in smart contracts can be exploited for financial gain or cause unexpected behavior that undermines contract functionality.

The Nature of Logic Flaws

Logic errors, often called Business Logic Flaws, don't always present obvious security risks but can be exploited for economic gains through mechanisms like faulty reward distribution, incorrect fee calculations, and improper handling of edge cases. The vulnerability has climbed from position seven to position three in the 2025 rankings, reflecting an increase in sophisticated attacks targeting contract logic rather than code-level bugs.

Security isn't just about preventing obvious bugs—it's about ensuring contracts behave exactly as expected under all circumstances, including rare edge cases. A notable example is the SIR.trading DeFi protocol attack in March 2025, where logic flaws resulted in the theft of approximately $355,000.

Mitigation Approaches

Developers should thoroughly test all contract code, including every combination of business logic, verifying that observed behavior exactly matches intended behavior in each scenario. Consider using both manual code reviews and automated analysis tools to examine contract code for possible business logic errors.

Implement comprehensive unit tests covering normal operations, edge cases, and potential attack vectors. Use formal verification techniques when dealing with critical financial logic. Document all assumptions and expected behaviors clearly to facilitate review and testing.

3. Reentrancy Attacks: The Classic Vulnerability

Reentrancy attacks exploit a contract's ability to call external functions before completing its own state updates, resulting in $35.7 million in losses during 2024. This classic vulnerability gained infamy through the DAO hack and continues to plague smart contracts today.

How Reentrancy Attacks Work

Reentrancy attacks exploit coding vulnerabilities that enable external contracts to reenter functions before updating contract states. When smart contracts make external calls to other contracts before updating their own states, they face exposure to this vulnerability.

External contracts can exploit this weakness to perform repeated actions such as withdrawals, draining accounts of funds. The name "reentrancy" describes how external malicious contracts call back functions on vulnerable contracts and "re-enter" code execution at arbitrary locations.

Real-World Impact

From a historical perspective, reentrancy remains one of the most destructive attack vectors in Solidity smart contracts. The vulnerability has led to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses over recent years. ERC-777 tokens, which allow transaction notifications sent to recipients as callbacks, have been particularly vulnerable to reentrancy exploits.

Defense Mechanisms

Complete all state changes before calling external contracts—this simple principle eliminates most reentrancy vulnerabilities. Use function modifiers to prevent reentry, such as OpenZeppelin's ReentrancyGuard, which provides a robust, tested solution.

Implement the checks-effects-interactions pattern: perform all checks first, update all state variables second, and only then interact with external contracts. Consider using mutex locks for functions that must not be called recursively.

4. Flash Loan Attacks: Exploiting DeFi Mechanics

Flash loans allow users to borrow funds without collateral within a single transaction but can be exploited to manipulate markets or drain liquidity pools, causing $33.8 million in losses during 2024. While flash loans aren't technically a bug but rather a feature, attackers have learned to abuse them effectively.

Understanding Flash Loan Exploitation

Flash loan attacks involve borrowers obtaining large amounts of assets without collateral and manipulating DeFi protocols within a single transaction before repaying the loan. Attackers use these borrowed funds to manipulate pricing mechanisms, drain liquidity pools, and exploit market imbalances.

This vulnerability has become increasingly trendy over the past two years, with countless exploits targeting protocols that rely heavily on external price feeds. The attacks typically combine flash loans with other vulnerabilities to amplify their impact.

Protection Methods

DeFi protocols must implement robust price oracle mechanisms that cannot be easily manipulated within a single transaction. Use time-weighted average prices from multiple sources rather than spot prices. Implement transaction limits and anomaly detection systems.

Consider using decentralized oracle networks like Chainlink that aggregate data from multiple sources. Add circuit breakers that pause contracts when unusual trading patterns are detected. Design economic models that make flash loan attacks unprofitable even if technically possible.

5. Integer Overflow and Underflow

Integer overflow and underflow vulnerabilities occur when smart contract hackers introduce values falling outside the integer range allowed by a contract's defined fixed-size data types. This vulnerability, characteristic of blockchain virtual machines like Ethereum Virtual Machine, has historically caused significant losses.

The Mechanics of Overflow Attacks

Overflows exceed maximum values while underflows fall below minimum values. If the integer is signed, overflow yields the maximum negative value, while for unsigned integers, underflow yields the maximum value. These conditions allow attackers to increase account and token amounts, make excessive withdrawals, or alter contract logic for purposes like multiplying tokens or stealing funds.

Modern Protections

Use Solidity compiler version 0.8.0 or higher, which automatically checks for overflows and underflows, providing built-in protection. For contracts compiled with earlier versions, check functions involving arithmetic operations or use a library like SafeMath to validate operations.

The Cetus decentralized exchange hack in May 2025, which cost an estimated $223 million, resulted from a missed code overflow check, demonstrating that even with modern protections, careful attention to arithmetic operations remains essential.

6. Unchecked External Calls

Smart contracts often interact with untrusted contracts, and failing to check return values can lead to silent failures or unintended execution, resulting in $550,700 in losses during 2024. This vulnerability has climbed from position ten to position six in 2025 rankings.

The Danger of Silent Failures

When contracts fail to verify the success of external calls, they risk proceeding with incorrect assumptions about transaction outcomes, leading to inconsistencies or exploitation by malicious actors. If you don't validate external calls, attackers will exploit them.

Validation Requirements

Always check return values from external contract calls. Use require statements to verify that calls succeeded before proceeding with subsequent logic. Consider using try-catch blocks for more sophisticated error handling in Solidity 0.6.0 and later.

Ensure calls are only made to trusted contracts when possible. Implement circuit breakers that can pause contract functionality if external dependencies fail unexpectedly. Document all external dependencies and their expected behaviors.

7. Lack of Input Validation

Insufficient input validation resulted in $14.6 million in losses during 2024. This vulnerability allows attackers to provide unexpected or malicious inputs that cause contracts to behave incorrectly.

Common Input Validation Failures

Contracts must validate all inputs including function parameters, external data, and user-provided addresses. Failure to do so can result in division by zero errors, unauthorized access, incorrect calculations, and manipulation of contract state.

Validation Best Practices

Implement comprehensive input validation at the entry point of every function. Use require statements to verify that inputs fall within expected ranges, formats, and types. Validate addresses to ensure they are not zero addresses or blacklisted addresses.

Consider using modifiers for common validation patterns to ensure consistency across your codebase. Document all input requirements and expected ranges clearly. Test extensively with edge cases and unexpected inputs.

8. Price Oracle Manipulation

DeFi protocols heavily rely on oracles, and manipulating price feeds can cause massive financial losses through flash loan exploits, price distortions, and market manipulation, causing $8.8 million in documented losses in 2024.

Oracle Vulnerabilities

Price oracle manipulation has been added to the OWASP Top 10 for 2025 due to increasing exploit frequency. Attackers manipulate Uniswap TWAPs, Chainlink Oracles, and custom price feeds to drain liquidity pools and execute profitable arbitrage at the expense of protocols and users.

Oracle Security Measures

Use multiple independent price sources and implement sanity checks on price data. Avoid relying solely on on-chain DEX prices that can be manipulated within single transactions. Implement price deviation thresholds that trigger alerts or pause trading.

Consider using Chainlink Price Feeds or other decentralized oracle networks that aggregate data from multiple sources. Add time delays between price updates and critical operations. Monitor for unusual price movements and implement automatic circuit breakers.

9. Denial of Service Vulnerabilities

Smart contracts, like any online service, are vulnerable to DoS attacks. By overloading services such as authentication mechanisms, attackers can block other contracts from executing or generate unexpected contract reverts.

DoS Attack Vectors

DoS attacks can result in auction results or values used in financial transactions being manipulated to the attacker's advantage. Attackers may force contracts into states where they cannot process transactions or deliberately cause transactions to fail repeatedly.

DoS Prevention

Make DoS attacks costly for attackers through gas fees, time-lock puzzles, and rate limiting mechanisms. Ensure calls are only made to trusted contracts to reduce the likelihood of DoS attacks causing serious problems. Implement pull payment patterns rather than push payments to prevent malicious recipients from blocking distributions.

The Ethereum Improvement Proposal 7907 upgrade approved in April 2025 helps prevent contracts from falling victim to DoS attacks through improved gas metering, demonstrating ongoing ecosystem-level improvements in this area.

10. Randomness Vulnerabilities

Blockchain's deterministic nature makes generating secure randomness challenging. Predictable randomness can compromise lotteries, token distributions, NFT reveals, and other functionalities relying on random outcomes.

The Randomness Problem

On-chain randomness sources like block hashes, timestamps, and transaction data can be predicted or manipulated by miners and sophisticated actors. Relying on these sources for critical randomness needs creates exploitable vulnerabilities.

Secure Randomness Solutions

Use Chainlink VRF (Verifiable Random Function) or similar oracle-based randomness solutions that provide cryptographically secure and verifiable random numbers. Never rely solely on block hashes or timestamps for important random number generation.

For lower-stakes applications, consider commit-reveal schemes where users submit hashed values before revealing them. Implement proper waiting periods between commitment and revelation to prevent manipulation.

Leveraging Token Metrics for Smart Contract Security

As blockchain security becomes increasingly complex, investors and developers need sophisticated tools to evaluate smart contract risks. Token Metrics, a leading AI-powered crypto analytics platform, provides crucial insights for assessing project security and making informed investment decisions.

Comprehensive Smart Contract Analysis

Token Metrics helps users spot winning tokens early with powerful AI analytics, but beyond identifying opportunities, the platform evaluates fundamental security indicators that distinguish robust projects from vulnerable ones. The platform's Investor Grade scoring system incorporates code quality assessments, helping users identify projects with superior technical foundations.

Token Metrics assigns each token both a Trader Grade for short-term potential and an Investor Grade for long-term viability. The Investor Grade specifically considers technical factors including code quality, development activity, and security audit status—critical indicators of smart contract robustness.

AI-Driven Risk Assessment

Token Metrics leverages machine learning and data-driven models to deliver powerful, actionable insights across the digital asset ecosystem. The platform monitors thousands of projects continuously, tracking code updates, audit reports, and security incidents that might indicate smart contract vulnerabilities.

By analyzing development patterns, commit frequency, and team responsiveness to identified issues, Token Metrics helps investors avoid projects with poor security practices. The platform's real-time alerts notify users about significant code changes, audit failures, or security incidents that could affect their holdings.

Research and Educational Resources

Token Metrics provides personalized crypto research and predictions powered by AI, including detailed project analysis that often highlights security considerations. The platform's research team publishes regular updates on emerging threats, best practices, and security trends in the smart contract space.

Through Token Metrics' comprehensive dashboard, users can access information about project audits, known vulnerabilities, and historical security incidents. This transparency helps investors make risk-aware decisions rather than relying solely on marketing promises.

Integration with Security Standards

Token Metrics evaluates projects against industry security standards, considering whether teams have conducted professional audits, implemented bug bounty programs, and followed best practices in smart contract development. Projects demonstrating strong security commitments receive recognition in Token Metrics' rating system.

The platform's trading feature launched in 2025 ensures users can not only identify secure projects but also execute trades seamlessly, creating an end-to-end solution for security-conscious crypto investors.

Smart Contract Auditing Tools and Practices

Professional security audits have become essential for any serious blockchain project. Multiple specialized tools and services help developers identify vulnerabilities before deployment.

Leading Audit Tools

Slither stands out as one of the most comprehensive static analysis tools, offering robust API for scripting custom analyzers with low false-positive rates. The tool can analyze contracts created with Solidity compiler version 0.4 or higher, covering a broad collection of existing contracts. Slither discovers vulnerabilities including reentrancy issues, state variables without initialization, and code optimizations leading to higher gas fees.

Mythril employs symbolic execution and dynamic analysis to detect security vulnerabilities, providing detailed reports about potential issues. The tool performs thorough analysis combining static analysis, dynamic analysis, and symbolic execution techniques.

Echidna provides property-based fuzzing, challenging smart contracts with unexpected inputs to ensure they behave as intended under various conditions. This fuzzing approach discovers edge cases that manual testing might miss.

Professional Audit Services

According to industry data, over $1.8 billion was lost to DeFi hacks in 2023 alone, mostly due to smart contract vulnerabilities. This has driven demand for professional auditing firms that provide human expertise alongside automated tools.

Top auditing companies in 2025 blend automated analysis with manual code review, penetration testing, attack simulations, fuzz testing, and governance risk assessments. This multi-layered approach uncovers deeper vulnerabilities that automated tools alone might miss.

Best Practices for Security

Developers should document smart contract vulnerabilities and mistakes that others have made to avoid repeating them. Maintain a list of effective security practices followed by leading organizations, including keeping as much code off-chain as possible, writing small functions, splitting logic through multiple contracts, and creating thorough documentation.

Set up internal security teams that frequently audit source code for bugs, ensuring no exploitable issues exist. After performing audits, implement bug bounty programs where ethical hackers receive compensation for reporting vulnerabilities, providing an additional security layer.

The Future of Smart Contract Security

As blockchain technology matures, so do the methods employed by attackers seeking to exploit vulnerabilities. The smart contract security landscape continues evolving rapidly, with new attack vectors emerging as quickly as defenses improve.

AI and Machine Learning in Security

Looking ahead, advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning promise even more sophisticated auditing tools offering deeper insights and more accurate assessments. AI-powered tools for predictive analysis and anomaly detection are gaining prominence, helping developers preemptively address potential security threats.

Token Metrics exemplifies this trend, using AI to analyze vast datasets of blockchain transactions, code repositories, and security incidents to identify patterns that might indicate vulnerabilities. This proactive approach helps investors and developers stay ahead of emerging threats.

Regulatory Evolution

Smart contract security increasingly intersects with regulatory compliance. As governments worldwide develop frameworks for digital assets, security standards are becoming more formalized. Projects must not only build secure contracts but also demonstrate compliance with evolving regulations.

Community-Driven Security

The open-source nature of blockchain enables collective security improvements. Communities increasingly share vulnerability discoveries, audit reports, and security best practices. This collaborative approach accelerates identification and remediation of common vulnerabilities across the ecosystem.

Conclusion: Security as a Continuous Process

Smart contract security is not a one-time checkbox but an ongoing commitment requiring vigilance, expertise, and the right tools. The vulnerabilities discussed in this guide—from access control failures to oracle manipulation—represent critical risks that have caused billions in losses.

Understanding these common bugs is the first step toward building more secure blockchain applications. Developers must implement defensive programming practices, utilize comprehensive auditing tools, and engage professional security firms before deploying contracts controlling significant value.

For investors, platforms like Token Metrics provide essential tools for evaluating project security and making informed decisions in an increasingly complex landscape. By combining AI-driven analytics with comprehensive project assessment, Token Metrics helps users identify projects with robust security foundations while avoiding those with critical vulnerabilities.

The future of blockchain depends on security. As the industry continues to mature, projects that prioritize security from the start—through proper development practices, comprehensive auditing, and continuous monitoring—will build the trust necessary for mainstream adoption. Whether you're developing smart contracts or investing in blockchain projects, understanding and addressing these common vulnerabilities is essential for success in the evolving world of decentralized finance.

Stay informed, stay secure, and leverage the best tools available to navigate the exciting but challenging landscape of smart contract development and blockchain investment in 2025 and beyond.

Build Smarter Crypto Apps &
AI Agents in Minutes, Not Months
Real-time prices, trading signals, and on-chain insights all from one powerful API.
Grab a Free API Key
About Token Metrics
Token Metrics: AI-powered crypto research and ratings platform. We help investors make smarter decisions with unbiased Token Metrics Ratings, on-chain analytics, and editor-curated “Top 10” guides. Our platform distills thousands of data points into clear scores, trends, and alerts you can act on.
30 Employees
analysts, data scientists, and crypto engineers
Daily Briefings
concise market insights and “Top Picks”
Transparent & Compliant
Sponsored ≠ Ratings; research remains independent
Want Smarter Crypto Picks—Free?
See unbiased Token Metrics Ratings for BTC, ETH, and top alts.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
 No credit card | 1-click unsubscribe
Token Metrics Team
Token Metrics Team

Recent Posts

Research

Best Liquid Restaking Tokens & Aggregators (2025)

Token Metrics Team
17 min read

Who this guide is for. Investors and builders comparing best liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) and aggregators to earn ETH staking + restaking rewards with on-chain liquidity.

Top three picks.

  • ether.fi (eETH/weETH): Non-custodial, deep integrations, clear docs. (ether.fi)
  • Renzo (ezETH): Multi-stack (EigenLayer + Symbiotic/Jito), transparent 10% rewards fee. (docs.renzoprotocol.com)
  • Kelp DAO (rsETH): Broad DeFi reach; explicit fee policy for direct ETH deposits. (kelp.gitbook.io)

One key caveat. Fees, redemption paths, and regional access vary by protocol—check official docs and terms before depositing.


Introduction

Liquid restaking lets you restake staked assets (most often ETH) to secure Actively Validated Services (AVSs) while receiving a liquid restaking token you can use across DeFi. The value prop in 2025: stack base staking yield + restaking rewards, with composability for lending, LPing, and hedging. In this commercial-investigational guide, we compare the best liquid restaking tokens and the top aggregators that route deposits across operators/AVSs, with an emphasis on verifiable fees, security posture, and redemption flow. We weigh scale and liquidity against risk controls and documentation quality to help you pick a fit for your region, risk tolerance, and toolstack.


How We Picked (Methodology & Scoring)

  • Liquidity — 30%: On-chain depth, integrations, and redemption mechanics.
  • Security — 25%: Audits, docs, risk disclosures, validator design.
  • Coverage — 15%: AVS breadth, multi-stack support (EigenLayer/Symbiotic/Jito), asset options.
  • Costs — 15%: Transparent fee schedules and user economics.
  • UX — 10%: Clarity of flows, dashboards, and docs.
  • Support — 5%: Status pages, help docs, comms.

Evidence sources: official websites, docs, pricing/fees and security pages, and status/terms pages; third-party datasets used only to cross-check volumes. Last updated November 2025.


Best Liquid Restaking Tokens & Aggregators in November 2025 (Comparison Table)  

* Regions are “Global” unless a provider geoblocks specific jurisdictions in their terms. Always verify eligibility in your country.


Top 10 Liquid Restaking Tokens & Aggregators in November 2025

1. ether.fi — Best for deep integrations & non-custodial design

Why use it: ether.fi’s eETH/weETH are widely integrated across DeFi, and the project publishes clear technical docs on protocol fees and validator design. Liquid Vaults add strategy optionality while keeping restaking accessible. (ether.fi)
Best for: DeFi power users, liquidity seekers, builders needing broad integrations.
Notable features: Non-custodial staking; restaking support; Liquid Vaults; documentation and terms around protocol fees. (etherfi.gitbook.io)
Fees Notes: Protocol fee on rewards; vault-level fees vary by strategy. (etherfi.gitbook.io)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You want deep liquidity and docs; always review fee tables and redemption queues.
Alternatives: Renzo, Kelp DAO.  


2. Renzo — Best for multi-stack coverage (EigenLayer + Symbiotic/Jito)

Why use it: Renzo’s ezETH is among the most recognizable LRTs and the docs clearly state a 10% rewards fee, while the app highlights support beyond EigenLayer (e.g., Symbiotic/Jito lines). Strong multichain UX. (docs.renzoprotocol.com)
Best for: Users wanting straightforward economics and chain-abstracted access.
Notable features: Clear fee policy (10% of restaking rewards); multi-stack support; app UX across chains. (docs.renzoprotocol.com)
Fees Notes: 10% of restaking rewards; details in docs. (docs.renzoprotocol.com)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You prefer transparent fees and broader stack exposure.
Alternatives: ether.fi, Mellow.  


3. Kelp DAO — Best for broad DeFi distribution (rsETH)

Why use it: Kelp emphasizes reach (rsETH used across many venues). Official docs state a 10% fee on rewards for direct ETH deposits, with no fee on LST deposits, making it friendly to LST holders. (kelpdao.xyz)
Best for: LST holders, LPs, and integrators.
Notable features: rsETH liquid token; LST and ETH deposit routes; active integrations. (kelpdao.xyz)
Fees Notes: 10% on ETH-deposit rewards; no fee on LST deposits per docs. (kelp.gitbook.io)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You want flexibility between ETH and LST deposit paths.
Alternatives: Renzo, Swell.  


4. Puffer — Best for redemption optionality (pufETH)

Why use it: Puffer’s docs explain how AVS fees accrue to pufETH and outline operator/guardian roles. Public risk work notes an “immediate redemption” option with a fee when liquidity is available, plus queued exit. (docs.puffer.fi)
Best for: Users wanting explicit redemption choices and a technical spec.
Notable features: pufETH nLRT; operator/guardian model; based L2 plans. (Puffer: Building the Future of Ethereum)
Fees Notes: AVS/operator fees accrue; immediate redemption may incur a fee. (docs.puffer.fi)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You value documented mechanics and redemption flexibility.
Alternatives: ether.fi, Bedrock.


5. Swell — Best for restaking-native ecosystem (rswETH)

Why use it: Swell’s rswETH is their native LRT for EigenLayer; launch comms detailed fee-holiday parameters and security posture. Swellchain materials emphasize restaking-first ecosystem tooling. (swellnetwork.io)
Best for: DeFi users who want a restaking-centric stack.
Notable features: rswETH; ecosystem focus; audits referenced in launch post. (swellnetwork.io)
Fees Notes: Historical launch promo; check current fee schedule in app/docs. (swellnetwork.io)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You want an LRT aligned with a restaking-native L2 vision.
Alternatives: Kelp DAO, Renzo.


6. Bedrock — Best for institutional-grade infra (uniETH)

Why use it: Bedrock’s uniETH is a non-rebasing, value-accrual LRT with a published fee policy (10% on block/MEV rewards) and EigenLayer alignment. Docs are explicit about token mechanics. (docs.bedrock.technology)
Best for: Institutions and users who prefer clear token economics.
Notable features: uniETH; docs and audits repository; multi-asset roadmap. (docs.bedrock.technology)
Fees Notes: 10% commission on block/MEV rewards; restaking commission TBD via governance. (docs.bedrock.technology)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You want explicit fee language and non-rebasing accounting.
Alternatives: Puffer, ether.fi.


7. YieldNest — Best for curated basket exposure (ynETH)

Why use it: Docs describe ynETH as an nLRT with a curated basket of AVS categories, plus a protocol model where a fee is taken from staking/restaking rewards. MAX vaults and DAO governance are outlined. (docs.yieldnest.finance)
Best for: Users who want diversified AVS exposure through one token.
Notable features: ynETH; MAX vaults (ynETHx); governance/fee transparency. (docs.yieldnest.finance)
Fees Notes: Protocol fee on staking/restaking rewards per docs. (docs.yieldnest.finance)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You prefer basket-style AVS diversification.
Alternatives: Mellow, Renzo.


8. Mellow Protocol — Best for strategy vaults with explicit fees (strETH)

Why use it: Mellow provides strategy vaults for restaking with clear fee terms: 1% platform + 10% performance baked into vault accounting, and visible TVL. (mellow.finance)
Best for: Users who want managed strategies with transparent fee splits.
Notable features: Curated strategy vaults; institutional risk curators; TVL transparency. (mellow.finance)
Fees Notes: 1% platform fee (pro-rated) + 10% performance fee. (docs.mellow.finance)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You value explicit, vault-level fee logic.
Alternatives: YieldNest, InceptionLRT.


9. InceptionLRT — Best for native + LST restaking routes

Why use it: Inception exposes native ETH and LST restaking paths, with branded vault tokens (e.g., inETH) and Symbiotic integrations for certain routes. Site and app pages outline flows. (inceptionlrt.com)
Best for: Users wanting both native and LST restake options from one dashboard.
Notable features: Native ETH restake; LST restake; app-based delegation flows. (inceptionlrt.com)
Fees Notes: Fees vary by vault/route; review app/docs before deposit. (inceptionlrt.com)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You want flexible inputs (ETH or LST) with aggregator UX.
Alternatives: Mellow, YieldNest.


10. Restake Finance — Best for modular LRT approach (rstETH)

Why use it: Project messaging emphasizes a modular liquid restaking design focused on EigenLayer with rstETH as its token. Governance-driven roadmap and LRT utility are core themes. (MEXC)
Best for: Early adopters exploring modular LRT architectures.
Notable features: rstETH LRT; DAO governance; EigenLayer focus. (MEXC)
Fees Notes: Fees/policies per official materials; review before use. (MEXC)
Regions: Global*
Consider if: You want a DAO-led modular LRT approach.
Alternatives: Renzo, Bedrock.


Decision Guide: Best By Use Case


How to Choose the Right Liquid Restaking Token (Checklist)

  • Region eligibility: Confirm geoblocks/terms for your country.
  • Asset coverage: ETH only or multi-asset; LST deposits supported.
  • Fee transparency: Rewards/performance/platform fees clearly stated.
  • Redemption path: Immediate exit fee vs. queue, and typical timing.
  • Security posture: Audits, docs, risk disclosures, operator set.
  • Integrations: Lending/DEX/LP venues for liquidity management.
  • Stack choice: EigenLayer only or Symbiotic/Jito as well.
  • UX/docs: Clear FAQs, step-by-step flows, status/terms.
  • Support: Help center or community channels with updates.
    Red flags: Opaque fee language; no docs on withdrawals; no audits or terms.

Use Token Metrics With Any LRT

  • AI Ratings to screen assets and venues by quality and momentum.

  

  • Narrative Detection to catch early shifts in restaking themes.

  

  • Portfolio Optimization to balance exposure across LRTs vs. LSTs.
  • Alerts & Signals to time rebalances and exits.
    Workflow: Research → Select provider → Execute on-chain → Monitor with alerts.
    Prefer diversified exposure? Explore Token Metrics Indices.

Security & Compliance Tips

  • Use verified URLs and signed fronts; bookmark dApps.
  • Understand redemption mechanics (instant vs. queue) and fees. (LlamaRisk)
  • Read fee pages before deposit; some charge on rewards, others on performance/platform. (docs.renzoprotocol.com)
  • Review audits/risk docs where available; check operator design.
  • If LPing LRT/ETH, monitor depeg risk and oracle choice.
  • Avoid approvals you don’t need; regularly revoke stale allowances.
  • Confirm region eligibility and tax implications.
    This article is for research/education, not financial advice.

Beginner Mistakes to Avoid

  • Treating LRTs like 1:1 ETH with zero risk.
  • Ignoring withdrawal queues and exit windows.
  • Chasing points/boosts without reading fee docs.
  • LPing volatile LRT pairs without hedge.
  • Overconcentrating in one operator/AVS route.
  • Skipping protocol terms or assuming U.S. access by default.

How We Picked (Methodology & Scoring)

We scored each provider using the weights above, focusing on official fee pages, docs, and security materials. We shortlisted ~20 projects and selected 10 with the strongest mix of liquidity, disclosures, and fit for this category. Freshness verified November 2025 via official resources.


FAQs

What is a liquid restaking token (LRT)?
 An LRT is a liquid receipt for restaked assets (usually ETH) that accrues base staking plus AVS restaking rewards and can be used across DeFi.

Are LRTs safe?
 They carry smart-contract, operator, and AVS risks in addition to staking risks. Read audits, fee pages, and redemption docs before depositing.

What fees should I expect?
 Common models include a percent of rewards (e.g., 10% at Renzo) or platform + performance fees (e.g., 1% + 10% at Mellow). Always check the latest official docs. (docs.renzoprotocol.com)

What’s the difference between EigenLayer vs. Symbiotic/Jito routes?
 They’re different restaking stacks and AVS ecosystems. Some providers support multiple stacks to diversify coverage. (docs.renzoprotocol.com)

How do redemptions work?
 Most use queued exits; some offer instant liquidity with a fee when available (e.g., Puffer). Review the protocol’s redemption section. (LlamaRisk)

Can U.S. users access these protocols?
 Terms vary by protocol and may change. Always check the provider’s website and terms for your jurisdiction.


Conclusion + Related Reads

If you want liquidity + integrations, start with ether.fi or Renzo. Prefer explicit fee logic in a managed strategy? Look at Mellow. Want basket exposure? Consider YieldNest. For redemption flexibility, Puffer stands out. Match the fee model, stack coverage, and redemption flow to your risk and liquidity needs.

Related Reads:

Research

Top AMM Concentrated Crypto Liquidity Managers (2025)

Token Metrics Team
16 min read

Who this guide is for: DeFi liquidity providers seeking automated management of concentrated liquidity positions on AMMs like Uniswap v3, v4, and other CLAMMs (Concentrated Liquidity Automated Market Makers).

Top three picks:

  • Gamma Strategies — Best for multi-chain automated vault strategies with proven track record
  • Arrakis Finance — Best for institutional-grade liquidity management and token launch support
  • Steer Protocol — Best for off-chain compute and cross-chain strategy deployment

Key caveat: Concentrated liquidity managers cannot eliminate impermanent loss; they optimize range management to maximize fee generation, but market volatility can still result in divergence loss. Always verify supported chains and fee structures before depositing.

Introduction: Why AMM Concentrated Liquidity Managers Matter in November 2025

Concentrated liquidity has transformed DeFi capital efficiency since Uniswap v3's 2021 launch, allowing liquidity providers to concentrate capital within specific price ranges for higher fee generation. However, managing these positions requires active monitoring, frequent rebalancing, and sophisticated strategies to remain in-range and profitable—a challenge for most LPs.

AMM concentrated liquidity managers are protocols that automate the complex task of managing concentrated liquidity positions across decentralized exchanges. These platforms use algorithmic strategies to rebalance ranges, compound fees, and optimize capital deployment, transforming concentrated liquidity from an active management burden into a passive income opportunity.

With Uniswap v4's January 2025 launch introducing hooks and new customization capabilities, the concentrated liquidity management landscape has expanded dramatically. LPs now need solutions that can navigate multiple AMMs, chains, and strategy types while maximizing returns and minimizing risks like impermanent loss and out-of-range periods.

This guide evaluates the leading concentrated liquidity managers serving retail LPs, DAOs, and protocols in 2025, helping you select platforms that align with your risk tolerance, capital requirements, and yield objectives.

How We Picked (Methodology & Scoring)

We evaluated 20+ concentrated liquidity management platforms and selected the top 10 based on weighted criteria:

  • Liquidity Under Management — 30%: Total value locked (TVL) and managed positions across chains
  • Security & Track Record — 25%: Audit history, operational history, security incidents
  • Strategy Diversity — 15%: Range of automated strategies and customization options
  • Chain & Protocol Coverage — 15%: Supported blockchains and DEX integrations
  • Fees & Transparency — 10%: Performance fees, withdrawal fees, and cost clarity
  • UX & Accessibility — 5%: Interface quality, documentation, and ease of use

Data sources: Official protocol documentation, pricing pages, security audit reports, blockchain explorers, and TVL data from DefiLlama (cross-checked only; not linked in article body).

Last updated: November 2025

Best AMM Concentrated Liquidity Managers in November 2025 (Comparison Table)

Top 10 AMM Concentrated Liquidity Managers in November 2025

1. Gamma Strategies — Best for Multi-Chain Automated Vaults

Why Use It

Gamma Strategies operates as the most established concentrated liquidity manager with over four years of production history since March 2021. Their Hypervisor vault system automatically rebalances positions, compounds fees, and manages ranges across 20+ blockchains and multiple AMM protocols. Gamma's non-custodial approach means LPs retain control while benefiting from algorithmic management that maximizes capital efficiency and fee generation.

Best For

  • Multi-chain liquidity providers seeking diversified exposure
  • DAOs and protocols requiring active liquidity management
  • LPs wanting automated fee compounding without manual intervention
  • Users preferring ERC-20 LP tokens over NFT positions

Notable Features

  • Hypervisor smart contracts with automated rebalancing
  • Supports dual-position and multi-position strategies (up to 20 positions on Uniswap v4)
  • ERC-20 LP tokens for composability in DeFi
  • Integration with major DEXs including Uniswap v3/v4, QuickSwap, Thena, Beamswap
  • GAMMA token staking for fee-sharing

Consider If: Supported on 20+ chains but fee structures vary by pool; verify specific pool performance fees before depositing. Some pools charge 10-15% of generated fees.

Regions: Global; no geographic restrictions

Alternatives: Arrakis Finance, Steer Protocol

2. Arrakis Finance — Best for Institutional Liquidity Management

Why Use It

Arrakis Finance delivers MEV-aware onchain market making specifically designed for token issuers and institutional liquidity providers. Their Arrakis Pro service offers white-glove liquidity management with strategic templates including Bootstrap for TGE, Flagship for mature projects, and Treasury Diversification for passive accumulation. Arrakis has become the go-to solution for protocols like ether.fi, Euler, and Stargate seeking professional-grade liquidity infrastructure.

Best For

  • Token launch teams needing TGE liquidity support
  • Protocols managing protocol-owned liquidity (POL)
  • Institutional LPs requiring custom strategy execution
  • Projects seeking multi-DEX liquidity deployment

Notable Features

  • Four strategy templates: Bootstrap, Flagship, Treasury Diversification, Custom
  • Multi-DEX support (Uniswap v3/v4, PancakeSwap v3, and others)
  • MEV-aware rebalancing algorithms
  • Modules for concentrated liquidity across chains
  • Enterprise-grade support and customization

Consider If: Primarily targets institutional clients; retail LPs may find Arrakis V1 (older version) more accessible than Arrakis Pro. Performance fees vary and often involve revenue-sharing arrangements.

Fees Notes: Enterprise pricing; contact for specific fee structures

Regions: Global; primarily serves protocols and DAOs

Alternatives: Gamma Strategies, Steer Protocol

3. Steer Protocol — Best for Off-Chain Compute Strategies

Why Use It

Steer Protocol distinguishes itself through decentralized off-chain computation that enables sophisticated strategy execution without on-chain gas overhead. Supporting 17+ chains and over 90% of concentrated liquidity AMMs, Steer provides automated range management using strategies like Elastic Expansion (Bollinger Bands), Moving Volatility Channel (Keltner), and Static Stable for pegged assets. Their infrastructure powers liquidity automation for platforms like QuickSwap, Taiko, and Kinetic.

Best For

  • LPs seeking advanced technical analysis-based strategies
  • Cross-chain liquidity providers
  • Projects requiring custom liquidity shapes and automation
  • Users wanting minimal gas costs for strategy execution

Notable Features

  • Off-chain compute protocol reducing on-chain execution costs
  • Support for TypeScript, Rust, and Go strategy development
  • Multiple strategy families: Static Stable, Classic Rebalance, Volatility Channel, Elastic Expansion
  • Integration with 90%+ of CLAMMs
  • White-label infrastructure for protocols

Consider If: Strategy complexity may require more sophisticated understanding; best for LPs comfortable with advanced AMM concepts.

Fees Notes: Varies by strategy and deployment; network fees apply

Regions: Global; no restrictions

Alternatives: DefiEdge, Gamma Strategies

4. ICHI — Best for Single-Sided Deposits

Why Use It

ICHI's Yield IQ vaults revolutionize concentrated liquidity provision by accepting single-token deposits, eliminating the need for LPs to hold both sides of a trading pair. Using algorithmic strategies that maintain an 80:20 ratio, ICHI enables users to earn concentrated liquidity fees while effectively holding a single asset. Their Angel Vaults create buy-side liquidity that supports price stability for project tokens.

Best For

  • LPs wanting single-token exposure without impermanent loss on both sides
  • Projects seeking buy-side liquidity support
  • Long-term holders wanting to earn yield without selling tokens
  • DAOs managing treasury diversification

Notable Features

  • Single-sided liquidity deposits (Angel Vaults and HODL Vaults)
  • Automated rebalancing with Chainlink Keepers
  • 80:20 asset ratio maintenance
  • Support for 15+ AMMs across 10+ networks
  • Integration with concentrated liquidity incentive programs

Consider If: 80:20 rebalancing means you'll still experience some token ratio changes; not pure single-asset exposure. Best for those comfortable with managed rebalancing.

Fees Notes: Varies by vault; performance fees typically 5-10% of yields

Regions: Global; available on multiple L1s and L2s

Alternatives: DefiEdge, Gamma Strategies

5. Beefy Finance CLM — Best for Yield Optimizer Integration

Why Use It

Beefy's Concentrated Liquidity Manager (CLM) extends their proven auto-compounding infrastructure to concentrated liquidity pools, providing automated range management integrated with Beefy's broader yield optimization ecosystem. Their "Cow Token" system converts non-fungible CL positions into fungible ERC-20 tokens while maximizing capital utilization through strategies that keep positions in-range and fully active.

Best For

  • Existing Beefy users expanding into concentrated liquidity
  • LPs seeking integrated yield farming and CLM
  • Multi-chain passive investors
  • Users wanting fungible CL position tokens

Notable Features

  • Integration with Beefy's yield optimizer ecosystem
  • Supports 15+ chains including BSC, Arbitrum, Polygon, Base, Avalanche
  • Narrow and wide range strategies
  • ERC-20 "Cow Tokens" for fungible CL positions
  • Automatic fee compounding

Consider If: 9.5% harvest fee is higher than some competitors; suitable for long-term holders where compounding benefits outweigh fees.

Fees Notes: 9.5% performance fee on harvest; 0.5% to strategist; variable harvest call fee

Regions: Global; multi-chain support

Alternatives: Gamma Strategies, A51 Finance

6. DefiEdge — Best for Strategy Marketplace

Why Use It

DefiEdge creates a permissionless layer over concentrated liquidity AMMs where strategy managers can deploy custom strategies supporting up to 20 price ranges and built-in limit orders. This marketplace approach allows LPs to select from community-created strategies or deploy their own, providing unprecedented flexibility in concentrated liquidity management.

Best For

  • Advanced LPs wanting custom multi-range strategies
  • Strategy managers seeking to monetize their expertise
  • Users requiring limit order functionality
  • Projects needing tailored liquidity deployment

Notable Features

  • Support for up to 20 simultaneous price ranges
  • Built-in limit order functionality
  • Permissionless strategy creation marketplace
  • Real-time position monitoring interface
  • Automatic integration with incentive protocols like Merkl

Consider If: More complex than single-strategy platforms; requires evaluating individual strategy manager performance.

Fees Notes: Varies by strategy manager; typically 5-15% performance fees

Regions: Global; primarily Ethereum, Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum

Alternatives: A51 Finance, Gamma Strategies

7. Bunni — Best for Uniswap v4 Innovation

Why Use It

Bunni emerged as the leading Uniswap v4 hook implementation, using programmable Liquidity Density Functions (LDFs) to create custom liquidity shapes within concentrated ranges. Their Shapeshifting feature dynamically adjusts positions, while MEV protection through am-AMM auctions and Surge Fees recaptures value that would otherwise go to arbitrageurs. Bunni also rehypothecates idle capital to Aave and Yearn for additional yield.

Best For

  • Early adopters of Uniswap v4 infrastructure
  • LPs seeking MEV-protected concentrated liquidity
  • Advanced users wanting programmable liquidity shapes
  • Projects requiring dynamic fee structures

Notable Features

  • Liquidity Density Functions for custom liquidity distribution
  • Shapeshifting for dynamic position adjustment
  • MEV protection via am-AMM mechanism and dynamic fees
  • Rehypothecation to Aave/Yearn for additional yield
  • Auto-compounding of fees and rewards

Consider If: Currently Ethereum-focused with Uniswap v4; may expand to other chains. Newer platform compared to established players like Gamma.

Fees Notes: Dynamic fees based on volatility and strategy; typical range 5-20% of yields

Regions: Global; Ethereum mainnet

Alternatives: Gamma Strategies (Uniswap v4 support), Arrakis Finance

8. Revert Finance — Best for Analytics-First Management

Why Use It

Revert Finance combines powerful analytics tools with automated management features, enabling LPs to backtest strategies, analyze top-performing positions, and then deploy automation like Auto-Range (automatic rebalancing) and Auto-Exit (stop-loss protection). Their Initiator tool allows LPs to simulate historical performance before committing capital, making Revert ideal for data-driven liquidity providers.

Best For

  • Analytical LPs wanting to backtest before deploying
  • Users seeking automated stop-loss protection (Auto-Exit)
  • LPs wanting to copy successful positions
  • Investors prioritizing transparency and performance tracking

Notable Features

  • Comprehensive analytics suite with backtesting
  • Auto-Range for automated rebalancing
  • Auto-Exit for stop-loss automation
  • Position management tools (add/withdraw/claim)
  • Top Positions discovery for copying successful strategies

Consider If: Automation features (Auto-Range/Exit) charge 0.25% per operation; may not trigger if gas costs exceed fees. Best for larger positions.

Fees Notes: 2% auto-compound fee; 0.25% per auto-operation (Range/Exit); 0.65% swap fee

Regions: Global; Ethereum, Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum

Alternatives: Gamma Strategies, Steer Protocol

9. A51 Finance — Best for Strategy Customization

Why Use It

A51 Finance (formerly Unipilot) offers autonomous liquidity provisioning with highly customizable parameters including market modes (Bull, Bear, Dynamic, Static), rebasing strategies, and liquidity distribution patterns. Supporting Uniswap v3/v4 and expanding to StarkNet, A51 empowers LPs to design advanced strategies using hooks while addressing loss-versus-rebalancing (LVR) through sophisticated hedging mechanisms.

Best For

  • Advanced LPs wanting full strategy customization
  • Multi-chain liquidity providers (EVM + StarkNet)
  • Users requiring market-mode specific strategies
  • Projects needing flexible liquidity allocation

Notable Features

  • Market mode selection: Bull, Bear, Dynamic, Static
  • Customizable rebasing and exit preferences
  • Multiple liquidity distribution options (exponential, flat, single-tick)
  • Hedging through borrowing and options
  • Support for Uniswap v4 hooks

Consider If: Complexity requires deeper understanding of concentrated liquidity mechanics; best for experienced LPs.

Fees Notes: Varies by strategy; typically performance-based

Regions: Global; EVM chains and StarkNet

Alternatives: DefiEdge, Steer Protocol

10. Mellow Protocol — Best for Institutional Vaults

Why Use It

Mellow Protocol provides infrastructure for institutional-grade vaults with sophisticated curator models where professional risk managers and funds deploy strategies on behalf of LPs. While their focus has shifted toward broader vault infrastructure, Mellow's ALM toolkit remains integrated with Aerodrome and Velodrome, offering optimized range management with automated reward harvesting on SuperChain DEXs.

Best For

  • Institutional LPs seeking professional management
  • Aerodrome and Velodrome liquidity providers
  • Users wanting curator-managed strategies
  • Projects requiring compliance-ready vault infrastructure

Notable Features

  • Institutional-grade vault infrastructure
  • Integration with Aerodrome/Velodrome on Base and Optimism
  • Curator marketplace with professional risk management
  • Automated reward harvesting and compounding
  • Audited by ChainSecurity and BlockSec

Consider If: Less focused on pure CLM compared to dedicated platforms; best for users seeking broader DeFi yield strategies including staking and lending.

Fees Notes: Varies by curator and vault; typically 10-20% performance fees

Regions: Global; primarily Ethereum, Optimism, Base, Arbitrum

Alternatives: Arrakis Finance, Gamma Strategies

Decision Guide: Best By Use Case

  • Best for Multi-Chain Coverage → Gamma Strategies, Steer Protocol
  • Best for Token Launches (TGE) → Arrakis Finance, ICHI (Angel Vaults)
  • Best for Single-Sided Deposits → ICHI
  • Best for Lowest Management Fees → Revert Finance (for analytics + selective automation)
  • Best for Uniswap v4 Hooks → Bunni, Gamma Strategies
  • Best for Analytics & Backtesting → Revert Finance
  • Best for Institutional Management → Arrakis Finance, Mellow Protocol
  • Best for Strategy Customization → A51 Finance, DefiEdge
  • Best for BSC & Multi-Chain Yield → Beefy Finance CLM
  • Best for Aerodrome/Velodrome on SuperChain → Mellow Protocol, Steer Protocol

How to Choose the Right Concentrated Liquidity Manager (Checklist)

Before selecting a CLM platform, verify:

  • Chain Compatibility — Confirm the platform supports your target blockchain and DEX
  • Strategy Alignment — Match strategy types (narrow/wide range, stable pairs, volatile pairs) to your goals
  • Fee Structure Transparency — Understand performance fees, harvest fees, and withdrawal costs
  • Track Record & TVL — Check operational history, total value managed, and security incidents
  • Audit Status — Verify smart contracts have been audited by reputable firms
  • Token Pairs Supported — Confirm your desired liquidity pools are available
  • Rebalancing Frequency — Understand how often positions are rebalanced and gas cost implications
  • Exit Flexibility — Check withdrawal timeframes, fees, and liquidity availability
  • Performance Metrics — Review historical APRs accounting for impermanent loss
  • Composability Needs — If using LP tokens elsewhere, verify ERC-20 support vs. NFTs

Red Flags:

  • 🚩 No audits or anonymous teams without established track record
  • 🚩 Unclear fee structures or hidden withdrawal penalties
  • 🚩 Very high performance fees (>20%) without justified value-add
  • 🚩 Limited chain support if you need multi-chain exposure

Use Token Metrics With Any Concentrated Liquidity Manager

Token Metrics complements your concentrated liquidity strategy by providing:

AI Ratings — Screen tokens for quality and momentum before selecting trading pairs for liquidity provision

Narrative Detection — Identify emerging DeFi themes early to position liquidity in high-growth sectors

Portfolio Optimization — Balance concentrated liquidity positions across chains and risk profiles

Alerts & Signals — Time liquidity entries and exits based on technical and on-chain indicators

  

Workflow Example:

  1. Research → Use Token Metrics AI to identify high-quality token pairs
  2. Select CLM → Choose appropriate concentrated liquidity manager based on chain and strategy
  3. Deploy → Provide liquidity through automated vault or custom range
  4. Monitor → Track performance with Token Metrics alerts for rebalancing or exit signals

Start free trial to screen assets and optimize your concentrated liquidity strategy with AI-powered insights.

Security & Compliance Tips

Protect Your Concentrated Liquidity Positions:

  • Verify Contract Addresses — Always confirm official contract addresses on protocol documentation before depositing; bookmark official sites
  • Check Audit Reports — Review smart contract audits from firms like Consensys, ChainSecurity, Hydn, or BlockSec before using new platforms
  • Start Small — Test new CLM platforms with modest capital before committing significant liquidity
  • Monitor Phishing — Be wary of fake CLM interfaces; never share seed phrases or sign suspicious transactions
  • Understand Permissions — Review what approvals you're granting; consider using revoke.cash to audit token approvals
  • Track IL Exposure — Concentrated liquidity amplifies impermanent loss; monitor positions regularly and understand divergence loss implications
  • Diversify CLM Providers — Don't concentrate all liquidity with a single manager; spread risk across multiple audited platforms
  • Check Rebalancing Limits — Understand if CLMs have daily rebalancing limits or gas thresholds that might delay adjustments
  • Verify Withdrawal Process — Test small withdrawals to ensure liquidity is accessible and fees match expectations
  • Stay Informed — Follow CLM protocol announcements for security updates, parameter changes, or migration requirements

This article is for research and educational purposes only, not financial advice. Always conduct your own due diligence and consider consulting with financial advisors before providing liquidity.

Beginner Mistakes to Avoid

  • Ignoring Impermanent Loss — CLMs optimize fee generation but cannot eliminate IL; highly volatile pairs will still result in divergence loss
  • Chasing High APRs Without Context — Displayed APRs often exclude impermanent loss and may reflect short-term incentives, not sustainable yields
  • Not Understanding Fee Structures — Performance fees compound over time; a 15% fee on yields can significantly impact long-term returns
  • Depositing Without Strategy Alignment — Narrow ranges earn higher fees but require more active management; ensure strategy matches your risk tolerance
  • Overlooking Gas Costs — Rebalancing and compounding operations cost gas; on Ethereum mainnet, frequent rebalancing may erode returns for small positions
  • Assuming "Set and Forget" — While automated, CLM positions require periodic review; market regime changes may necessitate strategy adjustments
  • Not Tracking Net Performance — Always calculate returns vs. simply holding tokens; CLM fees + IL may underperform holding in ranging markets
  • Concentrating in Illiquid Pairs — Low-volume pairs may have insufficient fee generation to cover management costs and rebalancing slippage

FAQs

What is a concentrated liquidity manager?

A concentrated liquidity manager (CLM) is a DeFi protocol that automates the management of concentrated liquidity positions on AMMs like Uniswap v3. CLMs handle range selection, rebalancing, fee compounding, and position optimization, converting active liquidity provision into a passive strategy. They typically provide ERC-20 LP tokens representing managed positions, making them composable across DeFi.

Are concentrated liquidity managers safe?

Security varies by platform. Established CLMs like Gamma Strategies, Arrakis, and Steer have multiple audits and years of operational history without major exploits. However, smart contract risk always exists; never deposit more than you can afford to lose, and prioritize audited platforms with proven track records. Review audit reports and monitor protocol security updates.

What fees do concentrated liquidity managers charge?

Most CLMs charge performance fees ranging from 5-15% of generated yields. Some add harvest fees (like Beefy's 9.5%), automation fees (Revert's 0.25% per operation), or swap fees for rebalancing. Always review the specific fee structure before depositing, as fees compound over time and can significantly impact net returns.

Which chains support concentrated liquidity managers?

Major CLMs support Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base. Gamma Strategies leads with 20+ chains including BSC, Avalanche, Fantom, and newer L2s. Steer Protocol supports 17+ chains with 90%+ CLAMM coverage. Always verify your target chain is supported before selecting a CLM platform.

Can I use concentrated liquidity managers on mobile?

Most CLMs offer web interfaces compatible with mobile wallets like MetaMask Mobile, Coinbase Wallet, or WalletConnect. However, complex features like strategy backtesting (Revert) or custom position building may be better suited for desktop. Core functions like depositing, withdrawing, and monitoring positions work well on mobile.

Do CLMs work with Uniswap v4?

Yes. Gamma Strategies, Bunni, and A51 Finance support Uniswap v4, which launched in January 2025. Bunni is the leading v4 hook implementation, offering advanced features like Liquidity Density Functions. Arrakis is also developing v4 modules. Expect more CLMs to add v4 support as the protocol matures.

How do CLMs handle impermanent loss?

CLMs cannot eliminate impermanent loss—they optimize range management to maximize fee generation that can offset IL. Some platforms (Bunni, ICHI) offer specific strategies to mitigate IL through MEV protection or single-sided deposits, but divergence loss remains inherent to providing liquidity in volatile pairs.

What's the difference between CLMs and regular yield optimizers?

Regular yield optimizers (like Beefy for Uniswap v2) auto-compound rewards from liquidity mining programs. CLMs specifically manage concentrated liquidity positions, handling range selection and rebalancing. Some platforms (Beefy CLM) combine both, offering concentrated liquidity management integrated with yield optimization.

Conclusion + Related Reads

Concentrated liquidity managers have matured into essential DeFi infrastructure, transforming active LP strategies into accessible passive income opportunities. For multi-chain diversification and proven track record, Gamma Strategies remains the industry standard. Token launch teams and protocols requiring institutional-grade management should consider Arrakis Finance, while those seeking cutting-edge Uniswap v4 features can explore Bunni. LPs prioritizing single-sided deposits will find ICHI most suitable, and analytics-focused investors should evaluate Revert Finance.

Remember that no CLM eliminates impermanent loss—they optimize for fee generation and capital efficiency. Always verify fee structures, audit status, and supported chains before deploying capital. Start with smaller positions to understand platform mechanics and performance before scaling up.

Related Reads:

Research

Best Crypto Liquidity Management & Market-Making Tools (2025)

Token Metrics Team
13 min read

Who this guide is for. Token teams, exchanges, funds, and DAOs comparing liquidity management and market-making tools to tighten spreads, balance inventories, and support healthy markets.

Top three picks.

  1. Flowdesk — compliance-first platform + MMaaS across 140+ venues. (flowdesk.co)
  2. Keyrock — full-stack liquidity (MM, OTC, LP mgmt, NFTs). (Keyrock)
  3. Wintermute — leading algorithmic liquidity partner across CeFi/DeFi. (wintermute.com)

One key caveat. Fees and engagement models vary widely (retainer, inventory loan/call, performance); confirm scope, reporting, and legal terms before signing. (flowdesk.co)

Introduction: Why Crypto Liquidity Management & Market-Making Tools Matter in November 2025

In crypto, liquidity management and market-making tools keep order books tight, reduce slippage, and stabilize price discovery across centralized and decentralized venues. The primary keyword here is liquidity management and market-making tools, and the right stack blends execution algorithms, risk controls, analytics, and clear reporting so projects can support listings and users can trade efficiently.

In 2025, onchain liquidity is increasingly concentrated and active on AMMs while institutions expect 24/7 coverage and API connectivity across spot, perps, and options. Mature providers now offer compliance-forward processes, automated vaults for concentrated liquidity, and multi-venue execution with transparent documentation. This guide ranks ten credible options, explains trade-offs (costs, custody, venues), and gives you a practical checklist to choose confidently.

Best Crypto Liquidity Management & Market-Making Tools in November 2025 (Comparison Table)

Evidence for venue coverage and capabilities appears in provider sections below.

Top 10 Crypto Liquidity Management & Market-Making Tools in November 2025

1. Flowdesk — Best for compliance-first MMaaS at global scale

Why Use It. Flowdesk runs a compliance-first market-making and OTC platform with proprietary execution algos and integrations across 140+ centralized and decentralized exchanges, suitable for token issuers that need unified coverage and reporting. (flowdesk.co)
Best For. Token issuers; exchanges; DAOs with multi-venue liquidity needs; teams prioritizing compliance.
Notable Features. Low-latency infrastructure; MMaaS with 24/7 teams; 140+ venue connectivity; internal policies & compliance center. (flowdesk.co)
Consider If. You want documented models (retainer vs loan/call) and clear KPIs before engagement. (flowdesk.co)
Fees Notes. Custom; contract-based; network/exchange fees apply.
Regions. Global; subject to local licensing and restrictions (France DASP registration referenced on site). (flowdesk.co)
Alternatives. Keyrock; GSR.

  

2. Keyrock — Best for full-stack liquidity (MM, OTC, LP, NFTs)

Why Use It. Keyrock delivers market making, OTC trading, treasury solutions, and liquidity pool management for token issuers and venues; it also offers NFT liquidity and publishes security awareness and terms. (Keyrock)
Best For. Issuers needing both CeFi and DeFi coverage; platforms adding NFT or LP liquidity.
Notable Features. Liquidity pool management; OTC/options; NFT liquidity; research/insights. (Keyrock)
Consider If. You want a single counterparty handling MM + LP mgmt with documented terms. (Keyrock)
Fees Notes. Custom; scope-based; network/exchange fees may apply.
Regions. Global; services subject to applicable laws and platform eligibility.
Alternatives. Flowdesk; Wintermute.

  

3. Wintermute — Best for algorithmic crypto liquidity at scale

Why Use It. Wintermute is a leading algorithmic trading firm and liquidity partner that supports efficient markets across centralized and decentralized venues, with a broader ventures arm for strategic projects. (wintermute.com)
Best For. Larger token issuers and institutions that want deep, programmatic liquidity and breadth of venues.
Notable Features. Algorithmic MM; OTC; venture support; expanding US presence. (fnlondon.com)
Consider If. You need institutional processes and policy engagement in the US market. (fnlondon.com)
Fees Notes. Custom; inventory/retainer structures typical.
Regions. Global.
Alternatives. GSR; FalconX.

  

4. GSR — Best for crypto liquidity + risk management depth

Why Use It. GSR offers market-making and risk management across spot and derivatives, working with exchanges, token issuers, and institutions; it publishes regular research and insights. (gsr.io)
Best For. Issuers seeking experienced MM with derivatives coverage and institutional process.
Notable Features. Trading + market making services; exchange connectivity; research hub. (gsr.io)
Consider If. You need structured reporting and risk frameworks across venues.
Fees Notes. Custom; scope-based; exchange/network fees apply.
Regions. Global.
Alternatives. Wintermute; Flowdesk.

5. FalconX — Best prime brokerage + deep crypto liquidity access

Why Use It. FalconX is a prime broker with $2T+ executed and access to 400+ tokens, offering unified spot/derivs/FX execution, OTC, and APIs (WebSocket/FIX/REST). (falconx.io)
Best For. Institutions wanting a single counterparty with RFQ, streaming, and FIX integration.
Notable Features. Deep liquidity pool; algorithmic/TWAP tools; ETF issuer liquidity support; Talos integrations. (falconx.io)
Consider If. You want prime services plus execution algos rather than a pure MM retainer.
Fees Notes. Custom; execution- and volume-based; venue/network fees apply.
Regions. Global (token availability may vary). (falconx.io)
Alternatives. Cumberland; GSR.

6. Cumberland (DRW) — Best for institutional OTC and options

Why Use It. A DRW subsidiary active since 2014 in digital assets, Cumberland provides 24/7 institutional liquidity across spot, listed derivatives, bilateral options, and NDFs, with relationship coverage. (cumberland.io)
Best For. Institutions needing OTC block liquidity and derivatives structures.
Notable Features. OTC/RFQ; BTC/ETH options; futures basis; DRW backing. (cumberland.io)
Consider If. You need large, bespoke trades and derivatives hedging under institutional processes.
Fees Notes. Custom; RFQ spreads/commissions; venue/network fees apply.
Regions. Global, subject to applicable regulations.
Alternatives. FalconX; Wintermute.

7. Auros — Best for HFT-driven market-making with bespoke design

Why Use It. Auros combines high-frequency trading and strategic market making across CeFi and DeFi with bespoke OTC and transparency-oriented reporting for token stability. (Auros)
Best For. Projects seeking a partner for token launch support and stability across venues.
Notable Features. HFT + MM stack; CeFi/DeFi coverage; insights & reporting. (Auros)
Consider If. You want tailored strategies and comms during volatility.
Fees Notes. Custom; scope-based; network/venue fees apply.
Regions. Global.
Alternatives. Kairon Labs; GSR.

8. Kairon Labs — Best issuer-focused market-making + advisory

Why Use It. Kairon Labs provides algorithmic market making, liquidity provision, partnerships, and advisory for issuers, with educational content on MM models (designated vs principal). (kaironlabs.com)
Best For. Small–mid cap issuers needing hands-on guidance plus execution.
Notable Features. Issuer-centric services; partnerships support; model education. (kaironlabs.com)
Consider If. You want advisory plus MM under one roof.
Fees Notes. Custom; scope-based; exchange/network fees apply.
Regions. Global.
Alternatives. Auros; Flowdesk.

9. Hummingbot — Best open-source framework for DIY market making

Why Use It. Hummingbot is an open-source Python framework to run automated strategies on any CEX/DEX, with built-in templates for pure market making and perpetual MM and extensive docs. (hummingbot.org)
Best For. Developers, quant hobbyists, and small desks wanting DIY automation.
Notable Features. Strategy library; Docker/API quickstarts; Miner rewards marketplace. (hummingbot.org)
Consider If. You accept self-hosting and operational overhead instead of a service contract.
Fees Notes. Software is free; trading/withdrawal/network fees still apply.
Regions. Global (open-source).
Alternatives. Arrakis (for LP vaults); Keyrock (for managed LP).

10. Arrakis Finance — Best for automated onchain LP management (Uni v3 & more)

Why Use It. Arrakis provides automated LP vaults and Arrakis Pro strategies for token issuers to manage concentrated liquidity with rebalancing and inventory targeting. (arrakis.finance)
Best For. Projects prioritizing DeFi AMM depth and capital efficiency on Uniswap v3-style DEXs.
Notable Features. Ongoing inventory management; automated rebalancing; issuer-specific vault programs. (arrakis.finance)
Consider If. You need onchain, non-custodial liquidity programs over CeFi MM retainers.
Fees Notes. Protocol/vault fees; gas costs on supported chains.
Regions. Global (onchain).
Alternatives. Hummingbot (DIY); GSR (CeFi/MM).

Decision Guide: Best By Use Case

  • Regulated, compliance-first MMaaS: Flowdesk. (flowdesk.co)
  • One-stop liquidity incl. NFTs & LP mgmt: Keyrock. (Keyrock)
  • Algorithmic MM at institutional scale: Wintermute or GSR. (wintermute.com)
  • Prime brokerage + FIX/WebSocket execution: FalconX. (falconx.io)
  • OTC blocks + options structures: Cumberland (DRW). (cumberland.io)
  • Launch support with HFT expertise: Auros. (Auros)
  • Issuer-centric MM + advisory: Kairon Labs. (kaironlabs.com)
  • DIY automation (open-source): Hummingbot. (hummingbot.org)
  • Onchain concentrated liquidity programs: Arrakis Finance. (arrakis.finance)

How to Choose the Right Crypto Liquidity Management & Market-Making Tool (Checklist)

  • Region eligibility & licensing: Confirm provider registrations and legal terms in your jurisdictions.
  • Venue coverage: CeFi exchanges, perps venues, and DeFi AMMs you actually need.
  • Inventory model: Retainer vs. inventory loan/call; required collateral and risks. (flowdesk.co)
  • Execution stack: APIs (FIX/WebSocket/REST), algos, latency, and monitoring. (falconx.io)
  • Onchain LP management: If DeFi-first, evaluate vault design, rebalancing, and transparency. (arrakis.finance)
  • Reporting & SLAs: Daily/weekly liquidity KPIs, spread targets, uptime, incident process.
  • Security & compliance: Insider-trading controls, conflict-of-interest policies, audits/policies page. (flowdesk.co)
  • Costs & fees: Understand spread capture, performance fees, platform fees, and gas.
  • Offboarding plan: Access to accounts, revocation of keys, vault migrations, and documentation.

Red flags: No written terms, vague reporting, or inability to name supported venues.

Use Token Metrics With Any Crypto Liquidity Provider

  • AI Ratings to screen assets by quality and momentum before listings.

  

  • Narrative Detection to catch early theme shifts that can impact liquidity.
  • Portfolio Optimization to size inventory across chains and LPs.
  • Alerts & Signals to time entries/exits and rebalance LP ranges.

Workflow: Research in Token Metrics → Select provider → Execute on-chain/CeFi → Monitor with alerts.


Start free trial to screen assets and time entries with AI.

  

Security & Compliance Tips

  • Prefer partners that publish policies/compliance pages and name registrations. (flowdesk.co)
  • Segregate exchange accounts and use least-privilege API keys; rotate regularly.
  • For DeFi vaults, verify non-custodial design, fee schedules, and admin controls. (arrakis.finance)
  • Confirm reporting cadence (inventory, spreads, volume, venue list).
  • Use official domains and channels to avoid impersonation. (Keyrock)
  • Understand engagement models (retainer vs loan/call) and associated risks. (flowdesk.co)

This article is for research/education, not financial advice.

Beginner Mistakes to Avoid

  • Signing without clear KPIs (spread, depth, venue list).
  • Ignoring region restrictions or licensing.
  • Overlooking DeFi vault mechanics (rebalance rules, fees, inventories). (arrakis.finance)
  • Mixing treasury and MM wallets without operational controls.
  • Choosing CeFi-only when you need AMM depth (or vice versa).
  • Underestimating implementation: APIs, custody, exchange listings, oracle feeds.

How We Picked (Methodology & Scoring)

We scored each provider using the following weights:

  • Liquidity — 30% (depth, spreads, execution venues)
  • Security — 25% (controls, disclosures, compliance posture)
  • Coverage — 15% (CeFi/DeFi, spot/derivs, chain support)
  • Costs — 15% (fee clarity, model fit, onchain costs)
  • UX — 10% (integration, tooling, reporting)
  • Support — 5% (24/7 coverage, responsiveness)

Data sources: official product, docs, pricing/terms, security/policies, and status pages; reputable market datasets used only to cross-check scale and venues. Last updated November 2025.

FAQs

What are liquidity management and market-making tools?
 Software platforms and service providers that supply bids/asks, balance inventory, and manage onchain liquidity so markets remain liquid with tighter spreads and lower slippage (CeFi and DeFi).

Are managed market makers or DIY bots safer?
 Managed providers handle execution, risk, and reporting under contracts; DIY bots like Hummingbot provide control but require operational expertise and monitoring. Choose based on team capacity and risk tolerance. (hummingbot.org)

How do providers charge?
 Common models include retainers, inventory loan/call structures, execution fees/spreads, and protocol/vault fees on DeFi. Clarify model, caps, and KPI targets before engagement. (flowdesk.co)

Can I combine CeFi MM with DeFi vaults?
 Yes. Many issuers use a CeFi MM for order books plus an onchain LP manager (e.g., Arrakis) for AMM depth, with shared reporting and risk limits. (arrakis.finance)

Do these tools work in the US/EU/APAC?
 Most providers are global but subject to local regulations, listings, and counterparty restrictions. Check each provider’s terms/compliance pages and confirm venue eligibility. (flowdesk.co)

Conclusion + Related Reads

If you want compliance-centric, multi-venue coverage, start with Flowdesk or Keyrock. For institutional scale, add Wintermute or GSR. If you need prime services and execution, consider FalconX or Cumberland. For DIY or onchain-first, evaluate Hummingbot and Arrakis.

Related Reads (Token Metrics):

Choose from Platinum, Gold, and Silver packages
Reach with 25–30% open rates and 0.5–1% CTR
Craft your own custom ad—from banners to tailored copy
Perfect for Crypto Exchanges, SaaS Tools, DeFi, and AI Products