PumpSwap

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

PumpSwap is rejected under the version-1 AMM-liquidity-provision dossier. The Phase 2 survey measured approximately $251.5M of Solana liquidity. PumpSwap is a constant-product automated market maker whose LP token represents two-asset pool inventory and fee accrual. This is a protocol-specific application of a published class rule, not an unsupported claim that every contract or operator behind PumpSwap is defective.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• PumpSwap ships a single-asset product with no synthetic or direct AMM inventory exposure
• A client mandate explicitly authorizes market making and defines pool, token, range, loss, and exit limits

The research file

Mechanism and applicability

PumpSwap is a constant-product automated market maker whose LP token represents two-asset pool inventory and fee accrual. The reviewed deployment therefore satisfies the dossier’s mechanism requirements on its own facts. The Phase 2 survey measured approximately $251.5M of Solana liquidity. 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

Pump documents creator-fee sharing and migration from Pump bonding curves into PumpSwap; token issuers and pool creators remain separate control and asset-quality surfaces. 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

An LP burns its pool claim and receives the then-current token mix, so relative-price movement and thin token-side depth can crystallize adverse inventory at 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

Directly holding an eligible asset or using a reviewed single-asset venue preserves a legible principal exposure without continuously selling the outperforming side into the underperforming side. 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.

• Pump — PumpSwap product announcement · primary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: constant-product AMM, LP fees, pool creation
• DefiLlama — PumpSwap 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.