Makiswap

Makiswap Yield Farming returns require separate checks for pool income, farm rewards and exit value

Updated Thursday 17 September 2026

Makiswap Yield Farming combined a liquidity provider position with a separate farm deposit on HECO, so a displayed annualized rate did not prove the final return. Separate changes in the paired assets, pool fee income, harvested MAKI and transaction costs, then match each component to the same wallet and period. HECO's retirement makes this a historical reconciliation task rather than a route for opening a new farm position.

Bottom line: To calculate a settled historical return for one wallet, reconcile pool value, harvested rewards, network costs and the completed exit.

When the displayed return and the wallet record disagree

An expected reward could differ from the observed wallet balance because the estimate and the settlement record measured different things. A farm display could show an annualized projection or an unharvested reward, while the wallet showed only tokens already transferred to its address.

The review period should begin with the liquidity deposit and identify the later farm deposit. Harvests, added stakes, partial withdrawals and the final exit must fall within the same period. Mixing records from separate positions can make an accurate transaction look like a shortfall.

A transaction hash identifies an operation, but only its receipt shows whether the network included it and whether execution succeeded. Token transfer records and wallet balance changes then reveal what moved. These records matter because a confirmation message from an old interface did not itself prove that rewards or LP tokens reached the wallet.

Where the records conflict, preserve the mismatch. Estimating a missing reward from an old displayed rate would turn a projection into a claimed settlement.

Compare the LP position before the reward rate

Pool comparison begins with the paired assets and the LP position they created. Each pair exposed the provider to changes in both component tokens. That exposure remained relevant after the LP token entered a farm, because staking the token did not replace the underlying pool position.

Makiswap's historical farm flow deposited liquidity provider tokens into a farm contract and returned them to the wallet when the user unstaked. The deposited LP token therefore linked two layers of return: the value of the pool share and any separate MAKI rewards attributed to the farm.

Two pools with similar displayed rates could still produce different outcomes. Their component assets could move differently, trading activity could generate different fee income and their reward allocations could change. The stronger comparison uses the same observation window and records each component instead of ranking pools by one screen value.

The return calculation needs four separate records

Calculate a historical net result by adding the closing value of withdrawn assets and rewards received, then subtracting the opening value supplied and transaction costs. Any later deposit or partial withdrawal changes that calculation. Splitting the record into intervals is safer than treating changing capital as one uninterrupted position.

• The opening record identifies both supplied token amounts and their valuation basis.
• The pool record captures the LP token amount and any later additions or reductions.
• The reward record includes MAKI transfers to the same wallet that are linked to the position's farm transactions.
• The cost record covers confirmed approvals, deposits, harvests, withdrawals and liquidity removal transactions.

Token amounts can reconcile contract movements without relying on a price feed. A value-based return needs a consistent pricing convention for the opening and closing times. If a token lacks reliable historical pricing, the token-denominated result should remain separate rather than acquiring an estimated value.

Claimable rewards also need their own label. A value displayed as pending was not equivalent to a completed token transfer, particularly when no successful harvest or withdrawal record exists.

How did pool fees differ from farm rewards?

Pool fees belonged to the liquidity position, while farm rewards arose from depositing the resulting LP token into the farm. Fee income changed the provider's claim on pool reserves. Harvesting moved the separate reward token to the wallet without removing the underlying liquidity.

The historical Makiswap tokenomics described a 0.2% swap fee, with 0.17% allocated to liquidity providers and 0.03% allocated to the developer fund. That dated split can describe the documented design, but it should not be applied to an unidentified transaction without matching its period and contract.

The same historical material listed a 16 MAKI block reward, including 13 MAKI for farming. Those figures do not establish the reward rate for every pool or every block range. Pool allocation, total deposited LP tokens and the applicable emission settings were also needed to interpret a farm's reward output.

Control and records across the historical position

The table links each position element to its historical control or resulting record. This distinction helps identify whether an observed balance represented pool ownership, a farm deposit, a reward transfer or a completed exit.

An allowance was permission, not proof of a deposit. Likewise, a returned LP token showed that the farm position had been reduced or closed, but it did not show that liquidity had been removed. Each state produced a different balance and required its own transaction evidence.

View image file

Pool choice changes the sources of loss

A pool with assets that move apart can underperform simply holding those assets, even while it earns fees and farm rewards. This difference is commonly described as impermanent loss, although withdrawing makes the result part of the settled outcome. Reward token volatility, contract failure and an impaired component asset add separate risks. Comparing pools therefore requires both return streams and every material asset exposure.

Annualized figures were projections rather than settlement records

An annualized percentage converted a shorter observation into a yearly expression. It could change when reward emissions, pool allocation, total deposits, token prices or trading volume changed. A rate captured on one date should not be extended across an entire position without evidence that its inputs remained the same.

APR generally expresses a simple annualized rate, while APY adds a compounding assumption. Makiswap's historical farm controls documented harvesting, adding LP tokens and removing LP tokens. They did not establish automatic farm compounding, so an APY calculation would need to state how often rewards were harvested and reinvested.

Compounding also required additional transactions and potentially another liquidity deposit. Those costs could reduce the benefit, especially over short intervals. A pool comparison should therefore keep projected percentages separate from the amounts recorded at harvest and exit.

What showed that the full position exit was complete?

A complete exit required a successful unstake that returned LP tokens, followed by successful liquidity removal that returned the component assets. Stopping after the unstake closed the farm layer but left the wallet holding a pool position.

Any reward included in the result also needed a recorded transfer. A harvest could move MAKI without changing the LP balance, while liquidity removal could change both component balances without creating a farm reward. These operations should not be treated as interchangeable evidence.

A remaining token allowance did not mean the farm still held the LP tokens. Allowance and custody were separate states. The decisive records were the farm's returned LP amount, the wallet's LP balance and the component tokens received when liquidity was removed.

HECO retirement changes the practical decision

HECO retired on January 15, 2025. Historical Makiswap pages or saved rate displays do not establish that a farm remains available for deposits, harvests or exits after the network's retirement.

Earlier transactions may still be reviewable where preserved chain data, an archive or another compatible record source remains accessible. If a receipt, transfer log or balance snapshot cannot be recovered, the corresponding part of the return remains unresolved. Missing evidence does not establish a zero balance or a successful transfer.

HECO's retirement removes the choice between entering two live pools. Pool comparisons now apply to historical positions whose deposits, rewards and exits can be reconciled from records.

A final reconciliation closes the comparison

Use one wallet, one farm position and one defined period. Match the initial LP deposit to its successful receipt, total the reward transfers that reached the wallet and confirm whether all LP tokens returned. Then reconcile liquidity removal against the final component token balances and subtract recorded network costs.

Pool fee income should remain within the LP result instead of being added again as a separate wallet payment. Pending rewards should remain outside received income unless a transfer record proves settlement. Any mid-period capital change requires its own interval or a clearly recorded adjustment.

If one link is missing, label that portion unresolved rather than estimating it. That boundary keeps a projected rate from being mistaken for assets that reached the wallet.