ICPSwap

ICPSwap V3 is an Internet Computer-native concentrated-liquidity AMM implemented through ICP canisters. Every pool position, swap, withdrawal and upgrade therefore depends on the unapproved ICP settlement perimeter. The version-1 rejected-chain dossier is decisive regardless of the approximately $2.80M observed on ICP on 2026-08-15; its AMM inventory would remain a separate rejection constraint on an approved chain.

Review triggers: events that reopen the verdict
• The ICP chain verdict changes or an economically separate ICPSwap product deploys on an approved chain
• Any reopened liquidity product passes exact-pool, controller, upgrade, incident, AMM-loss and proposed-size exit review

Watched nightly: a warning on its venues or files, or a cited document that changes, reopens the memo. The first confirmation is due 2026-11-15.

The research file

Mechanism and chain applicability

ICPSwap describes itself as a decentralized exchange based on the Internet Computer, and its current V3 service implements a Uniswap-v3-style concentrated-liquidity AMM in Motoko canisters. The SwapFactory creates and upgrades SwapPool canisters, while each SwapPool handles liquidity, swaps, deposits and withdrawals. The tracked product is therefore wholly settled and administered on ICP, directly meeting the shared v1 rejected-chain dossier.

Current observation and lifecycle

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 classified ICPSwap as a DEX and reported approximately $2.80M entirely on ICP. The official site remains live through 2026, the application still exposes the exchange, and the official V3 service repository documents current pool and upgrade architecture. This supports an active ICP-only product rather than an archived or multi-chain record.

Control, loss and exit applicability

ICPSwap V3 pool state and user exits are executed by SwapPool canisters. The SwapFactory coordinates a structured backup, pause, upgrade and resume pipeline for pools, so canister controllers and ICP execution are part of the authority and availability path. Concentrated LPs additionally face range, inventory and impermanent-loss risk, but those product risks cannot cure the unapproved settlement chain.

Why the class rule decides

No observed ICPSwap position can enter, rebalance or exit without ICP canister execution. The shared v1 rejected-chain dossier therefore controls before AMM quality or size. Reopen only if ICP passes the adviser chain review or an economically separate ICPSwap product deploys on an approved chain; any reopened LP review must still apply the amm-lp dossier to exact pools, controllers, upgrades, incidents and proposed-size removal.

Class rule

The rejected chain class is outside the approved structures, so every protocol in it is not approved until the rule changes. The rule is about the structure, not an adverse finding about this protocol, and it is not a client instruction. The events that would reopen it are listed with the memo.

Sources

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

• ICPSwap — official protocol site · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: Internet Computer deployment, DEX, current lifecycle, market and DAO services
• ICPSwap Labs — V3 service architecture · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: ICP canisters, concentrated liquidity, SwapFactory, SwapPool, upgrades, withdrawals
• ICPSwap — current application · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: live exchange interface, ICP, liquidity pools, current product
• Internet Computer — canister interface specification · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: ICP settlement, canister smart contracts, controllers, canister lifecycle
• DefiLlama — ICPSwap survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, ICP-only perimeter, Dexs category, survey observation

Inherited controls

The research above describes the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The layer with the most administrative power sets the position’s effective control; that describes control, not quality or suitability.