STON.fi

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

STON.fi is an automated market maker on the TON blockchain. Its depositors are liquidity providers, and paired-asset pools expose them to impermanent loss: the pool sells the rising asset for the falling one, so the LP exits worth less than if they had simply held both. That loss cannot be explained to this client in two sentences and is indefensible when it bites, so the AMM category is rejected regardless of protocol quality. STON.fi held about $16.7M in TVL across 22 pools at the 2026-08-14 survey.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• Ships a product line without impermanent-loss exposure that merits its own review

The research file

Mechanism applicability

STON.fi identifies its TON DEX as a permissionless constant-product AMM using liquidity pools rather than an order book. LPs own pool tokens and earn a share of swap fees while the x*y=k invariant changes their quantities of the paired assets. This directly establishes membership in the shared v1 AMM-LP dossier.

Current observation and perimeter

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 reported approximately $25.8M of STON.fi TVL, classified it as a DEX and identified TON as its sole chain. STON.fi’s current developer documentation, updated in 2026, continues to describe constant-product pools and liquidity provision; aggregation features do not turn an LP position into a non-AMM product.

Control and exit applicability

STON.fi says pool contracts are immutable while router upgrades carry a seven-day timelock. Permissionless pool creation leaves the LP responsible for pair and token selection. Withdrawal burns pool tokens for the then-current reserves, so the LP realizes the invariant-driven asset mix and remains exposed to token liquidity; fees accumulated in the pool do not guarantee they offset divergence loss.

Why the class rule decides

The shared v1 AMM-LP dossier controls the observed liquidity product. Reopen only for a separately identifiable STON.fi product without paired inventory rebalancing or impermanent-loss exposure. Then review its TON settlement, contract and router controls, audits and incidents, fee source, token permissions, and proposed-size ordinary and stressed exits against simply holding the assets.

Sources

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

• STON.fi Docs — protocol introduction · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: TON, constant-product AMM, permissionless pools, pool immutability, router timelock
• STON.fi Help — LP fee accounting · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: x*y=k, swap fees, LP share, pool-value accounting
• DefiLlama — STON.fi survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, TON, DEX category, survey perimeter

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.