The Puzzle team recently announced the launch of RANGES with a total amount of $100,000 and not just announced it, but has already implemented it in practice. At the moment, new RANGES have already been launched and are operating, which means it is the right time to calmly figure out what exactly was done, which ranges are available and what effect can be expected from them.

We are talking about four RANGES at once: SBER, SBER2, SRU, and PPS. They differ in token composition and leverage, therefore comparing them with each other is really interesting. In this article, I will try in simple language to explain which RANGES exist now and how they differ from each other.

At the moment, four different RANGES have been launched, each of which in its own way adds liquidity and expands opportunities for arbitrage.

By liquidity volume it is clear that the team is not betting on only one scenario, meaning they are testing several approaches at once.
At first glance, SBER and SBER2 look almost identical: in both ranges the same assets are used: Solana, Ethereum, Bitcoin and Rome. But if you look at the liquidity distribution, it becomes clear that these are two different approaches.

SBER looks like a more directional range. Almost half of all liquidity here is concentrated in Solana, which immediately makes it clear that this range depends more strongly on the movement of SOL. The other tokens: Ethereum, Bitcoin and Rome complement it by creating trading pairs.

SBER2, on the contrary, looks more balanced. Solana, Ethereum and Bitcoin are distributed in almost equal shares. Due to this, the range depends less on a single specific asset. But Rome occupies a minimal share here. And at the moment, it is the second option that shows a higher APY.

By liquidity volume, SBER2 is also noticeably larger and looks like a range designed for stable operation, but SBER can deliver a higher result during periods of active growth of Solana.

At the current stage, it is impossible to say unambiguously which of the ranges is better. And this is normal. These ranges initially look like an experiment with different strategies. Most likely, in a few months it will become clear which approach shows stronger performance.

The launch of ranges is additional income for Puzzle stakers from trading fees.

Let’s calculate how much yield this decision will bring to stakers.

To make it easier, I will explain step by step. Each range has its own APY, which can be seen on the ranges page. Usually this is a range from 10% to 50% annually, depending on trading activity.

But there is an important point:
the fee is split equally between the liquidity provider and the protocol.

That is, the liquidity provider earns their 10–50%, and exactly the same amount is earned by the protocol. The Puzzle team has added $100,000 of liquidity into the new ranges, which means that:
- with low activity (10%) — the protocol earns about $10,000,
- with medium activity (30%) — about $30,000,
- with high activity (50%) — up to $50,000.

This is not an exact forecast. These are three scenarios. This approach is usually called benchmarking.

And now to the most interesting part — how does this affect $PUZZLE stakers?

All these fees are exactly additional income for stakers. Right now, about 163K $PUZZLE is staked and the protocol earns from $10K to $50K. This means that for each staked $PUZZLE there is from $0.061 to $0.306. Wow!

If we remove all the numbers and percentages, everything comes down to a fairly simple thing: the effectiveness of ranges directly depends on trading activity.

There will be trades — there will be fees.

On our side, we have created the infrastructure and provided liquidity. After that, everything is decided by the market. And, of course, by people who know how to find differences between networks and pairs.

It is hard not to say the obvious here:
our arbitrageur friends, you definitely have room to roam!

The Puzzle team recently announced the launch of RANGES with a total amount of $100,000 and not just announced it, but has already implemented it in practice. At the moment, new RANGES have already been launched and are operating, which means it is the right time to calmly figure out what exactly was done, which ranges are available and what effect can be expected from them.

We are talking about four RANGES at once: SBER, SBER2, SRU, and PPS. They differ in token composition and leverage, therefore comparing them with each other is really interesting. In this article, I will try in simple language to explain which RANGES exist now and how they differ from each other.

At the moment, four different RANGES have been launched, each of which in its own way adds liquidity and expands opportunities for arbitrage.

By liquidity volume it is clear that the team is not betting on only one scenario, meaning they are testing several approaches at once.
At first glance, SBER and SBER2 look almost identical: in both ranges the same assets are used: Solana, Ethereum, Bitcoin and Rome. But if you look at the liquidity distribution, it becomes clear that these are two different approaches.

SBER looks like a more directional range. Almost half of all liquidity here is concentrated in Solana, which immediately makes it clear that this range depends more strongly on the movement of SOL. The other tokens: Ethereum, Bitcoin and Rome complement it by creating trading pairs.

SBER2, on the contrary, looks more balanced. Solana, Ethereum and Bitcoin are distributed in almost equal shares. Due to this, the range depends less on a single specific asset. But Rome occupies a minimal share here. And at the moment, it is the second option that shows a higher APY.

By liquidity volume, SBER2 is also noticeably larger and looks like a range designed for stable operation, but SBER can deliver a higher result during periods of active growth of Solana.

At the current stage, it is impossible to say unambiguously which of the ranges is better. And this is normal. These ranges initially look like an experiment with different strategies. Most likely, in a few months it will become clear which approach shows stronger performance.

The launch of ranges is additional income for Puzzle stakers from trading fees.

Let’s calculate how much yield this decision will bring to stakers.

To make it easier, I will explain step by step. Each range has its own APY, which can be seen on the ranges page. Usually this is a range from 10% to 50% annually, depending on trading activity.

But there is an important point:
the fee is split equally between the liquidity provider and the protocol.

That is, the liquidity provider earns their 10–50%, and exactly the same amount is earned by the protocol. The Puzzle team has added $100,000 of liquidity into the new ranges, which means that:
- with low activity (10%) — the protocol earns about $10,000,
- with medium activity (30%) — about $30,000,
- with high activity (50%) — up to $50,000.

This is not an exact forecast. These are three scenarios. This approach is usually called benchmarking.

And now to the most interesting part — how does this affect $PUZZLE stakers?

All these fees are exactly additional income for stakers. Right now, about 163K $PUZZLE is staked and the protocol earns from $10K to $50K. This means that for each staked $PUZZLE there is from $0.061 to $0.306. Wow!

If we remove all the numbers and percentages, everything comes down to a fairly simple thing: the effectiveness of ranges directly depends on trading activity.

There will be trades — there will be fees.

On our side, we have created the infrastructure and provided liquidity. After that, everything is decided by the market. And, of course, by people who know how to find differences between networks and pairs.

It is hard not to say the obvious here:
our arbitrageur friends, you definitely have room to roam!