RocketSwap Anubis

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

RocketSwap Anubis is rejected under the version-1 AMM-liquidity-provision dossier. DefiLlama measured about $193.0M on the newly listed Anubis chain and reported no completed audit. The upstream record identifies RocketSwap as a Uniswap V2 fork, so LPs hold two-asset constant-product inventory and earn swap fees as trades rebalance that inventory. This is a protocol-specific application of a published class rule, not an unsupported claim that every contract or operator behind RocketSwap Anubis is defective.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• RocketSwap ships a single-asset product with no AMM inventory exposure
• A client mandate explicitly authorizes market making and Anubis passes all applicable chain limits

The research file

Mechanism and applicability

The upstream record identifies RocketSwap as a Uniswap V2 fork, so LPs hold two-asset constant-product inventory and earn swap fees as trades rebalance that inventory. The reviewed deployment therefore satisfies the dossier’s mechanism requirements on its own facts. DefiLlama measured about $193.0M on the newly listed Anubis chain and reported no completed audit. 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

No official protocol site, operator identity, completed audit, or RocketSwap-specific upgrade description was present in the upstream record; Anubis chain control is graded separately. 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

LP redemption returns the current reserve ratio, and the entire observed position also depends on Anubis block production and any route used to move assets away from that chain. 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

A single-asset position on a reviewed chain is more explainable and does not add paired-token inventory to a newly documented settlement layer. 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.

• Uniswap V2 core whitepaper · primary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: fork mechanism, constant-product inventory, LP redemption
• DefiLlama — RocketSwap Anubis 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.