The concentrated-liquidity AMM that predates V4 — still routing real volume on Monad because liquidity for any given pair can be split between a V3 pool and a newer V4 one.
V3 introduced concentrated liquidity: rather than spreading capital across the entire price curve the way V2 did, an LP chooses a specific price range to concentrate their liquidity in, earning a much higher fee density for the same capital as long as price stays in range — at the cost of earning nothing (and being fully exposed to one side of the pair) once price exits it. Multiple fee tiers segment liquidity by how volatile a given pair typically is: 0.01% (tick spacing 1, added later specifically to compete with Curve on stablecoins), 0.05% (spacing 10), 0.30% (spacing 60) and 1.00% (spacing 200) — tick spacing is a governance choice per tier, not a fixed function of the fee itself. Positions are NFTs, since each range-and-tier combination is a distinct, non-fungible claim rather than a fungible pool share.
Uniswap's own launch post claimed concentrated liquidity could be "up to 4000x" more capital-efficient than V2 — but that figure maxes out only for an LP willing to concentrate within a single, very narrow 0.10% price band, which is closer to a theoretical best case for a stablecoin-style pair than typical usage on a volatile token. Out-of-range positions aren't a liquidation — Uniswap's own support docs are explicit about that — but they earn nothing until price re-enters the range, and a narrow range exits far more often than a wide one. A documented 11-day case study on a volatile pair found a concentrated V3 position lost roughly 12.5% to divergence loss versus about 2.7% for an equivalent V2-style full-range position over the same ~70% price move — 4-5x the loss despite the concentrated position also collecting more in fees. Uniswap's own fee-return research separately found that unmanaged concentrated positions on large-cap volatile pairs can underperform a fully passive V2 LP outright — active range management is load-bearing for V3, not optional, on anything but a genuinely stable pair.
Uniswap V3 went live on Monad mainnet on November 24, 2025, day one, with its full standard contract set deployed at the same addresses pattern used elsewhere. V3 and V4 coexist on Monad because they're architecturally different — V4's singleton pool-manager and hooks system versus V3's one-contract-per-pool model — and liquidity for a given pair can genuinely be fragmented between a V3 pool and a V4 pool. That's part of why a router that only sources from one of the two can quote a worse price than one that checks both.
Against Curve's StableSwap invariant, a $500K stable-for-stable swap typically sees 1-3bps of fee plus 1-3bps of slippage on Curve — meaningfully tighter than V3, because Curve's liquidity doesn't have to be actively concentrated near the peg the way a V3 position does, and V3 liquidity thins out sharply once price exits a narrow, actively-managed band. Against Uniswap V4, V4 keeps concentrated liquidity as its base mechanic but adds hooks for native limit orders, TWAMM and per-pool dynamic fees — capabilities V3 simply doesn't have without an external protocol layered on top. Against Kuru's on-chain order book, an actively-quoted CLOB can beat constant-product-style AMM pricing at size specifically because market makers requote continuously rather than sitting in a fixed range, though that edge only exists where a market maker is actually present. Against Balancer, the structural difference is scope: Uniswap pools are strictly two-token, while Balancer supports up to eight tokens at custom weights — Uniswap tends to win on straightforward two-asset execution, Balancer on custom pool configurations like index-style baskets.
Concentrated liquidity amplifies impermanent loss for LPs who aren't actively managing their range, and out-of-range positions earn zero fees while still carrying full directional exposure — passive V3 LPing on Monad is a materially different risk than passive V2-style LPing. Fragmentation across V3 fee tiers and V4 pools also means any single pool may look thinner than the pair's true aggregate liquidity, producing worse realized pricing for large trades unless a router explicitly splits across venues. On code risk specifically: Uniswap Labs states there's no public record of a core-contract exploit against V3 itself (the widely-cited "2022 Uniswap hack" was a phishing campaign against LP wallets' token approvals, not a contract bug) — but V3-style forks have been hacked, including KyberSwap Elastic (~$54M, November 2023, a tick-crossing rounding bug in a from-scratch reimplementation) and SIR (~$355K, March 2025). A fork sharing V3's design doesn't automatically share its audit history.
Note: UNI governance is protocol-wide, not Monad-specific — there's no separate Monad emissions program tied to this deployment.
It depends on the pair. Genuinely stable, narrow-range positions on a pegged pair can be reasonably passive. On a volatile pair, a concentrated range earns zero fees the instant price exits it and can underperform a passive, full-range V2-style position — Uniswap's own research confirms unmanaged concentrated positions on volatile large-caps can lose to simple passive LPing.
Concentrated liquidity amplifies divergence loss relative to a full-range position, and narrow ranges exit the active band more often, locking in the loss and halting fee accrual at that point. A documented case study found a concentrated position lost roughly 4-5x more than an equivalent full-range position over the same price move.
Yes for most practical purposes — V3 is older, simpler to integrate against than V4's hook system, and on Monad specifically the two coexist with liquidity genuinely split between them rather than V4 having fully displaced V3.
No confirmed core-contract exploit was found — the well-known 2022 incident was a phishing campaign against LP wallets' approvals, not a bug in V3's contracts. However, V3-architecture forks have been hacked elsewhere (KyberSwap Elastic, ~$54M, 2023), which matters if you're evaluating a fork rather than Uniswap's own deployment.
Sources: Monad V3 deployments — Uniswap Developer Docs, Monad Mainnet is Now Live on Uniswap, v4 vs v3 — Uniswap Docs, Uniswap V3 — Uniswap Blog, Concentrated divergence loss — case study, Fee returns research — Uniswap Blog
Last reviewed 2026-07-08. More Monad research.
Monad DeFi board · Markets · Swap on NullTerminal