Recently, I saw someone describe AMM liquidity provision as if it were earning interest by saving money... Basically, the curve is just a rule: the more aggressively the price moves, the more your position is "passively rebalanced," and impermanent loss isn't some mysticism; it's the exposure you take on in exchange for earning fees. If the fees aren't enough to cover the volatility, don't expect to make easy money; at best, you're just acting as a mover for the market.

These days, cross-chain bridges are having issues again, and when oracles glitch, everyone immediately says "wait for confirmation," which is quite realistic: the on-chain noise is too high, and the more impatient you are, the easier it is to get slippage and incorrect quotes taught to you. My noise reduction strategy is simple: first, check if the protocol's revenue/fee switch has solid cash flow logic, then decide whether to throw funds into the pool as a passive participant. Anyway, I prefer to do fewer trades rather than pay more tuition fees.