Impermanent loss is the most important concept in LP economics and the one most content explains incorrectly. Getting it right requires understanding the actual mechanism rather than just the definition. When you deposit into an AMM pool, the pool's composition rebalances with every trade. When TON's price rises relative to USDt, traders buy TON from the pool and sell USDt into it. The pool ends up with less TON and more USDt. When TON falls, the opposite happens. The pool continuously accumulates more of whichever asset is declining in relative value. This is not a malfunction. It is exactly what the AMM is designed to do. But it creates a specific outcome for LPs: when you withdraw, your position reflects the rebalanced composition rather than your original deposit. Impermanent loss is the difference between your LP position value at withdrawal and what you would have had if you had simply held the same assets without depositing. It is called impermanent because if prices return exactly to your entry ratio, the loss disappears. In practice prices rarely return to their exact entry point, making the loss real for most positions. The magnitude scales with price divergence. Stable asset pairs where both assets move similarly experience minimal impermanent loss. Volatile token against stablecoin pairs can experience significant impermanent loss when the token price moves substantially. The common framing that fee income offsets impermanent loss is correct but incomplete. In periods of significant price movement, impermanent loss can exceed accumulated fee income even in high-volume pools. The same volatile conditions that generate high trading volume also generate high impermanent loss. That interaction is what makes LP economics more complex than APR numbers suggest. Explore STONfi pools → https://app.ston.fi/pools Explore more about STON.fi → https://linktr.ee/ston.fi #BTC Price Analysis# $BTC #Macro Insights# $ETH #Altcoin Season#