Derpdex
Derpdex swap fees contribute to the total cost of a token exchange
Derpdex swap fees cover the pool charge within an exchange, while network costs and price impact also affect the outcome. Compare the same input amount, token pair, direction, and network using quotes obtained close together. A lower fee percentage doesn't establish the cheaper exchange: the amount received and separately paid transaction charges determine that comparison.
A usable comparison needs an executable quote for the selected configuration. An old fee display cannot establish present liquidity or access. Keep quoted costs separate from settled costs, and compare only exchanges that deliver the same intended asset.
Pool charges enter the quote before network costs settle
The pool fee affects the exchange calculation, whereas a network charge pays for transaction processing. These costs have different calculation bases and payment records. Combining their percentages without identifying those bases produces a misleading total.
The fee within the exchange
The Derpdex pool implementation records a fee parameter and applies it during swap calculations. Its accounting includes the fee in the input owed for the exchange. When the quoted output already accounts for the pool fee, applying that fee again understates the expected output. Derpdex pool implementation
The charge for processing transactions
Before confirmation
A wallet's network estimate concerns the proposed transaction. Include a separate approval transaction if the exchange requires one, and distinguish an estimated charge from a maximum network fee. Neither value establishes the eventual amount paid. Compare equivalent estimates; placing one transaction's maximum beside another's expected charge exaggerates the apparent difference.
After confirmation
Use the network's actual transaction charge when reconciling costs. Gas consumption and the applicable gas price determine execution charges; network-specific accounting can include other components. The unused portion of a network fee limit isn't an expense.
Can a displayed fee establish that a swap is available?
A displayed fee cannot establish availability because the selected exchange also needs accessible contracts, compatible assets, and enough usable liquidity for its requested amount. A historical pool entry answers a narrower question than a fresh executable quote. If the interface cannot produce that quote, the comparison has no confirmed output for that path.
Treat an unavailable quote as unavailable, rather than entering a zero fee or assuming an earlier price still applies. Likewise, a swap button that opens a different service doesn't establish the fee for a Derpdex pool. Identify the actual exchange behind the quote before comparing its charges. This distinction prevents a token purchase elsewhere from becoming an accidental substitute for the intended pool comparison.
Does the lowest pool fee produce the best output?
The lowest pool fee need not produce the best output because usable liquidity and the starting exchange price also influence how much the swap returns. Concentrated liquidity makes the distribution of liquidity across prices relevant to this comparison.
Price impact is the change in an automated market maker's execution price caused by the swap itself. Liquidity available along the trade's price movement affects that change. Consequently, a lower-fee pool can return fewer tokens if its execution price is worse. That conclusion follows from comparing the complete quotes rather than ranking the fee labels alone.
For equal inputs, compare output quantities before assigning a common value to separate charges. A quote with better output has an exchange advantage, but extra network costs can outweigh it. Pool size alone doesn't resolve the question: liquidity outside the prices that the swap reaches doesn't provide the same execution depth.
Compare equal inputs without counting charges twice
A comparison should hold the requested exchange constant and count each cost once. Use the same asset identities, network, input amount, and direction. Quotes gathered at materially different market states mix changes in pricing with differences in fees.
For an isolated comparison, call the quoted outputs Q and R. Call their separate transaction charges G and H, expressed in units of the output asset using the same valuation basis. Compare Q minus G with R minus H. If Q exceeds R, the first quote retains its advantage only when that extra output exceeds its extra separate charges. This is a comparison relationship, not a live Derpdex quote.
The distinction matters when a quote already incorporates pool fees and price impact. Adding estimated values for those effects to the output shortfall counts them twice. Conversely, ignoring a separately paid approval charge makes an exchange appear cheaper than its complete preparation cost. Record the original token quantities alongside any converted values so that a changing conversion price doesn't obscure what actually changed hands.
Is slippage tolerance another swap charge?
Slippage tolerance is an execution constraint rather than a separate charge that the pool automatically collects. It describes how much deterioration a transaction may accept relative to its quote, through the limits that the chosen integration implements.
A quoted output and a minimum acceptable output therefore answer different questions. The quote estimates the exchange under the quoted conditions; the minimum defines an acceptance boundary. Comparing one path's quote with another's minimum mixes those meanings. Increasing tolerance doesn't reduce the pool fee or improve the quoted exchange rate. It permits a wider difference between the quote and acceptable execution.
Carry the selected quote through to the settled cost
Compare quotes that spend the same input amount for the same output asset. Keep those choices unchanged while checking whether the quoted path remains usable.
- Request comparable quotes for the same exchange. Stop the comparison for any path that cannot identify its output or applicable pool charge.
- Before committing, check the selected network, asset balances, required spending permission, and transaction costs. Wait for any necessary approval to settle, then refresh the comparison.
- Continue only while the available quote and its output constraint remain acceptable. Stop if changed liquidity or a changed configuration makes the intended exchange unavailable.
- After submission, resolve the transaction's status before treating another attempt as necessary. A pending transaction leaves its final cost and output unresolved. If execution reverts, include any network charge actually paid even though the swap delivers no output.
- For a completed exchange, reconcile the actual input spent, output delivered to the intended recipient, and separate transaction charges. If the output doesn't match the intended asset or recipient, investigate before repeating the exchange.
When enabled in the Derpdex pool implementation, the protocol's fee share comes out of the swap fee already calculated. It isn't an additional charge to append to that same pool fee.
Replace estimates with settled amounts in the final comparison. A successful exchange can still cost more than expected, and a better quote doesn't prove a better final outcome. For exchanges that spent equal amounts of the same input asset, the amount delivered, adjusted for separately paid charges on a consistent valuation basis, shows which completed exchange retained more value.
Derpdex swap fees FAQ
Should an approval fee paid previously count toward a new swap comparison?
A previously paid approval fee isn't a new expense for the next swap. Include it when measuring historical spending across a series of exchanges, but keep that calculation separate from the additional cost of the proposed transaction. If the selected spender needs a new approval, that new transaction belongs in the proposed exchange's cost.
Why can the fee percentage stay unchanged while the token fee increases?
An unchanged percentage produces a larger token charge when it applies to a larger amount. Keep the fee's calculation basis consistent when comparing swaps. A fee denominated in input tokens also cannot be compared directly with an output-token quantity without accounting for the exchange rate between those assets.
Does reversing the token pair make the cost comparison equivalent?
Reversing the pair creates a different exchange, so it doesn't provide an equivalent cost comparison. The input asset changes, and the trade moves through liquidity in the opposite direction. Keep the direction fixed when comparing fees for the same intended purchase; evaluate a reverse trade using its own quote.
Can a wallet's currency display change the apparent swap cost?
A currency display can change the apparent cost because it converts token quantities using a valuation rate. Different rates or valuation times can produce different displayed totals for the same token charge. Preserve the original quantities and use one valuation basis when comparing the economic cost of completed exchanges.
What happens to the cost comparison if the swap spends less input than requested?
An exchange that spends less input requires a comparison based on the amount actually exchanged. A price limit can stop pool execution before the requested amount is exhausted, depending on the transaction's constraints. Check actual input and output before comparing it with a quote that assumed the entire input would be spent.