Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.pathprotocol.finance/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

The single most common question we get from institutional allocators is some version of:
“If this pool has 19MinTVLandIdeposit19M in TVL and I deposit 50M, the APY will crunch. Does your model predict that?”
It is the right question. Predicting that a pool’s APY trends from 6% to 7% over the next 7 days is useless if a $50M deposit drops it back to 4% on entry. Liquidity-impact modelling is therefore a first-class concept inside Signal Mesh, not an afterthought.

​
What we surface

Every prediction comes with a liquidity-impact context block that answers four questions for an allocator considering a deposit:

Pool-share representation

For a hypothetical deposit of size X, what percentage of pool TVL would you represent? Above 10% of TVL is a yellow flag; above 25% is a red flag.

Post-deposit APY estimate

Using the protocol’s actual rate mechanism (utilisation curve for lending, swap-fee math for AMM-style yield, governance-set rate for stability rails), we compute the APY the pool would settle at immediately after your deposit lands.

Slippage band

For pools that route through an AMM at deposit time, the expected slippage on entry, derived from the live order-book / curve depth snapshot.

Break-even horizon

Combining the prediction-direction signal with the post-deposit APY estimate and the gas cost of moving, the daemon outputs a break-even horizon: “this move pays back in N days” where N depends on direction confidence and deposit size.

​
How we predict it

The post-deposit APY estimate is derived analytically from the rate mechanism rather than learned end-to-end. We invert the protocol’s own rate formula given the current pool state and your deposit size. For lending pools that means the utilisation curve maps deposited supply to a borrow rate, which maps back to a lender APY via the reserve factor. For AMM-style yield pools the math is different but the principle is the same: the protocol’s mechanism is public, so the post-deposit APY is computable, not predictable. What is predictable is the second-order effect: other allocators will respond to your deposit. The directional model captures that through the cohort-flow signal block (the percentage of deposits in the next 24h that historically follow large entries on similar pools).

​
Current performance

The post-deposit APY estimate matches realised post-deposit APY within ~1 percentage point in 6 cases out of 10 on backtest data, and the gap shrinks materially when restricted to pools where Signal Mesh has high signal coverage. We continue to improve this surface with two specific work streams:
  • Wider cohort-flow data ingestion, particularly for institutional allocators whose deposit clustering tells us more than the average retail flow.
  • Per-protocol rate-mechanism specialists for the long tail of pools with non-standard rate formulas.
The honest framing for an institutional partner is that Path is opinionated about whether you should move and gives you a defensible estimate of what your APY will look like after you move. The combined directional + liquidity-impact view is what a Strategy Manager would consume.