RocketSwap Anubis

RocketSwap Anubis is outside the current firm shelf under the version-1 AMM-liquidity-provision policy. 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 applies a published class rule to one protocol; it does not claim that every contract or operator behind RocketSwap Anubis is defective.

Review triggers: events that reopen the 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

Watched nightly: a warning on its venues or files, or a cited document that changes, reopens the memo. The first confirmation is due 2026-11-19.

The research file

Mechanism and why the rule applies

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. On its own facts the deployment matches the mechanism the dossier describes. DefiLlama measured about $193.0M on the newly listed Anubis chain and reported no completed audit. This record keeps enough protocol evidence to show the rule applies and leaves the shared economic argument in the pinned dossier; it is not 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 the rule turns on. 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 rule holds until a stated reopen condition is observed and a new review measures the exit at the proposed size 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.

Class rule

The amm lp 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.

• 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 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.