Hi @mh89spd ––
You pinpointed the big challenge, effectively.
As a first comment, note that our optimization and recommendations run on V3 only, the figures you have highlighted above are from v2.1. Also, it seems you have passed on a 1day delay in reporting them, e.g. on 21th, v2.1 volume is $3,898 and on the 22nd $1,166, etc…
That being said, our recommendations, started on Nov 14th, 2022, aim at optimizing the decrease in the protocol deficit.
For the recommendations to be efficient and impactful requires a minimum volume as you can imagine.
Furthermore there is a relationship between the level of fee bp, the volume attracted on a pool, and the current impermanent loss (i.e. depending on price volatility) to be rebalanced.
That is why our optimization engine takes the latter into account by simulating the agents’ behaviours, in particular the arbitrageurs’ one, over a period of a week, with hourly steps (or blockheight) in order to strike the optimal balance.
Getting a complete and objective performance analysis is complex since various forces are involved. You can take a look at our last report to get a breakdown over the first month. It definitely is a data reporting challenge that we take seriously and are dedicated to make continuous improvements on.
Now, for a given price action, there’s only so much a recommended level of fee bp can do to attract “core” volume, and a great part of the attractiveness of a protocol relies on other structural and foundational drivers. Our analysis, (corroborated by other studies), show that fee elasticity of liquidity providing is in fact rather low. I encourage you to take a look at our last Medium post on that topic here.
Hope this clarifies the point.
Happy to enter into more details if need be.