MIM Swap

Rejected venues wait the longest for re-review; a rejection has to earn another look before the scheduled date.

MIM Swap is rejected under the version-1 AMM-liquidity-provision dossier. The live yield feed showed a roughly $10,000 MIM-USDT Arbitrum pool while the protocol API reported about $123,000 across its remaining deployments. MIM Swap is Abracadabra’s stableswap AMM: LPs supply MIM and another stable asset and earn fees as the invariant exchanges one reserve for the other. This is a protocol-specific application of a published class rule, not an unsupported claim that every contract or operator behind MIM Swap is defective.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• MIM Swap ships a single-asset product with no direct or synthetic LP exposure
• A client mandate explicitly authorizes stablecoin market making with issuer, peg, loss, and exit limits

The research file

Mechanism and applicability

MIM Swap is Abracadabra’s stableswap AMM: LPs supply MIM and another stable asset and earn fees as the invariant exchanges one reserve for the other. The reviewed deployment therefore satisfies the dossier’s mechanism requirements on its own facts. The live yield feed showed a roughly $10,000 MIM-USDT Arbitrum pool while the protocol API reported about $123,000 across its remaining deployments. A class application records enough protocol evidence to prove applicability while leaving the shared economic argument in the pinned dossier rather than pretending this is a separate flagship review.

Control and incident boundary

Abracadabra governance and token-admin controls remain relevant, and each stablecoin issuer adds an independent freeze, peg, and redemption surface. Those controls and the available incident record may change operational risk, but they do not remove the property that triggers this disposition. No clean-record claim is used as proof of safety: a young deployment can have little adversarial history, and an established deployment can execute its intended economics without an exploit while still remaining unsuitable for the advised sleeve.

Exit and current measurement

A stable-pair LP is not protected from depegging: arbitrage removes the stronger reserve and leaves the pool accumulating the impaired asset before withdrawal. Aggregate TVL is an accounting measure rather than a promise that the exact client position can be unwound at the displayed value. The disposition remains a zero allocation until a stated reopen condition is observed and a new review measures the proposed-size exit instead of inferring it from a dashboard total.

Comparison and decision

Holding a reviewed stable asset directly or using an approved single-asset venue avoids making the client the buyer of the weakening peg. The comparison is made at the exposure level, not by brand or headline rate. The published dossier is preferable to repeating the same class judgment with slightly different wording for every venue; the protocol-specific sources retained here make the classification reproducible and the reopen criteria observable.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• Abracadabra Documentation — MIMSwap · primary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: stableswap mechanism, MIM pairs, LP fees
• DefiLlama — MIM Swap protocol data · secondary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: protocol category, chain perimeter, current TVL

Inherited controls

The verdict above grades the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The least safe layer sets the position’s grade, and the position table names which one that is.