Liquidity providers (LPs) are the backbone of DeFi, supplying the essential liquidity for trading and earning fees from swaps. While APR is a key metric for LPs, focusing solely on high APR can be misleading and potentially costly. Let’s delve into why LPs should look beyond APR and consider overall profitability.

Understanding Liquidity Pools

LPs can choose between two main options for deploying their liquidity: V2 pools or V3 concentrated liquidity pools.

1. V2 Pools

In V2 pools, assets are deposited in a ‘full range’ from 0 to ∞, covering every price point where they can be traded.

• Set and Forget: Once you deposit, it’s on autopilot
• Constant Asset Ratio: The assets are always in a 50:50 ratio
• Uniform APR: The APR is the same for all participants

2. V3 ‘Concentrated Liquidity’ Pools

V3 pools allow users to concentrate liquidity in specific price ranges.

• Customizable Price Ranges: Liquidity can be provided within specific price bands
• Dynamic Asset Ratios: The asset ratio changes with price movements
• Active Management: Positions generate fees only if they cover the current price, requiring active position management
• Variable APR: The narrower the range, the higher the share of generated fees, but also the higher the susceptibility to impermanent loss (IL)

V3 Ranges: Narrow vs. Wide

1. Narrow Ranges
• High Fee Generation: Generate more fees due to concentrated liquidity
• Constant Monitoring: Require frequent rebalancing to stay within the active range
• High Impermanent Loss: Heavily exposed to rapid price movements and IL

2. Wide Ranges
• Lower Fee Generation: Generate fewer fees as liquidity is spread out
• Less Frequent Rebalancing: Require less manual intervention
• Reduced Impermanent Loss: Less affected by price movements

How Impermanent Loss (IL) Affects LPs

Impermanent loss is the difference in value between deposited and withdrawn assets from the pool. The bigger the price difference, the bigger the loss.

Example
BRO deposits $6,000 in total — 50:50 1 ETH + 3,000 USDC into a pool and the pool now holds 10 ETH + 30,000 USDC and BRO holds 10% of the pool. If the price of ETH increases to 6,000 USDC, arbitrageurs rebalance the pool so the ratio reflects the price = 7.1 ETH + 42,500 USDC (according to the X*Y=K formula)

If BRO withdraws his 10%, he gets 0.71 ETH + 4,250 USDC = ~8,500 USDC, which is a decent profit.

But what if he held that 1 ETH + 3,000 USDC? Then he would have 6,000 USDC + 3,000 USDC = 9,000 USDC, 500 USDC more. Impermanent loss is the $ difference between the withdrawn value from the pool and just holding the tokens (HODL).

HODL says how much you make by just holding the coins 50:50. This is used as a benchmark because it says if LPing (or any other form of investing) is better than passive token holding.

High APR ≠ Best

Many LPs rely on APR, trying to maximize the fee generation. However, that doesn’t represent the actual “profit” which depends on:

1. APR: A superficial metric, especially in V3 pools
2. Price Movement: Directly impacts asset ratios and IL
(3. Liquidity Incentives: Additional rewards from protocols)

Maximizing APR in narrow ranges often means maximizing IL. Fees need to outweigh the price movement to be profitable, and that’s rarely the case.

Practical Example: APR vs. Actual Returns

We’re running two ETH/USDC strategies: one focusing on high APR, the other more passive.

Performance period 20/1/24–19/7/24, HODL growth 21%
• High APR = +10% growth, vs. HODL = -11%, APR = 150–200%
• Passive = +22.5% growth, vs. HODL = +1.5%, APR = 1–10%

In 6 months, the ‘Passive’ strategy with a much lower APR outperformed the ‘High APR’ strategy by more than 12% on the net results.

The Brokkr Way: Performance & Transparency

At Brokkr, we prioritize real returns after IL, not just APR. We benchmark all strategies to HODL and run thorough backtests to ensure transparency, giving LPs confidence to provide liquidity. If you can’t beat HODL, why LP?

Many LPs are unaware of their actual performance. Most DEXs and ALMs display only APR, not results after IL. LPs often need third-party tools like Revert to check the actual performance.

It’s easy to generate 300%+ APR in a narrow range, but is it profitable? Hell no. The generated fees can’t keep up with the losses generated by the price movement and rebalancing costs. It can work well in short periods, but it’s not suited for long term deposits.

What Should LPs Do?

You must find the balance between the generated fees and the price movement because it heavily affects the returns. By prioritizing APR it is difficult to beat impermanent loss and other factors influencing profitability like LVR. Loads of LPs and ALMs (automated liquidity managers) found the hard way that it is not that simple.

• Active Management: Rebalance positions frequently to stay within profitable price ranges and rebalance before you get out of range. Use your market expectations to set the ranges
• Cautious Use of ALMs: Automated liquidity managers often struggle with beating IL and might not be as profitable as you might think
• Wider Ranges for Passive Yield: Wider ranges with lower APRs typically perform better and are less susceptible to volatility for long-term deposits. If you feel adventurous, go with narrower ranges but be prepared to monitor and rebalance the positions frequently.
• LPing In Correlated Pools: Correlated pools like USDT/USDC or weETH/wETH don’t suffer from impermanent loss and are much easier to maintain. Similarly, BTC/ETH is a pool where LPs are more profitable as the impermanent loss is not as substantial as in other pools, especially when paired with a stablecoin — eg. ETH/USDC.

Disclaimer: For simplicity's sake, we don’t go into details of LVR and other factors that influence LPs profitability.

Stay in touch! 🤝

Follow Brokkr on:
🌐 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
👾 BRO Discord

We launched on Terra with Delta Neutral strategies farming Mirror V2 liquidity pools. Since then, concentrated liquidity (V3) pools have started dominating the market. We went through various iterations and came back to LP yield strategies. We upgraded them and made them ready for V3 pools, and they are ready to compete with any protocol offering LP farming strategies.

Concentrated liquidity (V3) pools introduced by Uniswap, allow liquidity providers to provide liquidity within specific price ranges. This mechanism increases the capital efficiency and increases generated fees by the LPs and reduces the slippage, but requires active management and deep market understanding to remain profitable.

🌽 Liquidity & Yield Farming

Providing liquidity involves various challenges such as impermanent loss, rebalancing costs, and losses to arbitrageurs. To be profitable, it’s essential to smartly rebalance positions while optimizing gathered fees. Simply generating high APRs isn’t sufficient; profitability matters more. For instance, we tested strategies generating over 300% APR, but overall results showed a -60% loss.

An example is our High APR ETH-USDC strategy, which averages 200% APR but is -13% versus HODL (just holding the coins) since its launch. This means simply holding the tokens would have resulted in 13% more value.

Making a profit while providing liquidity is complex. Narrow ranges often lead to losses, while wider ranges yield returns similar to just holding the tokens. Finding the right balance and strategy is crucial for successful LPing.

🅰️🅱️LPs Options

1. Manually Manage The Positions
• Manually manage, rebalance, and compound positions
• Requires good market understanding, otherwise it is highly unprofitable
• Demands constant monitoring and manual adjustments. Tools like Revert can assist

2. Provide Liquidity In A Full Range
• Deposit in an infinite range, similar to classic V2 pools
• No position management required, but generates lower APR as active LPs capture most of the fees
• Performance is usually slightly worse than just holding the tokens

3. Use Automated Liquidity Managers (ALMs)
• Deposit in an ALM for automated position management
• It sounds good in theory but they are struggling with beating HODL as well, that’s also why you won’t find any other project that benchmarks their performance to HODL
• Focus primarily on high APR without considering net results, making profitability uncertain. A high APR doesn’t equal a profitable strategy.

🛑 The Challenge Of Beating HODL

When you LP, you are exposed to impermanent loss and arbitrageurs. Generated fees must cover these and more for LPing to be profitable. However, relying solely on APR is insufficient for long-term success. At Brokkr, we focus on overall performance, including asset price movement.

📊 Brokkr LP Trading Strategies

To profit from LPing, you either generate fees or you use the pool rebalancing to maximize the asset price appreciation. Our top strategies combine trading with providing liquidity for optimal results, getting the most out of the asset prices and generated fees.

Our approach involves providing liquidity directionally. For instance, in the ETH-USDC pair, liquidity is provided in ETH when its price rises and rebalanced to USDC when the price falls. This strategy maximizes gains during price appreciation and minimizes losses during declines, reducing impermanent loss.

While potentially risky and volatile, this strategy performs well in active markets. Our live results for three months confirm our backtesting expectations:

• ETH-USDC = +8.4% vs. ETH, +8.8% vs. HODL
• BTC-ETH = +3.6% vs. HODL
• ETH-GMX = +27% vs. HODL

No other ALM matches this performance. But it is important to note the performance heavily depends on the timeframe and the price movement.

Brokkr Performance (17/3/24–17/6/24)

➡️ Next Steps

1. Expand and Add More Pools: Prioritize bluechip coins and introduce additional strategies showing promising backtesting results
2. V3 Delta Neutral Strategy: Finish development of the strategy that hedges against price movements, ideal for farming points and rewards on new chains
3. Expand to Other EVM-Based Chains: Focus on Blast, Base, and Mantle. Engage with DEXs for partnerships and potential grants

⛓️ New Chains Launch Plan

1. LP Strategies — Deliver great returns and are useful for incentives farming
2. Indexes — Integrating chain projects under one umbrella
3. DNS — Great for farming points and incentives with solid returns

💪 Future Enhancements

• Native Crosschain Strategies — Enabled by THORChain’s V5 router from Oleg, this will unlock crosschain strategies, indexes, liquidity aggregation, and much more!
• V4 DEX Adjustments — Adjust strategies to V4 DEXs
• V4 DEX Hooks — We’re developing hooks that offer additional pool functions. We’re partnered with Algebra to deliver the highly demanded plugins, starting with Liquidity Locking & Liquidity Incentives. All plugins will have a small volume fee that generates revenue for Brokkr.

V4 AMMs revolutionize DEX functionality, adding extensive customization options and transforming user interactions in trading and LPing. We are leading the way in developing these new features for DEXs.

Charts Results (17/6/24)

Stay in touch! 🤝

Follow Brokkr on:
🌐 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
👾 BRO Discord

We’re excited about the partnership with Algebra where we will build innovative plugins for their Integral DEXs. Plugins allow powerful pool features which we demonstrated with our Liquidity locking, ALM, Dynamic fees, and Combo hooks. Now we started working on the first plugin — Liquidity Locking & Liquidity Incentives.

More plugins are on the horizon, including loyalty programs to boost APR, swapping discounts, order books, and more!

🔒Liquidity Locking & Liquidity Incentives

One of the most requested features by DEXs is the ability to provide liquidity incentives and enable locking. Traditional concentrated liquidity pools lack built-in incentive mechanisms, relying instead on third-party solutions like Merkle.

Our plugin replicates the mechanics of V2 pools and allows liquidity to be locked in an infinite range while rewarding users with additional tokens or NFTs. It’s highly customizable and provides DEXs flexibility to adjust it to their liking.

Customizable Parameters:

1. Lock Period 🔐
🔹User-based
Users can set their own locking periods, ranging from 1 second to practically infinity (2ˆ256 seconds, the limits are determined by the deployer)
🔹 Fixed
DEXs can set a unified locking period for all users

2. Distribution & Size of Rewards 🏆
🔹 Linear
Users receive consistent rewards based on their deposited amount
🔹 Dynamic
• Time Based — Rewards favor those who lock liquidity for longer periods
• Amount Based — Rewards vary based on the amount locked, such as through tiered systems
🔹 Dependent
Rewards can be linked to another feature, protocol, or be customized
• Staking — Increased rewards for users who stake in a specific contract
• NFTs — Increased rewards for holders of particular NFTs

3. Reward Type 🪙🐵
🔹Tokens
🔹NFTs

In the current version, users deposit only in a full range (V2-like pool) because calculating fair rewards distribution for individual user ranges on-chain is practically impossible. Given that the majority (90%) of new pools are V2, this should not pose an issue for most DEXs.

📓Practical examples

1. User-based locking with Time-based distribution
Users can select from multiple locking periods, with rewards scaling based on the length of the lock. This approach incentivizes users to commit their tokens for longer durations.

• 30 days lock = 1x rewards
• 90 days = 1.25x rewards
• 180 days = 1.75x rewards
• 365 days = 2.5x rewards

2. Fixed locking dependent on Staking
DEXs can set a fixed locking period for all users and adjust liquidity incentives based on staking amounts. This encourages users to engage with various DEX functions or features.

• Locking period = 3 months
• stakedTokens <5000 = 1x Rewards
• stakedTokens 5,000–15,000 = 1.25x Rewards
• stakedTokens 15,001–35,000 = 1.75x Rewards
• stakedTokens >35,000 = 2.5x Rewards

Upcoming: ZK-Liquidity Locking & Liquidity Incentives V2

To support user-based range locking, we will introduce a new version using ZK-coprocessors. These coprocessors can handle complex calculations and access historical data, making them ideal for computing rewards for custom ranges and adding diverse distribution mechanisms for DEXs.

More details will come out soon!

Stay in touch! 🤝

Follow Brokkr on:
🌐 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
👾 BRO Discord

At the end of the last year, we received a Uniswap Foundation grant to build 4 proof of concept hooks for the new UniswapV4 🦄

✨ Hooks are like liquidity pool plugins that give special powers ✨

Liquidity pools usually offer just management of the liquidity, generating yield for LPs, and enabling trading. With hooks, these are not the limits anymore. Hooks can enable liquidity incentives, limit orders, streaming swaps, or anything connected to the liquidity pool. All can be built directly within Uniswap.

Our hooks are aimed at increasing profitability for liquidity providers. The majority of LPs is struggling with being profitable while providing liquidity unless they’re heavily incentivized, but Hooks can change that.
On top of that, our yield farming strategies will benefit from these hooks when UniV4 launches.

What our hooks can do?👇

Locking Liquidity & Incentives Hook

This hook enables locking liquidity in the pool and rewards users for it. The liquidity is deposited in a full range (V2-like pool) and the liquidity rewards can be in any token or NFT. This hook also lets LPs withdraw early for a fee that’s distributed to other LPs.

Liquidity incentives will play a major role in attracting liquidity to V4 pools, and currently there are no options of adding own liquidity incentives outside of Merkl.

Why are incentives important
➕ Attracting more users
➕ Stable liquidity depth over time
➕ Customizable rewards and distribution
➕ Early unlocks possible for a fee

Dynamic Fees By Volume Hook

Improving liquidity providers profitability, that’s what this hook is all about. In this concept, we adjust swapping fees based on the incoming volume which is used as a proxy for volatility. Liquidity providers suffer the most losses during times of high volatility that leads to frequent position rebalancing and realizing (im)permanent loss. By using volume, the hook captures more value during volatile periods and distributed that increased profit back to LPs.

Main benefits
➕ Limits impermanent loss
➕ Increases LP profits
➕ Gas not intensive, compared to other Dynamic fee mechanisms

Liquidity Management Hook

This hook automates position management for liquidity providers, similar to an Automated Liquidity Management (ALM) platform. The goal of this hook is to make liquidity providing seamless and more profitable for the LPs.

Concentrated liquidity pools are demanding and require manual management. It is also hard to remain profitable as impermanent loss, LVR, and rebalancing costs eat a big part of the generated fees. Automating the position management can increase LPs profits and make liquidity providing seamless as in the V2 pool.

Main benefits
➕ ALM services directly within the pool
➕ Automated position management
➕ Autocompounding generated fees

Combining Locking Liquidity & Incentives Hooks

Liquidity locking hooks meets the dynamic fees hook. It rewards users who lock their liquidity and adjusts the pool fees based on the volume.

Generally, one hook means one feature, but what if you want to use more features in one pool (dynamic fees, TWAMM, order book, etc.)? Then you need to combine the hooks to offer all their features in one hook. By combining (compatible) hooks, all kinds of pool features can be enabled for which you needed a separate protocol before. This lets builders create dApps directly on Uniswap.

Main Benefits
➕ ➕ ➕ All benefits from the previous hooks combined 🤝 🔥

Want to dive even deeper? Check out articles about each of the hooks👇

1️⃣ Locking Liquidity hook
2️⃣ Dynamic Fees hook
3️⃣ Liquidity Management hook
4️⃣ Dynamic Fees + Liquidity Locking hook

UniswapV4 release is planned for Q3 and we will make the hooks production ready. Liquidity incentives, Dynamic fees, or Liquidity management hooks improve the liquidity providing experience and increase the LP profitability.

They will also provide great yield farming opportunities for our strategies and let us partner with other protocols that will want to launch on UniswapV4.

Stay in touch! 🤝 Follow Brokkr on:
🌐 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
👾 BRO Discord

Last year, we laid a strong foundation, and this year, we’re building on it. We’ve developed smart liquidity management strategies and began exploring UniswapV4. Now, we bring the most advanced strategies to form high-performing yield vaults and make them ready for UniV4.

Q1 Kick-off

1. Trading LP Vaults

The strategy behind Trading LP Vaults combines trading with providing liquidity. It uses price signals to adjust how and when liquidity is provided to optimize exposure to the asset price while gathering LP fees.

By using concentrated liquidity pools, the liquidity can be provided asymmetrically to adjust the exposure to ETH or any other asset. When the price increases, liquidity is provided in ETH to benefit from the price movement. When the price decreases, the liquidity is rebalanced to USDC to limit the exposure to ETH price.

By adjusting the ratios between the tokens, we benefit when the price increases and are stable when the price decreases.

The backtesting data show outstanding results:
• $ETH = +14% vs. ETH, +21% vs. HODL, ~24 months backtest
• $ARB = +30% vs. ARB, +37% vs. HODL, ~12 months backtest
• $wBTC-ETH = +20% vs. HODL, ~18 months backtest
• $GMX-ETH = +30% vs. HODL, ~18 months backtest

The vault will be completely automated and work on autopilot.

2. BRO Incentives

To bootstrap the TVL in Brokkr vaults, we will roll out $BRO incentives. Initially, they will be used to incentivize ETH-based vault and strategies, and the BRO-ETH liquidity pool. The incentives will scale with the deposited amount and the length of the deposit. The longer you stay in the vaults, the more BRO you get.

A month in, bBRO holders will direct where the incentives go. And we will integrate Merkl to enable farming external liquidity incentives.

Q2 Expansion

3. V3 Delta Neutral Strategy Vault

Delta Neutral Strategy lets you earn trading fees without worrying about price swings. By longing and shorting an asset at the same time, it removes the price volatility while farming yield.

The strategy takes part of the non-volatile funds (USDC) as a collateral to borrow the volatile asset (ETH) and then it provides both assets in the LP strategy. As the ratio between assets in the concentrated liquidity pools quickly changes with the price, the strategy must have a robust rebalancing and debt repaying mechanism to prevent liquidations on the lending platform. The added complexity of managing the pool is the reason why V3 DNS is not widely spread and makes it hard to replicate.

Our DNS on Terra and Avalanche that used V2 pools yielded between 12–15% APY. By using concentrated liquidity (V3) pools, we expect even higher performance thanks to our LP strategies.

4. $BRO RealYield

We will activate RealYield for the bBRO holders who are staked. Part of the generated fees from our vaults and strategies will be swapped for BRO on the market and then shared with the bBRO holders.

5. EVM-Chain Expansion

We plan to expand to other chains to reach more users and form partnerships. We’re already getting a lot of interest from V3 DEXs that would like to integrate the V3 Delta Neutral Strategy as they see the need for a stable yield strategy.

Q3 High Stakes

6. UniswapV4 LP Management

When Uniswap releases V4, we’ll be one of the first to dive in with liquidity management and yield farming. It will attract a large part of the V2 ($2.7bn) and V3 ($2.7bn) liquidity that will need to be managed. And that’s what we do well.

UniswapV4 is based on the concentrated liquidity (V3) pools, but it brings additional features with hooks and makes it cheaper to operate, which will make the current V3 version obsolete. And because V4 can also mimic V2 pools, there will be no reason to open regular V2 pools anymore.

UniswapV4 enables liquidity incentives through hooks (eg. our Liquidity incentive hook) and incentives will play a key role in attracting liquidity to V4 pools. We will build automated yield vaults that will farm the crazy initial rewards with maximum performance.

Hooks will increase the profitability of providing liquidity, letting us build high APR vaults with limited impermanent loss.

7. Liquidity Hooks

Hooks are the major feature of UniV4 and are THE thing that makes V4 unique. We will provide the most sought-after hooks to pool deployers for a fee.

We’ve already developed multiple LP-enhancing hooks for the Uniswap Foundation grant we received last year. This gives us an advantage when UniV4 launches. The hooks we built are Liquidity locking, Dynamic fees, Liquidity management, and a combination hook of Liquidity locking and Dynamic fees.

Planned hooks
1. V2 Pool Lookalike
V2 pools are super simple, users just deposit liquidity and can forget about it, which is not possible in V3 pools. That’s also why around 90% of newly created pools on Uniswap are V2 and not V3.

We will build a hook that makes a V4 pool look like a V2 pool, so the liquidity providers don’t have to manage anything. In combination with that, we will have a simple migration tool that will transfer liquidity from a V2 pool to a V4 (V2) pool in a few clicks.

2. Liquidity incentives
Liquidity incentives are one of the best instruments to attract liquidity to a pool. With our hook, we enable liquidity incentives with a custom schedule, token, NFTs, and anything that’s needed.

3. Dynamic fees
Dynamic fees are the main instrument how liquidity providers can be more profitable. Currently, they lose a lot of money to arbitrageurs and position rebalances. Dynamic fees take part of the arbitrageurs profits in times of high volatility and give it back to LPs which increases the performance of liquidity vaults.

Q4 Momentum

8. UniswapV4 DNS

Once UniswapV4 is released, we will start integrating Delta Neutral Strategy. Thanks to the hooks that increase LP performance, it should have the highest performance out of all Uniswap’s versions. If UniswapV4 draws in a lot of interest and liquidity, it’ll make the DNS even more valuable.

Continuous Improvement

Besides the big updates, we are continuously enhancing the performance of the vaults and strategies

• Optimizing the strategy set up to increase the generated yield
• Enabling LP leverage to increase the performance (apx. Up to 30% to certain strategies)
• Offering directional liquidity providing that minimizes impermanent loss while being exposed to the asset price
• Integrating THORChain & Maya for swapping and Savers vaults when possible

Follow Brokkr

🌎 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
🎮 BRO Discord

In this article, we explain how we combined two of our previous hooks — Dynamic fees based on volume and Liquidity locking with incentives. It is part of our design series from our Uniswap Foundation Hook POC grant.

The hook enables locking liquidity for LP incentives and dynamically adjusts the pool fees based on the incoming swapping volume. It is a demonstration of how the hooks can be combined together, and how the utility of a hook can be extended by using multiple mechanics. By using this hook, the users are rewarded for locking their liquidity and will gather more fees through the dynamic fees.

If you are interested in building your own hooks, we recommend reading the V4 documentation for a general introduction to UniswapV4 and hooks.

hooks-poc/src/Combo.sol at main · BrokkrFinance/hooks-poc

➕Benefits Of Combining Hooks

Being able to combine hooks (hook functions) gives the pool more flexibility in what it can offer. Liquidity providers and traders will want the pool to have more functions, not just one.

For example, Dynamic fees can be included in every pool because they increase (or should increase) the LP performance, but that’s already one hook. By combining multiple of them, the pool could enable not only dynamic fees, but also TWAMM (time weighted average market maker, streaming swaps), Order book, or Liquidity locking like in our example.

Combining hooks also lets builders develop directly on Uniswap, making Uniswap the infrastructure layer. Instead of asking developers “Are you building on Arbitrum”, the question might be “Are you building on Uniswap” because the hooks can get as complex as regular protocols.

However, combining hooks adds another layer of risks and complexity. The underlying hooks can be quite complicated and work in unique ways, and therefore it’s necessary to align their core functions before combining them to ensure proper functionality.

📐The Hook Design

We considered two options for combining multiple hooks. Either we refer from the first hook to the second one, or we create a single contract that inherits functionalities from both. We chose the latter one and created a single contract for both of the functions as it is more gas efficient.

Brokkr Liquidity Locking & Dynamic Fees Hooks

This hook provides rewards to liquidity providers who lock their tokens and adjusts the swapping fee based on the incoming trading volume. It is made of two underlying hooks:

1. Liquidity locking & LP incentives
   It enables locking liquidity in the pool, rewarding LPs with a reward token, and early withdrawals. The liquidity is deposited in an infinite range.
2. Dynamic fees based on volume
   It automatically adjusts the swapping fee based on the incoming volume. The volume is used as a proxy for volatility.

The Liquidity locking hook adds constraints when providing and withdrawing liquidity. The Dynamic fees hook interacts with the pool only during swapping. Based on that, they look like they should be easily combined as they don’t seem to interfere with each other.

However, it’s not that simple. During withdrawals, the hook auto-compounds the generated fees, but they might be imbalanced compared to the current pool ratio. To swap the fees to the correct ratio, the hook needs to use partial swaps, and that’s where the intricacies of combining hooks show up.

In the original Dynamic fees hook, we disabled partial swaps because they could artificially increase the volume and the swapping fees. So in the Combo hook, we had to make adjustments — We enabled partial swaps, but only for rebalancing the position, and we excluded this volume from the dynamic fee calculation.

This shows that even hooks that seem to be unrelated can’t be blindly combined.

♻️ Changes In The Combo Hook

The main change in the design compared to the underlying hooks is during withdrawals. This is due to the occasional usage of partial swaps for rebalancing. The diagram shows the specific sequencing and parts of the transaction calls used in the combo hook.

You can check the diagrams for the underlying hooks in their articles — Dynamic fees, Liquidity locking.

⚠️ What To Watch Out For When Combining Hooks

Combo hooks introduce important features to the pool but also increase the risk and complexity. They inherit the risks of the underlying hooks, struggle with compatibility, and make the initial hook setup more difficult.

1. Underlying Hooks
Each hook has its own risks derived from its function. If they are not mitigated before combining the hooks, resolving them after becomes much more difficult and time consuming.

2. Compatibility Issues
Combining hooks is not straightforward, this applies especially to complex and intertwined hooks that influence each other. These issues are often not obvious, which complicates the process of finding the route cause of the problems. Protocol builders will need to nail this down, especially if they reuse code from others.

Another example; our Locking hook enables depositing liquidity both into the hook or the pool, while our Liquidity management hook enables depositing only into the hook. To combine them safely and effectively, these core functions need to be aligned to avoid various edge cases and potential vulnerabilities.

3. Initial Pool Setup
Using more hooks will complicate the initial setup process and it will increase the chance of something going wrong as there are more moving parts that influence each other. Complex hooks like Liquidity management or Dynamic fees should be theory-crafted or consulted with experts as they have a small margin of error.

We expect best practices will form over time, which resolve the issue for the pool deployers, but they won’t be present at the beginning of V4.

🪝 Check Our Other Hooks

1. Locking liquidity for incentives
2. Dynamic fees by Volume
3. Liquidity Management
4. Combo hook — Dynamic fees + Liquidity locking & Incentives

Follow Brokkr

🌎 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
🎮 BRO Discord

After we burned 45% of all tokens, we are continuing with the plan and migrating to Arbitrum. It is driven by the capability of building superior strategies and vaults on Arbitrum, including the sought-after V3 Delta Neutral Strategies. They’re showing impressive metrics, with ATH TVL and a strong DeFi ecosystem we can build around.

The migration process will be smooth and the tokens will be dropped into your wallets without the need to manually link your addresses.

UPDATE — BROKKR IS LIVE ON ARBITRUM (💙,🧡)

BRO = 0x2b45e21C35A33C58E4C5ce82A82466b0754Fd154
bBRO = 0x5730a208Ccce127dba8b3a3ED387B1AA789b4754

🐦 Migration Overview

All BRO and bBRO tokens will be migrated from Avalanche to Arbitrum. It will include wallet, staking, and LP balances as well as staking rewards. For the calculation, we use the snapshot from Feb 12th at 10:15 UTC.

• Wallet balances — Airdropped to Arbitrum wallets
• Staking balances — Airdropped staked with an initial lock period
• Staking rewards — Airdropped alongside the BRO and bBRO wallet balances to Arbitrum wallets

To simplify the process, BRO & bBRO wallet holdings, staking rewards, and LP shares will be airdropped directly to your wallets. The tokens will be dropped to the same Arbitrum addresses that held the tokens on Avalanche. If you hold the tokens in a smart contract wallet, let us know, they require manual adjustments.

Staking balances will come with an initial 31-day lock period, post which (March 25th), they will be fully withdrawable, independent of Avalanche’s unstaking period.

Terra migrators can use the current migration tool, the ones who already linked their wallet and are waiting will be migrated directly to Arbitrum.

🥩 Staking Updates

In preparation for the airdrop, we discovered a bug in our former staking rewards mechanism (even though it was audited!). No exploits were possible, but it was rewarding users more than what was planned. Because of that, we rescheduled the migration date and developed a simplified staking version.

We’re removing the unstaking period to simplify the process. Now, staking and unstaking can happen freely with rewards tied to the amount staked. Only the “airdropped” staked tokens come with the initial 31 day lock.

Updated Staking
• Removing unstaking period
• BRO and bBRO rewards are calculated based on the amount staked

The next updates will bring RealYield from our vaults to bBRO holders. Then we will implement governance features like voting on incentive distribution between the vaults, selecting pools and strategies, and more.

🚰 BRO Pool on UniswapV3

Post-migration, we will open a BRO-WETH 1% pool on UniswapV3. We automate V3 liquidity providing and it only makes sense we do it also for our own pool. We will leverage V3’s benefits for more efficient trading (less liquidity needed for bigger trades), increased fee generation, and reduced slippage.

The pool will open at the price point from when we withdrew liquidity on Avalanche

After the pool is live, we will start working on the liquidity incentives mechanics, so we can incentivize users of all our vaults.

Follow Brokkr on:
🌎 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
🎮 BRO Discord

In this article, we cover the design of our Liquidity management hook from our Uniswap Foundation Hook POC grant. This hook automates position management for liquidity providers directly after the deposit. The goal of the hook is to make providing liquidity seamless and more profitable for the LPs.

If you are interested in building your own hooks, we recommend reading the V4 documentation for a general introduction to UniswapV4 and hooks.

hooks-poc/src/liquidityManager/LiquidityManager.sol at main · BrokkrFinance/hooks-poc

❓ Why is liquidity management needed?

For liquidity providers, concentrated liquidity pools are very demanding and require frequent manual management. On top of that, it is hard to remain profitable as impermanent loss, LVR, and rebalancing costs eat a big part of the generated fees. This is reflected in the amount of newly opened pools in V2 and V3, more than 90% of them are V2 and hold 40% of the Uniswap liquidity.

The liquidity management hook automates the liquidity deposited in the pool and provides the services of an Automated Liquidity Manager (ALM). Thanks to the hook, users don’t have to manage it on their own or visit 3rd party platforms to do the same thing, which increases the user experience and removes entry barriers to becoming an LP.

How the hook works

The hook manages all users’ deposits and divides them into two positions. The first one is fixed and deposited in an infinite range (like a V2-pool); the second one is narrow and automatically rebalanced. Having an infinite range, or at least very wide, is needed to guarantee enough liquidity to automatically rebalance the narrow position.

Parameters for rebalancing the narrow range are hardcoded at the pool deployment but could be replaced by a backend system. By having the parameters publicly available, the users can always verify how the hook works, but that is a double-edged sword because it is known when the hook will rebalance and could be front-run.

The hook determines the narrow range and rebalance triggers by:

• Tick space — The number of ticks, where 1 tick = 0.01%
• Price boundary — Defines the width of the narrow range by the number of Tick spaces
• Rebalance boundary — Defines how many Tick spaces the price needs to move to rebalance the narrow range

Example
Tick space = 60 (0.6%)
Price boundary of the Narrow range = 30
Rebalance boundary = 25
Narrow range width = Tick space * Price boundary = 1800 (6%)
Trigger to rebalance = Tick space * rebalance boundary = 1500 (5%)

In this example, the narrow range will be 6% and the rebalance will happen if the price moves by 5%.

Generated fees

The generated fees from trading are autocompounded back to the pool, but they may not be distributed equally. This can result in leaving some liquidity in the contract for a short time, but they will be gradually reinvested with additional swaps, deposits, and withdrawals.

🎁 Providing Liquidity

Users can choose if they deposit directly into the pool or into the hook that manages the position. If they deposit in the hook, the hook automatically claims all accumulated fees from the pool and adds them together with the new deposits in the full and narrow ranges.

After the deposit, the hook calls the ERC20 LP token contract which mints an appropriate amount of new LP tokens for the liquidity provider.

⚖️ Rebalances

When a user tries to swap, the hook automatically checks if the narrow range needs to be rebalanced. If the incoming swap moves the price out of the rebalance boundary, the rebalance gets triggered in the same transaction after the swap. It will withdraw the funds from the narrow range, swap them in the pool, and deposit them again in the narrow range around the current price. The gas fees for the rebalance are paid by the swapper and the rebalance can happen only once per swap. The rebalance should happen as a top-of-block swap to prevent MEV searchers from front-running the transaction.

The rebalancing mechanism could be enhanced by other parameters than just the price movement. It could limit the amount of rebalances in a day, it could widen the narrow range if the position gets rebalanced too many times, or it could use external data from oracles to check if the rebalancing is needed.

🔓 Withdrawing Liquidity

When a liquidity provider initiates a withdrawal, they burn the specified amount of ERC20 LP tokens from their wallet. Then the hook collects all fees and removes liquidity from narrow and wide ranges proportional to the amount of tokens burned. Then the user receives the withdrawn liquidity.

⚠️ Risks

Many potential risks come from the initial setup of the hook and it will require a good understanding of concentrated liquidity pools and their mechanics. How the narrow position and its rebalance triggers are set is the first stage where something might go wrong, because many setups won’t be profitable in the long run.

Another risk comes from how the liquidity is divided between the infinite and narrow ranges as it impacts the slippage on rebalances. Having too much liquidity in the narrow range compared to the infinite range could result in substantial losses during rebalances as there won’t be enough liquidity to trade upon and the slippage will slowly drain the pool. Further research and experiments will be needed to find the optimal ratio.

The hook manager could get exploited or be malicious. Even though the attacker can’t withdraw the funds, they could trigger a constant rebalancing leading to losing funds in the pool to the swapping fees.

Then there are some risks related to the hook being a POC and not production-ready

• It is susceptible to sandwich attacks, as it rebalances the narrow range in one transaction, but it can be mitigated by rebalancing through multiple smaller transactions
• Reentrancy attacks can be mitigated by including a standard reentrancy attack solution by OpenZeppelin

Having the right setup for the Liquidity Management Hook will require thorough testing and experimentation due to its complexity. The hook manager needs to take care of security while making the hook work well for the liquidity providers. But when done properly, it will be a great asset for pool deployers and their LPs.

🪝 Check Our Other Hooks

1. Locking liquidity for incentives
2. Dynamic fees by Volume
3. Liquidity Management
4. Combo hook — Locking liquidity + Dynamic fees (coming)

Follow Brokkr

🌎 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
🎮 BRO Discord

Our monthly Index report will bring you the latest updates in a concise, easy to digest way.

Comparing the Avalanche and Arbitrum Indexes, it seems to follow a similar pattern as the previous month. One Index saw substantial growth (our DeFi Index) taking the lead with an increase of over 36%, while the Avalanche Indexes continued to corrected from humongous growth in November. The biggest loser being our Avalanche Gaming NFT Index, dropping by around 39% in the last month.

Let’s dive deeper to see what happened in the last 30 days.👇

🔺Avalanche Gaming NFT Index (-39.63%)

The Avalanche NFT Gaming ecosystem saw the biggest correction, with a decrease of 39% over the past 30 days, a correction was expected after such a substantial increase across all projects in November.

1. Heroes Chained (HEC) 📉 -8.1%

HEC is the native currency of Heroes Chained, a real-time fantasy action RPG game.

Although there has been a correction for two months in a row from massive growth in November (+244%), Heroes Chained recently completed their Treasure Trove Tournament and have partnered with Immutable zkEVM which is exciting news.

2. Battle For Giostone (BFG) 📉 -56.6%

BFG is the first Web3 MOBA built for Esports, co-founded by DOTA esports veteran Theeban Siva.

As with the other Gaming NFT projects, BFG has corrected from the 105% increase in November, dropping 56% in the last 30 days.

3. Chikn Egg (EGG) 📉 -16.7%

EGG is the governance and utility token of the Chikn NFT gaming ecosystem. Chikn are upgradable NFTs on Avalanche where a user collects eggs and grows their farm.

EGG has continued to see considerable correction from the growth seen in November.

4. Heroes Of NFT (HON) 📉 -12.8%

HON is the native utility token of the P2E card game Heroes of NFT. Their big differentiator is staking rewards based on the NFT rarity in $HON and $AVAX. HON is the native utility token of the P2E card game Heroes of NFT. Their big differentiator is staking rewards based on the NFT rarity in $HON and $AVAX.

Again, there has been a continued correction as with all NFT gaming projects in the Index. HON is no exception.

5. Snail trail (SLIME) 📉 -26.9%

SLIME is the utility token of the game Snail Trail that lets you race and breed snails.

It is the same story as the rest of the Gaming NFT projects in regards to SLIME’s continued price correction from December.

6. Brokkr Finance (BRO) 📉 -43.40%

BRO is the governance and utility token of Brokkr Finance and is included in every Avalanche index.

BRO also saw a decrease in January. Recently we launched our first LP Strategies which you can check out here. On top of that we are adding volatile pools to our Beta next week!

🔺Avalanche DeFi Index (-26.47%)

Avalanche’s DeFi index corrected with PNG being the only project to see growth, while the other projects corrected.

1. GMX (GMX) 📉 -23.5%

GMX is a decentralized spot and perpetual exchange that supports low swap fees and zero-price impact trades.

Although GMX has decreased around 23% in the last 30 day there has been some interesting developments such as adding One Click trading to their platform and they have launched on BNB’s market on Arbitrum GMXv2.

2. TraderJoe (JOE) 📉 -21.6%

Trader Joe is a multi-functional DeFi trading platform.

JOE’s price decreased in the last 30 days as it did in the previous month. On a positive note, TraderJoe did hit a milestone in January by hitting $1.5 billion in monthly trading volume.

3. Pangolin (PNG) 📈 +3.4%

The PNG token is the governance token for the Pangolin decentralized exchange. It can be used for participating in governance by voting on proposals.

PNG was the only project to see gains in the Avalanche DeFi Index by increasing over 3% in the last 30 days.

4. BENQI (QI) 📉 -16.6%

BENQI is a staking and lending protocol built on Avalanche and consists of the Liquidity Market and Liquid Staking.

QI has taken a correction for the second month in a row after being the biggest winner in November (+301%).

5. Vector Finance (VTX) 📉 -26.4%

Vector enables boosted yield on Platypus and TraderJoe, even if users don’t own any PTP or JOE.

VTX as with most DeFi projects in the Avalanche Index has continued to correct, dropping 26%.

6. Brokkr Finance (BRO) 📉 -43.40%

BRO is the governance and utility token of Brokkr Finance and is included in every Avalanche index.

BRO also saw a decrease in January. Recently we launched our first LP Strategies which you can check out here. On top of that we are adding volatile pools to our Beta next week!

🔺Avalanche Top Market Cap Index (-7.26%)

Although the Gaming NFT and DeFi indexes struggled more, The Top Market Cap index did see a decrease.

1. Bitcoin (BTC) 📈 +0.7%

Bitcoin is the most recognized cryptocurrency. For the Index, we use wrapped BTC on Avalanche.

BTC didn’t vastly increase in price in regards to over 30 days, although BTC did peak and reach $48,000 the day after Bitcoin ETFs were approved and there was some volatility when The SEC’s Twitter was hacked at the start of the month.

2. Ethereum (ETH) 📈 +3.4%

Ethereum is the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, and we use its wrapped version on Avalanche.

ETH outperformed BTC in the last 30 days. Generally ETH follows the BTC price movement in the early stages of the bull run. However, things may change when the alt-season kicks in and mumerings of Ethereum ETFs.

3. TraderJoe (JOE) 📉 -21.6%

Trader Joe is a multi-functional DeFi trading platform.

JOE’s price decreased in the last 30 days as it did in the previous month. On a positive note, TraderJoe did hit a milestone in January by hitting $1.5 billion in monthly trading volume.

4. Avalanche (AVAX) 📉 -1.5%

AVAX is used to pay transaction fees and can be staked to secure the Avalanche network.

AVAX has corrected for the second month in a row but it seems to show signs of growth in the last 14 days.

5. Chainlink (LINK) 📈 +29.2%

The LINK token provides the main incentive mechanism for users to participate in Chainlink’s decentralized network of oracles.

LINK has seen substantial growth in the previous 30 days after steadily rising this last 12 months. LINK is the biggest gainer in the last 7 days out of all the Top 100 Market Cap projects.

6. Brokkr Finance (BRO) 📉 -43.40%

BRO is the governance and utility token of Brokkr Finance and is included in every Avalanche index.

BRO also saw a decrease in January. Recently we launched our first LP Strategies which you can check out here. On top of that we are adding volatile pools to our Beta next week!

(💙,🧡) Arbitrum DeFi Index (+37.17%)

Arbitrum’s DeFi Index was the top performer of all the Indexes. So let’s have a look into what went on in the Arbitrum DeFi space and the reasons behind the gains.

1. Pendle Finance (PENDLE) 📈 +145.6%

PENDLE is the token of the Pendle Finance yield-trading protocol. It wraps yield-bearing tokens into standardized yield tokens (SY), which are then split into their principal (PT) and yield (YT) components for trading via a custom V2 AMM, enabling users to maximize yield exposure and hedge against downturns.

PENDLE was the winner of the DeFi index and the biggest gainer of all projects in our Indexes, growing around 145% in the last 30 days. The protocol recently reached a TVL all time high of $700 million which has more than doubled in the past 30 days.

2. JonesDAO (JONES) 📉 -19.2%

JONES is the native token of JonesDAO. It’s part of a governance model, referred to as veJones, which is currently under development.

JONES retraced after gains in the previous month. On a positive note JonesDAO reached surpassed their ATH TVL at the very end of January.

3. Dopex (DPX) 📉 -9.3%

The DPX token is the main token for the Dopex protocol, and it is used to reward liquidity providers participating in their option products.

In a similar story to JonesDAO, DPX has retraced after gains in the previous month of December. In recent news Dopex has decided to sunset their SSOVs (Single Staking Option Vaults).

4. PlutusDAO (PLS) 📉 -38.2%

PLS is the native token of Plutus, an Arbitrum-native governance aggregator. It maximizes users’ liquidity and rewards while simultaneously aggregating governance. Plutus aims to become the de-facto Layer 2 governance solution for projects with veTokens.

PLS had a considerable correction (-38%) after seeing growth in December.

(💙,🧡) Arbitrum Top Market Cap Index (-2.49%)

The Arbitrum Top Market Cap Index saw a decrease, although not as severe as The Avalanche Indexes. Let’s dive into what happened.

1. Bitcoin (BTC) 📈 +0.7%

Bitcoin is the most recognized cryptocurrency. For the Index, we use wrapped BTC on Arbitrum.

BTC didn’t vastly increase in price in regards to over 30 days, although BTC did peak and reach $48,000 the day after Bitcoin ETFs were approved and there was some volatility when The SECs Twitter was hacked at the start of the month.

2. Ethereum (ETH) 📈 +3.4%

Ethereum is the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, and we use its wrapped version on Arbitrum.

ETH outperformed BTC in the last 30 days. Generally ETH follows the BTC price movement in the early stages of the bull run. However, things may change when the alt-season kicks in and mumerings of Ethereum ETFs.

3. MAGIC (MAGIC) 📈 +17.2%

MAGIC is the natural resource of the Treasure metaverse. It can be earned through playing, mining, and participating in Bridgeworld. The Treasure ecosystem, therefore, is governed by MAGIC holders.

MAGIC saw an increase of 17%, this is the second month in a row that MAGIC has seen an increase.

4. Arbitrum DAO (ARB) 📉 -1.8%

ARB is a governance token of the Arbitrum ecosystem. ARB holders can vote on proposals affecting the operation and evolution of the Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova chains.

After seeing substantial gains in December, ARB has gone sidewards in the last 30 days as it aims to stabilize.

5. WOO (WOO) 📉 -6.7%

The WOO token is the token for the Wootrade Network. It can be used in the network’s CeFi and DeFi products for staking and fee discounts.

For the second month in a row, WOO has seen a dip in price.

In conclusion, the last month we saw continued growth in our Arbitrum DeFi Index while all The Avalanche Indexes continued to correct after having a superb November.

Although The Top Market Cap Indexes did decrease, it was far from heavy correction.

You can click below to check out all our Indexes, we will see you again next month!

👉 Check all Brokkr indexes 👈

Follow Brokkr on:
🌎 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
🎮 BRO Discord

The second hook from our Hook POC Uniswap Foundation grant adjusts the swapping fees based on the trading volume. In our concept, we use volume as a proxy for volatility. Market volatility has a major impact on the liquidity providers’ profitability, often leading to frequent position rebalancing and realizing (im)permanent loss. With this design, we aim to improve LP profitability by capturing more value during volatile periods and distributing it back to them.

If you are interested in building your own hooks, we recommend reading the V4 documentation for a general introduction to UniswapV4 and hooks. This article has been written in cooperation with Atis, who researched various dynamic fee approaches.

hooks-poc/src/VolumeFee.sol at main · BrokkrFinance/hooks-poc

❓Why Do Liquidity Providers Want Dynamic Fees?

Providing liquidity in V3 pools is risky for LPs because they’re exposed to LVR and impermanent loss. Dynamic fees can limit the effects of both factors and increase LP’s profits. Liquidity providers’ profitability has been a big topic already since V3 pools launched, as it has been found that around 50% of LPs are not profitable or would be better if they just HODL’d.

💲How Brokkr Dynamic Fees Work

In our hook, we use volume as a proxy for volatility as we operate under the assumption they correlate. The hook uses a cumulative volume as a threshold to adjust the fee. At the deployment, the pool operator sets a volume that needs to be reached (the volume threshold) to increase the fee. When the volume threshold is about to be reached with a swap, the fee increases before the swap happens. To counterbalance the increases, fees automatically decrease over time.

The main benefit of using volume is that it can adjust the fee immediately on the incoming swap, instead of changing it after it’s finished. It is also gas-efficient and agile compared to other dynamic fee approaches that can adjust the fee only after the swap and are very gas-intensive as they store all information. On the other hand, during our collaboration with Atis, he found out the hook may not be able to set the perfect fee as it also depends on the uninformed flow volume that our hook can’t recognize. But the hook could track a swap size, so transactions below a certain size would not increase the fee, which might help the uninformed flow.

🔮Behind The Scenes

To get the dynamic fees going, it is necessary to set up boundaries for the swapping fees within which it moves, the increment to know how much the fee should increase, the volume threshold to know when to increase the fee and in what timeframe, and the speed of decreasing the fee.

During each swap, the hook records the total volume swapped and compares the current transaction volume to the threshold volume. When comparing the volumes, it also considers the time passed between the transactions to adjust the fee according to the setup. The fee increments can be as low as basis points (0.01%), which enables granular adjustments and quick reaction to market changes.

Example:
USDC-ETH pool with 1,000,000 USDC and 500 ETH
Min fee = 0.05%
Max fee = 0.5%
Fee increment = 0.01%
Time frame = 100 seconds
Volume threshold = 5,000 USDC

The user wants to swap $10,000 worth of ETH for USDC. Before this swap, the accumulated volume was 4,000 USDC with the initial 0.05% fee. However, because this swap exceeds the volume threshold twice, the fee for this swap increases by 0.02% (2x0.01%) to 0.07%. If there are no other incoming transactions in the next 100 seconds, the fee decreases by 0.01% (and will continue decreasing if the volume threshold is not reached).

⚙️Other Dynamic Fee Hook Options

In Atis’ research on other approaches to dynamic fees, he looked into how fees are affected by the pool depth, fee size, asset volatility, and order type flow. In our hook, we use a “volume as a proxy” design as it can adjust the fees on the incoming swap and is gas efficient. But there are other options based on Volatility, Transaction source, Price oracles, Coprocessors, and many others.

Each has its benefits but frequently suffers from being very gas-intensive, unable to change the fee on the incoming swap, and way too complex for POC purposes.

For example, the hook could track the volatility directly through price movement, but that gets very gas-intensive, complicated, and requires implementing price oracles vulnerable to various attacks.

🔒Risks And Mitigation

Uniswap’s partial swap feature could manipulate dynamic fees to keep the fees high with artificial volume. The hook would consider the whole amount proposed for trade as a volume instead of what was actually swapped. To prevent this, we revert the transaction if less than 99% of the initial tokens for the trade are swapped.

Example
A swap request for 100 USDC to ETH goes through, but only 50 USDC would be traded into ETH due to partial swap configuration. However, the swap will revert because less than 99 USDC is swapped.

Our Other Hooks

1. Liquidity Locking Hook + Liquidity incentives
2. Dynamic Fee By Volume
3. Liquidity Management Hook (WIP)
4. Liquidity Locking + Dynamic Fee Combo-Hook (WIP)

Follow Brokkr on:
🌎 BRO Website
🐦 BRO Twitter
🎮 BRO Discord