Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Impermanent loss is the difference between the value of holding tokens in your wallet and providing those same tokens as liquidity in an automated market maker (AMM). Comparing a liquidity position against simply holding the same assets reveals whether the position is truly profitable.

A positive balance or accumulated trading fees on a pool dashboard does not guarantee an overall gain.

Your liquidity position is up. You have collected trading fees. The pool dashboard shows a positive number. But would you have been better off simply keeping the tokens in your wallet? That is the question impermanent loss answers.

For liquidity providers, the headline number on a position does not tell the whole story. What matters is the result compared with the alternative: holding the same assets without putting them into a liquidity pool.

The math is predictable. Once you understand it, you can estimate how much price divergence could cost you, decide which pairs fit your risk tolerance and judge whether fees and other rewards are enough to compensate.

Core Applications of Impermanent Loss MathEstimating divergence costs: Liquidity providers can calculate in advance how much price divergence between pooled tokens will reduce their position value.Selecting asset pairs: Liquidity providers can choose token pairs that match their individual risk tolerance by analyzing price divergence scenarios.Evaluating fee compensation: Liquidity providers can determine whether collected swap fees and protocol rewards are large enough to offset their divergence losses.What is impermanent loss, really?Impermanent loss is the opportunity cost that can arise when you provide liquidity to an AMM instead of simply holding the same assets.

Suppose you have $1,000 worth of two tokens. You can keep them in your wallet, or you can deposit them into a liquidity pool.

If the relative price between those tokens changes, an AMM automatically changes the quantities of each asset in your position. Arbitrage traders help bring the pool price back in line with the wider market by buying one asset from the pool and adding the other.

As a result, when you compare your liquidity position with the tokens you would have held, the pool position can be worth less.

A useful term for this is divergence loss. The loss comes from the prices of the two assets diverging from the ratio at which you originally supplied them. The greater that divergence, the larger the potential difference between providing liquidity and holding.

Divergence Loss CharacteristicsAlternative naming: Divergence loss is an alternative term for impermanent loss.Origin of the loss: Divergence loss occurs when the prices of two assets separate from the ratio at which they were originally supplied.Impact of price divergence: Greater price divergence between two pooled assets creates a larger potential value difference between providing liquidity and holding.Realizing Versus Eliminating the LossReversing the loss: Impermanent loss can disappear if relative token prices return to their original ratio before a withdrawal occurs.Locking in the loss: Withdrawing tokens while relative prices remain diverged locks in the difference in value permanently.Dollar gains with impermanent loss: A liquidity position can rise in overall dollar value while still suffering impermanent loss.The holding benchmark: Impermanent loss occurs whenever simply holding original tokens produces a higher value than maintaining the liquidity pool position."Impermanent" can therefore be misleading. If the relative prices return to their original ratio before you withdraw, the loss can disappear. But if you withdraw while the prices remain diverged, the difference is locked in.

Impermanent loss does not necessarily mean your position has lost money in dollar terms. Your liquidity position can rise in value and still suffer impermanent loss if simply holding the original tokens would have produced a higher value. That distinction is crucial.

Why impermanent loss happensImpermanent loss is a consequence of how AMMs keep their internal prices aligned with the wider market. Consider a basic constant-product AMM. It maintains the relationship:

x × y = k

Here, x and y are the quantities of the two tokens in the pool and k remains constant, ignoring fees and liquidity changes.

Suppose an ETH/USDC pool starts with ETH priced at $2,000. Then the external market price of ETH rises to $4,000.

The AMM does not receive an external price update and simply change its displayed ETH price. Its price comes from the ratio of assets inside the pool.

That creates an arbitrage opportunity. While ETH remains cheaper in the pool than elsewhere, arbitrage traders can buy ETH from the pool and add USDC. As ETH leaves and USDC enters, the ratio changes until the pool price approaches the external market price.

The liquidity provider is left with less of the asset that increased in relative value and more of the other asset.

The Arbitrage Rebalancing MechanismPrice discrepancy: A divergence between external market prices and pool asset ratios creates an arbitrage opportunity.Arbitrage execution: Arbitrage traders purchase the cheaper asset from the pool and add the other asset until the pool price approaches the external market price.Asset reallocation: Arbitrage trading leaves liquidity providers with less of the asset that increased in relative value and more of the other asset.Liquidity Provision Versus HoldingHold strategy asset retention: An investor who holds tokens outside a pool retains the full original amount of both assets.Pool selling mechanism: An automated market maker liquidity position becomes worth less than a holding strategy because the pool automatically sells the asset rising in relative value.Directional neutrality: Relative price divergence causes impermanent loss regardless of whether an asset price moves upward or downward.Divergence scale: Greater distance between the current relative price and the starting price ratio increases the total divergence loss.If the LP had simply held the original tokens, they would still own the original amount of ETH. Because the AMM sold some ETH as its price rose, the LP's position is worth less than the hold strategy.

The same principle applies in the other direction. Impermanent loss is caused by price divergence, not by whether a token goes up or down.

The further the relative price moves from its starting point, the larger the divergence loss becomes. For more on the underlying mechanism, see Automated market makers explained.

The impermanent loss formulaFor a standard 50/50 constant-product AMM, impermanent loss can be calculated using:

IL = (2 × √r / (1 + r)) − 1

Here:

IL = impermanent loss relative to holding r = the new price divided by the original price

Suppose one asset doubles relative to the other. The price ratio is therefore:

r = 2

Put that into the formula:

IL = (2 × √2 / 3) − 1

The result is approximately:

−5.72%

That does not mean your entire position fell 5.72% in dollar terms.

It means your liquidity position is worth approximately 5.72% less than the value you would have had by simply holding the original assets, before accounting for trading fees or other rewards.

Here is what different levels of price divergence look like:

Price divergence

IL percentage

Equivalent loss on a $1,000 portfolio

1.25x

0.62%

$6.19

1.5x

2.02%

$20.20

2x

5.72%

$57.19

5x

25.46%

$254.64

The relationship is not linear. A 25% price move produces relatively little impermanent loss. But as the two assets move further apart, the effect becomes much larger.

A fivefold divergence creates an impermanent loss of roughly 25.5% relative to holding.

The formula is also symmetrical in economic terms. If one asset rises fivefold relative to the other, or the other asset rises fivefold relative to the first, what matters is the magnitude of the relative price divergence.

An impermanent loss calculator essentially applies this formula for you. But understanding the formula matters because it shows exactly what drives the risk: not simply volatility, but relative price movement between the assets in your pool.

Does asset pair choice change your risk?Yes. The relationship between the two assets is one of the biggest factors determining your exposure to impermanent loss.

Assets whose prices tend to move together generally create less divergence than assets that behave very differently.

Stablecoin pools illustrate the principle. If two assets both remain close to the same reference value, their relative price should stay near the starting ratio. That can keep impermanent loss low.

But "stable" does not mean risk-free. A stablecoin can deviate from its peg, and if that divergence becomes significant or permanent, an LP can still face substantial losses.

At the other end of the spectrum are pairs containing two volatile assets whose prices can move independently. An ETH/small-cap-token pool, for example, can experience large relative price changes if one asset rises or falls much faster than the other.

The important question is therefore not simply, "Are these assets volatile?" It is: How likely are they to diverge from each other? Two volatile assets that move closely together can produce less impermanent loss than a pair in which one asset remains stable while the other moves sharply.

Pair selection does not eliminate impermanent loss. It changes the probability and potential magnitude of the divergence that causes it.

Paper loss vs. realized lossImpermanent loss changes as relative asset prices move. That is why the word "impermanent" exists in the first place.

Suppose you enter a liquidity pool when two assets have a particular price ratio. The ratio later changes, producing a 5% impermanent loss relative to holding.

If you keep the position open and the assets eventually return to their original relative price, that divergence loss can disappear.

If you withdraw while the 5% divergence still exists, however, you receive the pool's current asset composition. At that point, the difference compared with holding has effectively been realized.

For an LP, the decision can be framed as a continuing comparison:

Time horizon therefore matters. A temporary divergence may reverse. A lasting divergence may not. And waiting for prices to return to their original ratio carries its own market risk: there is no guarantee that they ever will.

The practical question is not simply whether your position currently shows impermanent loss. It is whether the total economics of keeping the position open still make sense relative to your alternatives.

How to reduce your impermanent loss exposureYou cannot remove the mathematical possibility of impermanent loss from a conventional AMM position. But you can change your exposure and consider whether the compensation you receive is sufficient.

Choose assets that are less likely to divergeCorrelated pairs generally reduce the chance of large relative price movements. Stablecoin pairs are the clearest example. If both assets remain close to their intended pegs, the relative price movement should be limited.

The trade-off is that lower divergence risk does not automatically make a liquidity position attractive. Fees, pool activity and other risks still matter.

Compare trading fees with divergence lossTrading fees are the primary mechanism that can compensate LPs for impermanent loss. Every time traders use a pool, a portion of the fees can accrue to liquidity providers according to the protocol's rules. That means impermanent loss should not be considered in isolation.

Imagine your position experiences 3% impermanent loss relative to holding but accumulates fees equivalent to 5% of the position's starting value over the same period. Other things being equal, the fees have more than offset the divergence loss.

If the position accumulates only 1% in fees, they have not. The relevant comparison is therefore between the cost created by divergence and the compensation generated by providing liquidity.

High trading volume can increase fee generation, but past activity does not guarantee future fees. And a sudden large price divergence can outweigh fees accumulated over a much longer period.

Consider your timingImpermanent loss depends on the price ratio when you enter and when you assess or close the position.

Entering immediately before a major divergence can expose the position to significant IL quickly. A more stable relative price can produce a very different outcome.

This does not mean you can reliably predict the market. It means the current relationship between the assets and the possibility of future divergence belong in your decision.

Understand concentrated liquidityConcentrated liquidity allows LPs to provide assets within selected price ranges instead of distributing liquidity across the entire price curve.

A narrower range can make capital more efficient and potentially generate more fees for a given amount of liquidity while the market remains inside that range.

But concentration changes the risk. If the price moves through or outside your chosen range, the composition of your position can change substantially and the position can become entirely concentrated in one asset. Narrower ranges therefore require closer attention to price movement and can increase exposure to divergence.

Uniswap v3 is a well-known example of this model. This is a different liquidity structure, not a way to make impermanent loss disappear.

Understand protocol-specific protection mechanismsSome protocols have experimented with mechanisms intended to compensate LPs for impermanent loss under specified conditions.

Bancor, for example, has used protocol-level impermanent-loss protection mechanisms in previous designs.

Such mechanisms add their own rules, dependencies and risks. They should be evaluated as part of the specific protocol rather than treated as a general solution to impermanent loss.

Is impermanent loss worth the risk?There is no universal answer. What matters is the net outcome. A simple way to think about an LP position is:

Net outcome = fee income + rewards − impermanent loss

That framework is more useful than looking at any component separately.

A pool can generate substantial fees and still leave you worse off than holding if price divergence is large enough. Conversely, modest impermanent loss can be outweighed by sufficient fees.

You also need to consider risks that are not captured by the formula: smart contract risk, token risk and the possibility that an asset permanently loses value or a stablecoin loses its peg.

The key benchmark is the alternative. Ask: What would my position be worth if I had simply held the same assets? Then compare that with the current value of your LP position plus the fees and any other rewards you have actually earned.

LPs cannot control how far two market prices eventually diverge. But they can control some other costs associated with their DeFi activity, including how they swap assets when entering, adjusting or exiting positions.

A DEX aggregator can search liquidity across multiple sources rather than relying on a single pool. The 1inch app uses aggregation to find efficient swap routes across available liquidity.

Intent-based swaps powered by 1inch Fusion can also help protect swaps from MEV and remove the need for the user to pay network gas for the swap itself. For an LP already managing unavoidable risks such as price divergence, reducing avoidable execution costs can matter to the overall result.

FAQWhat is impermanent loss in cryptocurrency?Impermanent loss is the difference between the value of assets supplied to an AMM liquidity pool and the value those same assets would have had if you had simply held them. It occurs when the relative prices of the pooled assets diverge.

Is a liquidity pool profitable?It can be, but profitability depends on the complete outcome. Trading fees and other rewards need to be compared with impermanent loss and other risks. A pool generating fees does not automatically mean an LP is better off than holding the underlying assets.

How do I make money with liquidity pools despite impermanent loss?LPs receive compensation such as trading fees and, in some protocols, additional rewards. Whether these outweigh impermanent loss depends on trading activity, fee structure, price divergence and the time the position remains active.

Staking vs. providing liquidity: which has more risk?They involve different risks. Providing liquidity to an AMM can expose you to impermanent loss because the relative prices of pooled assets can change. Staking does not generally create the same AMM-based divergence loss, but it can involve other risks depending on the asset, network and staking mechanism.

How do concentrated liquidity ranges affect impermanent loss?Concentrated liquidity places an LP's capital within a selected price range. Narrow ranges can increase capital efficiency and fee generation while the price remains within the range, but they can also increase exposure to changes in asset composition as the price moves. If the price leaves the range, the position can end up entirely in one asset.

Can impermanent loss go away on its own?Yes, if the relative price of the pooled assets returns to the ratio at which you entered the position. But there is no guarantee that prices will return. If you withdraw while prices remain diverged, the loss relative to holding is locked in.

Do stablecoin pools have impermanent loss?Yes, although it can be small while both assets remain close to their pegs. If one stablecoin deviates substantially from its expected value, the relative price can diverge and impermanent loss can become significant.

Impermanent loss is not an obscure edge case. It is built into the mechanics of AMM liquidity provision. Understanding the formula lets you evaluate the trade-off before committing your assets rather than discovering it after you withdraw.

Explore 1inch DeFi Academy and start learning today.

Disclaimer: This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any particular digital asset or to employ any specific investment strategy.

1INCH: How to start a career in DeFi: Your first steps into Web3

An audit can reduce risk, but it can never guarantee that a DeFi protocol is safe. 1inch spoke to Vik from BailSec about what smart contract audits actually tell us, the risks that exist beyond the code and what stood out when BailSec audited 1inch Aqua.

Smart contract audits have become a standard part of DeFi security. But hacks still happen to audited protocols. And increasingly, the weak point may not be the smart contract at all.

So what does an audit really prove? And how should you assess the security of a new architecture such as 1inch Aqua?

1inch spoke to Vik from BailSec, one of the security firms that audited Aqua, about the limits of audits and the security implications of Aqua’s approach to liquidity.

When you assess the security of a DeFi protocol today, what are the biggest risks you look for beyond obvious smart contract bugs?Many risks come from beyond the code. We look at the ecosystem itself, composability, design patterns, economic attacks and governance.

Ecosystem-level risks involve things like flash loans, liquidity manipulation, unusual token variations and potential breaks caused by future EVM hard forks.

Composability is a core value proposition of DeFi. But it also means a system may be used in ways its authors did not intend when they wrote it. Assessing that risk requires long experience with protocol security and a broad understanding of how people actually use smart contracts.

Design patterns matter as well. Established standards such as ERCs and well-understood techniques can lead to more robust interactions. A well-designed protocol uses established patterns to solve standard problems so developers can focus on the parts that are genuinely new.

Then there are economic attacks. These include second-order vulnerabilities that go beyond smart contract security and require familiarity with how DeFi products actually get used.

Finally, there is governance risk. The question is: what happens if a trusted part of the system is not so trusted? A well-designed system takes a defense-in-depth approach and limits even privileged roles to the minimum permissions they need.

How should teams think about the limits of an audit? What can a strong audit establish and what can it never guarantee?Auditors are skilled experts, but they are limited by the scope of the engagement. We are limited both by time and by which portions of the system are under review.

An audit is also time-bound. If the client introduces additional complexity in the middle of the engagement, it may no longer be possible to achieve the coverage that the original time estimate was intended to provide.

And auditors can make mistakes. At BailSec, we rigorously test the auditors we work with and hire some of the best auditors in the space to dramatically reduce the risk that an auditing team misses a substantial bug. But that risk is never zero.

If an audit report contains many medium- and high-severity findings, that density can suggest there may be more bugs remaining after the review. In that case, we recommend engaging another audit team for a second round.

The development team might also change the code after the audit. We cannot ensure that those changes do not introduce new bugs or violate invariants that were verified during our audit.

Even without any of those issues, an audit can never guarantee that a codebase is bug-free or cannot be hacked. It provides a high degree of assurance that the system behaves as designed. It is not proof.

Even formal verification cannot ensure that a codebase is entirely free of unexpected behavior. Formal verification establishes that reviewed code matches a formal specification, but the specification itself may be incomplete. It could miss an attack vector. And the code eventually deployed may not be the code that was reviewed.

Smart contract audits used to be mostly about the contracts themselves. How much does security now depend on protecting the whole stack?Infrastructure and key compromise have become a major root cause of losses across the ecosystem by dollar value.

Unless otherwise specified, a smart contract audit typically does not include those components. Some may also contain intellectual property or trade secrets that a project does not want to disclose to a third-party smart contract auditing firm.

That makes it difficult for us to ensure that the combination of APIs, the frontend, infrastructure and other off-chain components maintains the invariants intended by the team.

Good smart contract design can go a long way toward mitigating these risks. Where possible, logic can be moved from off-chain components on-chain, while the mutability of on-chain components can be minimized.

Immutability is a desirable quality in a robustly designed smart contract system because it reduces exceptions and assumptions and can provide a higher degree of assurance.

What do SOC 2 and ISO 27001 cover that a smart contract audit cannot?These security controls and certifications help cover a missing component: the combination of smart contracts, off-chain components and the larger organization operating them.

The frameworks address the organization that builds and operates the system, including access controls, key management, change management, vendor risk and incident response.

Supply-chain attacks have also become a greater risk in recent years. These standards provide evidence that an organization has taken steps to reduce that risk. Controls over endpoints and personnel can also help reduce the risk of insider attacks.

There is an important distinction within SOC 2 between a Type I attestation, which looks at controls at a point in time, and Type II, which covers how controls operate over a period of time.

But SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are not magic bullets. Just as a smart contract audit cannot completely prevent a hack, these frameworks cannot eliminate risk. They reduce the risk caused by weaknesses in other components of the system.

BailSec audited 1inch Aqua earlier this year. What was unusual or particularly interesting about Aqua from a security perspective?First of all, Aqua was something very fresh and new to the DeFi world, which was refreshing for us to review. It was not another fork of something else.

Aqua has a special design in two respects. It allows a high degree of customizability and flexibility in the strategies through which market makers deploy their capital. And it increases capital efficiency by allowing makers to deploy the same capital into multiple strategies.

That customizability puts more responsibility on the software components used to design strategies. They need to follow robust compositional rules and avoid invalid strategy configurations that could result in a loss of funds.

Deploying the same capital across multiple strategies also means that, while capital efficiency increases, the exposure of a maker’s capital to an economic vulnerability in a strategy can increase as well.

Another unusual feature is the requirement for takers to explicitly specify the maker strategies they interact with. That is an inversion of the typical AMM design, where multiple makers put capital into a single pool and interaction with it does not depend on the number of underlying makers.

Aqua lets liquidity remain in the maker’s wallet until a taker fills a position. Does that create additional risks?Aqua’s design eliminates certain classes of attacks that can drain capital held in liquidity pools. Eliminating that line of attack improves the security posture of the design.

It also gives makers an effective mechanism for cutting off their exposure to undesirable strategies by docking or revoking allowances.

Some risk is not fully eliminated but instead moves from balances held in pools to ERC-20 allowances. Still, the overall posture is an improvement.

What about double-spending? If the same balance backs multiple strategies, can the same liquidity be used twice?The smart contracts themselves ensure that liquidity cannot be used twice.

But shared capital does mean that one strategy may run out of available liquidity because a neighboring strategy has consumed it.

It is also important to keep this shared-capital model in mind when calculating aggregate market depth, TVL or available liquidity. Otherwise, off-chain components that do not understand how the system works could count the same liquidity twice.

So the liquidity cannot be spent twice by the smart contracts, but it can potentially be counted twice by off-chain systems.

Aqua gives takers more flexibility. Can that flexibility also increase risk?Yes. The order in which liquidity is consumed by the taker can affect the price at which future swaps take place.

Off-chain components that assess liquidity therefore need enough domain knowledge to sequence interactions appropriately.

For makers, a single economically risky strategy could potentially produce losses affecting the capital deployed across strategies. For takers, the main risk is that a particular maker may run out of capital during a swap because of collateral sharing. Systems deciding how to use the available liquidity need to account for that.

All swaps should also be protected by appropriate slippage limits to reduce exposure to risks such as MEV and front-running.

Aqua has been audited. Does that mean it is safe?An audit cannot ensure total safety. The fact that Aqua has undergone multiple audits is a strong indication that its authors take security seriously. It also provides evidence that the security of the system has been improved from its initial implementation.

But protocol security is a continuum. It is not a single state. Completing audits with multiple expert teams moves a protocol further along that continuum, but issues can still slip through an auditor’s review. That is why it is important to engage multiple teams and put as many expert eyes as possible on the contracts.

Users should also consider the risks of interacting with DeFi products and avoid exposing themselves to losses they cannot tolerate.

For sufficiently technical users and partners, the published audit reports themselves provide details about the potential pitfalls of the system and exactly what the auditing teams considered as part of their reviews.

At BailSec, we always recommend reading the reports. For non-technical users, AI tools can now also make it much easier to summarize audit findings and understand what a report actually says about a protocol’s security.

Security is never a finished job. Audits, careful protocol design and ongoing review can reduce risk, but none can turn DeFi into a risk-free environment.

For more on blockchain security, subscribe to our newsletter

1INCH: How to trade bStocks on 1inch

In this article, Arnau Briet, 1inch track’s winner at ETHGlobal Lisbon 2026, explains his project Agora -  futarchy-based prediction markets with 1inch Aqua.

Civilization is built on correct capital allocation. Corruption and conflicts of interest undermine it. And the clearest example is a decision-making class that isn't aligned with its stakeholders: taxpayers in a democracy, investors in a company, holders in a DAO. Agora solves this.

Two markets price the same asset in two universes, one where the proposal executed, one where it didn't. The price doesn't predict which one will happen. It picks it.

The idea. Futarchy, "vote on values, bet on beliefs", replaces the vote with a price. Agree on what you want to maximise, then let a market decide which policy gets there. This is where Agora departs from Polymarket-style venues, and it's the part worth reading twice.

On Polymarket you trade the probability of an event. The market is a spectator. The event happens with or without it.

On Agora you trade the price of the underlying asset in each branch of the decision. For example, a company voting on whether to replace its CEO. Two markets open on the same asset (the company's stock), one pricing the share with the replacement in the chair, one pricing it with the current CEO staying. If the first market values the stock higher, the proposal executes. The market isn't forecasting the vote, it's pricing what each outcome is worth, and the higher price is what selects it.

Where the tokens come from. A market with nothing to trade is not a market. Each proposal opens two Uniswap Continuous Clearing Auctions, through the canonical factory, selling a pre-minted supply of tYES and tNO for USDC.

Why 1inch Aqua. Continuous trading is where the venue choice decides whether the mechanism works. Three pieces: Aqua is the balance registry: ‘ship’/‘dock’ to allocate, ‘pull’/‘push’ at fill time. SwapVM executes the maker's program, a router is the entry point that drives one against the other.

Self-custody with no pool to seed. Makers ship all-or-none lot quotes while their tokens stay in their wallets: Aqua records an allocation, never a deposit. A decision market lives two weeks and then resolves: too short to justify parking capital in an AMM pool per market, and a custodial book would ask makers to hand over funds to trade a governance instrument. Aqua goes further than "no pool": ‘ship()’ records allocations without locking the balance, so one wallet balance can back lots on every open proposal at once. Fills are first-come-first-served, and a drained maker's remaining lots simply revert at ‘pull’ time. Capital efficiency paid for in ordering, not in custody.

A custom SwapVM instruction. Because a fill is effectively a vote, price validation shouldn't live in the frontend; it belongs on every fill, inside the VM. ‘AgoraComplement’ hooks in through SwapVM's ‘_extruction’ opcode and sanity-checks a lot as it executes. It rejects only zero balances and prices outside a deliberately enormous band around the market's reference, dust and fat-finger typos. It's deployed and fork-tested, and today it's a guard makers opt into.

Everything runs against 1inch's live Sepolia Aqua core, not a mock. Around it sit AgoraQuoteBuilder, which builds lot programs with 1inch's own ProgramBuilder, AgoraComplement, and our own LimitSwapVMRouter. We deployed our own because the Sepolia SwapVM router is an AquaSwapVMRouter, whose opcode table has no limit-swap instructions in it at all. Foundry suites run against the real core on a fork.

Resolution. An attestor computes a volume-weighted average price over a trailing window of on-chain Aqua fills and pushes it per side; at expiry the higher one wins.

Getting paid for being right. Today both sides redeem pro rata from their own auction pot, and that is the design's honest limit: a token whose only cash flow is a share of its own pot is priced at that share, not at a forecast of the subject asset.

So the winning branch shouldn't receive a flat payout, it should receive butterfly spread options peaked exactly at its own winning price, cash-settled against Pyth at expiry. Land on your forecast and you're paid in full, overshoot and you're paid nothing. The reward matures after the decision executes, so the skin in the game survives the vote.

The losing branch forecast a world that never happened. A counterfactual can't be scored, so those bets are called off and refunded pro rata from their own pot.

Built at ETHGlobal Lisbon 2026 by Arnau Briet, with Alex Arteaga mentoring, Agora exists as an unaudited proof of concept on Sepolia. As of September 2026, the butterfly settlement is specified, not yet deployed. The code can be viewed here, and the project’s website can be accessed here.

You can get in touch with Arnau Briet via email, Telegram, LinkedIn or X.

Stay tuned for more tech content from 1inch.

Disclaimer: Agora is an independent project built by a hackathon participant and is not developed, operated or endorsed by 1inch. The views expressed are the author’s own. Agora is an unaudited proof of concept on a testnet and is not available through any 1inch product. Prediction markets, event contracts and options may be regulated or restricted in many jurisdictions. This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal or tax advice.

1inch now supports five decentralized token funds (DTFs) from Reserve on BNB Chain: PHOTON, BUILDOUT, ROBOTS, POWER and NEOCLOUD.

Tokenized stocks are growing fast. But buying individual names means picking and managing a complex portfolio of assets yourself. 

What if DeFi could copy TradFi ETFs, and offer exposure to multiple assets with a single token?

That’s how Decentralized Token Folios (DTFs) work . Each one packages a whole segment of the AI economy into a single onchain token, with built-in weighting, scheduled rebalancing and transparent backing. Instead of managing a portfolio of tokenized stocks one by one, you can get thematic exposure through a single asset.

What is a DTF?A DTF is a single ERC-20 token backed by a basket of assets, built on the Reserve protocol. These five hold tokenized US stocks issued by Ondo Global Markets, which Ondo states are backed by real shares held in regulated US brokerage accounts. The baskets are market-cap weighted, rebalanced on schedule and redeemable onchain for the underlying tokens in accordance with the Reserve protocol’s rules, with holdings visible onchain.

The five fundsEach DTF covers one segment of the AI supply chain, with its own inclusion rules:

PHOTON holds photonics and optical networking companies: the fiber, lasers and optical chips wiring AI data centers. Market-cap weighted with a 20% cap per name and a $5B minimum, rebalanced quarterly.BUILDOUT covers AI hardware and infrastructure: 25 stocks with a 10% concentration cap on any single name.POWER covers energy and power infrastructure companies feeding AI data centers, with a $10B market-cap floor.NEOCLOUD holds cloud and compute capacity providers above $10B.ROBOTS covers robotics and automation, reaching down to a $2B minimum for smaller specialists.Why DTFs?A DTF turns tokenized stocks - one of the fastest-growing RWA segments - into a way to hold theme-based exposure onchain. Instead of choosing individual stocks and managing portfolio weights yourself, you hold a single token that represents a rules-based basket of assets:

One token, one theme. Exposure to a whole segment of the AI economy without picking single tickers or managing weights.No rebalancing chores. Weights and quarterly rebalances are handled by the fund rules, onchain.Transparent backing. Every fund can be redeemed onchain for its underlying tokenized stocks.Always-on access. Swaps settle onchain around the clock. Keep in mind that the underlying stocks trade on US market hours, so DTF pricing outside those hours can differ from the next market open.How to swapOpen the 1inch dApp or 1inch Wallet and switch to BNB ChainSearch for the ticker (PHOTON, BUILDOUT, ROBOTS, POWER or NEOCLOUD)Swap from any supported token, with aggregated liquidity and self-custody throughout.Explore tokenized assets on 1inch.

Disclaimer: This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any particular digital asset or to employ any specific investment strategy. DTF values move with the equity markets they track. Not available in the US, UK, and other restricted jurisdictions.

PHOTON, BUILDOUT, ROBOTS, POWER and NEOCLOUD are issued via the Reserve protocol, and their underlying tokenized stocks are issued by Ondo Global Markets; both are third parties. 1inch is not the issuer, sponsor or manager of these tokens and makes no representation or warranty as to their composition, backing, redemption or performance. Digital assets involve risk, including possible loss of value. Access is subject to applicable law and the restrictions set out in the 1inch Terms of Use.

With 1inch Aqua, you can increase the liquidity available to your positions without taking on additional price exposure between collateral and debt. Learn how to do it in this post. 

More liquidity can mean more opportunities to fill larger swaps and earn fees. But normally, getting more liquidity means committing more capital. Aave loops offer another route. You can supply an asset, borrow against it, resupply what you borrowed and repeat. The result is a larger supplied position built from the same starting capital. This is an advanced strategy: it uses real borrowing on Aave, carries liquidation risk, and is not suitable for users unfamiliar with leveraged positions.

1inch Aqua adds another layer. The aTokens representing that supplied position remain in your wallet and can back multiple Aqua strategies at once. 

And the most straightforward loop does not necessarily involve borrowing a different asset. You can supply WETH, borrow WETH, supply it again and repeat. The same approach can be used with USDC. This keeps collateral and debt denominated in the same asset, reducing one of the biggest risks of cross-asset looping.

How an Aave loop worksOn Aave, supplying an asset gives you aTokens representing your supplied position. Those aTokens accrue supply interest while the underlying assets remain supplied to Aave.

You can also use supplied assets as collateral to borrow.

A loop repeats those two actions:

Supply an asset.Borrow against it.Supply the borrowed asset.Borrow again against the larger collateral position.Repeat until you reach the desired level of leverage.Suppose, for illustration, that WETH has an applicable LTV of 80.5%. An LP starting with 100 WETH could supply it, borrow somewhat less than the maximum available amount - for example 78 WETH - supply those 78 WETH and then borrow again against the enlarged collateral base.

The process can be repeated several times, leaving the LP with a much larger supplied WETH position than the original 100 WETH.

This is real leverage. The additional capital comes from borrowing, and borrowing costs continue to accrue.

Why same-asset looping mattersThe simplest Aqua-oriented loop uses the same asset on both sides of the Aave position.

For example:

WETH supplied → borrow WETH → supply WETH → borrow WETH → repeat

Or:

USDC supplied → borrow USDC → supply USDC → borrow USDC → repeat

This matters because collateral and debt move together.

If you supply WETH and borrow USDC, a fall in ETH can reduce the value of your collateral relative to your stablecoin debt, pushing the position closer to liquidation.

If you supply WETH and borrow WETH, both sides are denominated in the same asset. A change in the dollar price of ETH affects the collateral and debt in roughly the same direction, so the ETH price itself does not create the same mismatch in the position's health factor.

That removes an important source of directional price risk.

It does not remove borrowing risk. Aave's supply rate is generally below its borrow rate, so maintaining the loop has a cost. Interest on the debt can gradually reduce the position's safety buffer. That is why borrowing right up to the maximum LTV would leave very little room for rates, parameter changes or other risks.

Why build a larger position?Because a larger aToken balance can support more liquidity on Aqua.

Suppose you start with 100 WETH. Without leverage, you have 100 WETH of starting capital available to build around.

After looping on Aave, the resulting supplied position can be substantially larger. The corresponding aWETH balance can then be used by Aqua strategies.

More available liquidity can allow larger swaps to execute against your positions. If those swaps happen, the larger position can generate more fees.

The leverage comes from Aave. Aqua itself does not create debt or multiply your assets.

Where Aqua enters the loopOnce the Aave loop is built, the wallet holds the aTokens representing the supplied assets.

Those tokens are already doing one job: they represent capital supplied to Aave and continue accruing Aave supply interest.

But they can also do another.

Aqua supports aTokens, allowing them to back Aqua liquidity positions directly from the wallet.

A same-asset WETH loop, for example, can create a larger aWETH balance. A USDC loop can create a larger aUSDC balance. Those balances can then be used across Aqua strategies.

And because Aqua uses shared liquidity, one balance does not have to be isolated in one position.

The same aToken balance can back multiple Aqua positions simultaneously, subject to the tokens actually available in the wallet when execution occurs.

One leveraged balance, several Aqua positionsThis is where the two systems complement each other.

Aave increases the size of the supplied position through borrowing.

Aqua lets the resulting balance support multiple liquidity strategies rather than requiring a separate allocation for each one.

For example, a portfolio containing aWETH, aUSDC and aUSDT could potentially support:

an aWETH/aUSDC position;an aWETH/aUSDT position;an aUSDC/aUSDT position.Those strategies do not require three completely separate pools of capital. Aqua positions can share the tokens already held in the wallet.

That does not mean the same token can actually be spent several times. Execution is always limited by the current wallet balance. Shared liquidity simply means several strategies can compete for the same available capital. Note that fills also change which aTokens the wallet holds, which can affect an Aave position’s health factor, see “What to monitor” below.

Cross-asset loops are possible tooSame-asset loops are not the only option.

You can also build a position such as:

WETH supplied → borrow USDC → supply USDC → borrow again

The result may include both aWETH and aUSDC collateral, which can then support Aqua positions involving those assets.

This gives the strategy a different risk profile.

Because the collateral and debt are no longer denominated in the same asset, relative price movements matter. If ETH falls against USDC, for example, the health factor can deteriorate even without any Aqua activity.

So cross-asset loops can create more strategy combinations, but they also require closer monitoring of market prices and liquidation risk.

How can Aqua trade aTokens that are already collateral?This raises an obvious question.

If aTokens are backing an Aave loan, how can Aqua trade them at all?

Aave does not let a borrower freely transfer collateral if doing so would leave the loan undercollateralized. If an outgoing aToken transfer would push the health factor too low, Aave reverts it.

That means a simple sequence like this may fail:

maker sends collateral out → maker receives the other asset

The intermediate state matters. The maker may not be sufficiently collateralized after the first step, even if the completed swap would leave the position healthy again.

SwapVM solves this through execution ordering.

Input first, output secondWith SwapVM, the incoming side of the swap can reach the maker before the outgoing collateral is taken.

For example, imagine a maker is swapping one Aave collateral token for another.

The resolver first transfers the incoming aToken to the maker.

That increases the maker's collateral and improves the health factor.

Only then does the resolver receive the outgoing aToken from the maker.

In simplified form:

incoming aToken goes to maker → collateral increases → health factor improves → outgoing aToken leaves maker → collateral composition changes

The important point is that the position receives additional collateral before it gives collateral up.

That ordering can make an overcollateralized Aave position tradable through Aqua even when transferring the outgoing asset first would fail Aave's collateral checks.

Aqua does not bypass Aave's risk controls. Aave's rules still apply to every relevant transfer. SwapVM simply allows the swap to be structured so the healthy final state can be reached without first creating an unhealthy intermediate state.

Why SwapVM changes what is possibleThis execution model is especially important for leveraged positions. With a conventional order mechanism, the maker may need to transfer the sold token before receiving the token on the other side. If that token is collateral backing substantial debt, the first transfer can fail.

SwapVM gives the taker control over the order of transfers. The taker can contribute the incoming asset first, giving the maker additional collateral capacity before the outgoing asset moves. But the flow can also be reversed: the maker can transfer first and the taker can return the other asset afterwards. 

That flexibility matters because it enables strategies such as flash swaps and arbitrage using the maker’s funds, while also making it possible to work with collateral that is not freely transferable in isolation. In all cases execution remains atomic, the maker receives the position’s quoted terms, or the transaction does not complete.

The economics still have to workLooping creates a larger position, but it also creates an ongoing financing cost.

If you supply WETH, borrow WETH and resupply it repeatedly, you earn supply interest on the supplied balance while paying borrow interest on the debt.

Because the borrowing rate is generally higher than the supply rate, the loop has negative carry before Aqua fees.

The real question is therefore not simply:

“How much larger can I make my Aqua position?”

It is:

“Will the additional swap fees from the larger Aqua position compensate for the extra Aave borrowing cost and risk?”

If the Aqua position attracts enough trading activity, additional liquidity can generate additional fees. If it receives little flow, the LP can end up paying borrowing costs without earning enough extra fees to compensate.

What to monitorA same-asset loop removes much of the collateral-versus-debt price exposure, but it is still a leveraged position.

On Aave, LPs need to watch the health factor, supply and borrow rates, applicable LTV and liquidation parameters. Borrowing costs can gradually increase debt relative to collateral, particularly if the position was opened too close to its maximum borrowing capacity.

Cross-asset loops require additional attention to relative prices because market moves can directly affect the health factor.

On Aqua, LPs also need to monitor position ranges, available balances, fills and how swaps are changing the composition of the aTokens held in the wallet, since changes in the ratio between assets such as aUSDC and aWETH can affect the health factor and increase liquidation risk in looped positions.

More capital can create more fee opportunities. It also creates more moving parts. For the broader risk framework, see our guide on risk management for LPs.

From leverage to shared liquidityAave and Aqua address different parts of the capital-efficiency problem.

Aave looping can turn a starting balance into a larger supplied position through leverage.

Aqua can then let the resulting aToken balances support multiple liquidity strategies at the same time.

Same-asset loops such as WETH/WETH or USDC/USDC are particularly useful because they can increase the size of the position without introducing the same directional price mismatch as borrowing one asset against another.

SwapVM completes the picture. By allowing incoming collateral to reach the maker before outgoing collateral is transferred, it makes it possible to execute swaps against leveraged Aave positions while respecting Aave's collateral requirements.

The result is a structure where one starting balance can support a leveraged Aave position, continue accruing supply interest and provide shared liquidity across multiple Aqua strategies.

But leverage is never free. Borrowing costs, health factor and Aqua fee generation all need to be considered together.

Explore 1inch Aqua and learn how shared liquidity can work with Aave collateral.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal or tax advice, or a recommendation to enter into any transaction. Leveraged borrowing and liquidity provision involve significant risk, including liquidation and possible loss of funds. Supply and borrowing rates, LTV limits, liquidation parameters and market conditions can change. Swap fees are not guaranteed.

What if the same liquidity could work across several strategies at once? 1inch Aqua lets one wallet balance back multiple positions simultaneously, giving LPs a way to “restake” liquidity without splitting or repeatedly redeploying their capital.

Providing liquidity usually forces a choice. Put $10,000 into one position, and that capital is generally committed there until you withdraw it. Want to pursue another opportunity? You have to split the balance or move liquidity from one strategy to another.

1inch Aqua changes that model. The same tokens can support multiple positions at the same time, while remaining in your wallet until a swap executes. In practical terms, Aqua lets you reuse — or “restake” — the same liquidity across different strategies instead of allocating a separate balance to each one.

What does “restaking liquidity” mean?Restaking is best understood here as an analogy.

Aqua does not stake LP tokens or create another layer of yield on top of a deposited position. There is no conventional LP token that you take from one protocol and stake somewhere else.  It is also unrelated to blockchain restaking protocols: no staking rewards layer is added, and no validator or slashing exposure is involved.

Instead, Aqua uses shared liquidity. One approved wallet balance can be available to several positions simultaneously. Each position follows its own rules, but all of them can reference the same underlying tokens.

Still, there is an important distinction: shared liquidity is not leverage. Aqua does not borrow your tokens or create debt. A swap can only use tokens that are actually available in your wallet.

Why traditional liquidity has to be splitImagine you hold 10,000 USDC and want to provide liquidity across three markets.

In a traditional pool model, you might allocate:

4,000 USDC to USDC/ETH3,000 USDC to USDC/USDT3,000 USDC to USDC/WBTCEach allocation becomes its own isolated position. The USDC committed to one pool cannot simultaneously provide liquidity to another.

The problem is obvious when demand is uneven. One position might see substantial trading activity while another barely gets used, but the unused capital cannot automatically support the busier market.

Moving it means withdrawing, potentially swapping assets, approving another contract and redeploying the liquidity.

How Aqua lets the same liquidity work againWith Aqua, the same 10,000 USDC balance can be referenced by several strategies at once.

For example, an LP could create positions for USDC/ETH, USDC/USDT and USDC/WBTC while allowing each position to draw on the same available USDC balance. Aqua keeps track of the liquidity available to each strategy, while the actual tokens stay in the LP's wallet.

Aqua therefore changes the question from:

“Which strategy should get my liquidity?”

to:

“Which strategies should be allowed to use my liquidity when demand appears?”

Restaking liquidity without locking it againTraditional capital reuse often introduces another layer of locking. Assets are deposited somewhere, a receipt or LP token is issued, and that new asset may then be deposited into another protocol.

Aqua does not rely on that structure.

Tokens remain in the LP's wallet. Strategies access them only when their execution conditions are satisfied, and the swap occurs atomically. If no trade executes, the tokens do not leave the wallet. Aqua is a shared liquidity layer where a single asset base can support multiple strategies without splitting or locking funds.

The ability to reuse liquidity therefore comes from shared access to the original balance, rather than from creating another token representing deposited capital.

More strategies from the same balanceThe most direct use case is diversification across trading strategies.

The same assets could potentially support different types of markets or execution logic. Aqua's architecture can support strategies such as AMMs, order-book-style mechanisms and auctions, each drawing on the same underlying liquidity under its own conditions.

An LP can also use shared liquidity across multiple token pairs. A USDC balance, for example, does not have to be committed exclusively to one market before the LP knows where trading demand will appear.

The benefit is not that the LP somehow owns more USDC. The benefit is that the same USDC can be made available to more potential trading opportunities.

What happens when one strategy uses the liquidity?Shared liquidity still has a hard constraint: the wallet balance.

Suppose several Aqua positions reference 10,000 USDC and one swap consumes 2,000 USDC. The wallet now has 8,000 USDC available, so other strategies can only execute against what remains.

Aqua cannot spend the same token twice. Multiple positions can advertise access to the same liquidity, but execution is always limited by the assets actually available when a swap fills.

That is why Aqua's model can increase liquidity availability without introducing leverage.

A different approach to capital efficiencyTraditional DeFi measures liquidity largely by how much capital is deposited into individual pools. Aqua starts from a different assumption: capital does not need to be divided between strategies before demand appears.

Shared liquidity allows one balance to support several opportunities simultaneously. “Restaking” liquidity is one way to think about the practical effect. Instead of using your liquidity once and then finding another pool of capital for the next strategy, Aqua lets the same balance keep working across multiple positions.

More opportunities, not more capitalRestaking liquidity through Aqua does not multiply your assets, remove market risk or guarantee additional fees. Every position remains exposed to its own market conditions, and fees depend on actual swaps executing against the strategy. For a fuller view of LP risks, see our guide on risk management for LPs. 

What Aqua changes is the allocation constraint. One token balance no longer has to mean one liquidity position. The same assets can back multiple strategies, remain under self-custody and become available wherever qualifying execution occurs.

Explore 1inch Aqua and discover what shared liquidity can unlock.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational purposes only. Nothing in this material constitutes financial, investment, legal or tax advice, or a recommendation to enter into any transaction. Providing liquidity involves risk, including the possible loss of funds. Fees are not guaranteed, and shared liquidity does not constitute leverage or create additional assets.

Get access to the Crypto.com ecosystem’s EVM chain thanks to the latest 1inch integration.

Cronos already offers fast, low-cost transactions. Now it gets the full 1inch experience. 

1inch has integrated Cronos, the EVM chain from the Crypto.com ecosystem, across the 1inch dApp, 1inch Wallet, 1inch Aqua and all 1inch APIs.

Intent-based swaps come with no gas fees for users and built-in MEV protection. Cross-chain swaps connect Cronos to every supported 1inch chain without requiring a traditional bridge.

What is Cronos?Cronos combines full EVM compatibility with sub-second performance. Blocks take around 0.5 seconds, transactions reach single-block finality and transfers can cost less than $0.001.

The network holds around $258.7 mln in TVL, as of early September, according to DefiLlama.

But when it comes to aggregation, there is still a significant gap. Aggregators currently route around $100,000-$150,000 per day, or roughly 2%-3% of DEX volume. Now, 1inch is stepping in, adding its aggregation infrastructure.

Swap on Cronos with 1inchYou can now trade Cronos assets directly through the 1inch dApp and 1inch Wallet.

Intent-based swaps let you specify the outcome you want while resolvers compete to fill the order. For users, that means gasless swaps with built-in MEV protection.

Key Cronos assets available across the ecosystem include:

CRO and wrapped CRO (WCRO)USDC and EURCBridged WETH and WBTCCDCETHEcosystem tokens including VVS, TONIC, LCRO, VNO and FULNative USDC is particularly important. Cronos moved to native USDC via Circle CCTP in June 2026, and USDC now represents around 99.9% of the network’s stablecoin base.

Move assets to Cronos smoothlyMoving capital to another chain often means finding a bridge first and making the trade afterwards.

1inch cross-chain swaps combine those steps.

You can swap an asset on another supported network directly for an asset on Cronos in one cross-chain swap. There is no need to interact with a traditional bridge, and the process remains self-custodial end to end.

Native USDC via Circle CCTP also gives users a clean stablecoin rail for moving liquidity into and out of the Cronos ecosystem.

Connect to the Crypto.com ecosystemCronos combines fast execution, low fees and a growing connection to the broader Crypto.com ecosystem. 1inch adds aggregation, intent-based execution, cross-chain swaps, Aqua and API access from day one.

Whether you are already active on Cronos, moving assets there from another chain, providing liquidity or integrating the network into an app, Cronos is now part of the 1inch experience.

Explore Cronos on 1inch.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational purposes only. Nothing in this material constitutes financial, investment, legal or tax advice, or a recommendation to enter into any transaction. Providing liquidity involves risk, including the possible loss of all funds involved. Fees are not guaranteed.

Concerns over AI existential risks escalate as U.S. Senate subcommittee launches investigation into OpenAI.

Beating AI News Flash, according to a report from Axios, a Republican-led subcommittee on disaster management of the U.S. Senate is investigating OpenAI’s handling of the July Hugging Face security breach, a move coming as Capitol Hill’s concerns over AI existential risk are rapidly escalating. Earlier, multiple researchers from Anthropic and OpenAI had publicly issued warnings. Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Disaster Management, wrote in a letter to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman: "As you know, an increasing number of AI experts in the public domain are warning about AI existential risks." He added: "This week alone, three Anthropic researchers publicly stated that the probability of AI killing all humanity within the next decade exceeds 10%." Hawley noted that the investigation is in response to OpenAI’s recently released internal investigation findings. The Hugging Face breach marks a turning point in AI history, prompting OpenAI to slow the release of its own models and alert the industry to AI-driven cyberattacks.

1 seconds ago

Trump’s midterm election pressure surges: The $5,000 "dividend" vote-buying scheme faces scrutiny, with the Republican Party facing a tough battle to retain control of Congress.

At the Republican midterm election conference, Trump made a bold promise: if the GOP retains control of the House of Representatives and Senate in the November midterms, he will distribute a $5,000 "Trump Dividend" to every adult U.S. citizen. The plan is estimated to cost over $1 trillion, though Trump did not specify its funding source, and its implementation would require congressional approval. This rare promise underscores the intense midterm election pressure facing Trump and the Republican Party. Trump’s approval rating remains under pressure, voter discontent over living costs and the Iran conflict is rising, and multiple Republican candidates in tight races even skipped the conference; the GOP currently needs to hold onto its narrow majority in the House, while Senate seats are also competitive. In his speech, Trump unusually asked voters to "pretend I’m on the ballot" and acknowledged that the president’s party typically loses congressional seats in midterm elections. He also pledged to devote more time to helping Republican candidates campaign, seeking to reposition himself as the core mobilizing force for the November elections. Meanwhile, the U.S. national debt has surpassed $40 trillion, raising questions about the fiscal viability of the $5,000 dividend plan. The Republican Party has also begun seeking adjustments to the plan, with Senator Ted Cruz suggesting it could be structured as a tax refund with work requirements.

1 seconds ago

Binance kicks off a "60-minute countdown" event: Users who participate and make it to 00:00 will receive a 30 BNB reward.

Binance has launched its "Starter Carnival" series of activities, with the first phase rolling out the Button Game. The game’s rules are straightforward: after a user clicks the button, a 60-minute countdown begins immediately. If no other user clicks again during this window, the countdown will reach zero, and the user will earn 30 BNB vouchers. Once another click is registered, the countdown resets to 60:00, and the game proceeds. The activity will only kick off after 50,000 users have registered. Each user starts with 3 click chances, which can be obtained through tasks including deposits, trades, and sharing. If no user manages to reach 00:00 on the countdown, the prize will go to the user whose countdown is closest to 00:00.

1 seconds ago

Former Feishu Vice President Shi Kaiwen shut down his startup after less than three months and joined a certain large language model company.

Beating AI News: Former Feishu Product Vice President Shi Kaiwen has abandoned his edge-side Agent startup and joined a large language model company as a product partner. It has been less than three months since he announced the startup at the end of June. Shi originally planned to develop an edge-side Agent, with team members from ByteDance and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. A June report also mentioned that Sequoia China and Junqiu Fund participated in the early-stage investment, but the funds have not actually been disbursed. The project had not disclosed specific product details before. Shi joined ByteDance in 2019, long leading Feishu’s product direction and spearheading Feishu’s multi-dimensional spreadsheet feature.

1 seconds ago

Anthropic projects a surging AI economy, aligning with Elon Musk’s view that AI and robotics will double the global economy.

Beating AI News Flash: Anthropic’s latest economic scenario model shows that in the most extreme case, if AI can independently complete the vast majority of knowledge-based jobs and spread rapidly, the U.S. annual GDP growth rate could reach 15%, with the economy doubling roughly every 4.5 years. By 2030, U.S. GDP could hit $44.4 trillion, 32.4% higher than in a scenario without AI. Anthropic emphasized that this is a conditional extreme scenario, not a formal forecast. Earlier, Elon Musk put forward a more radical assessment: he recently stated that combining AI with humanoid robots will drive the global economy to more than double in less than 10 years, and views the mass production of humanoid robots as a key milestone for this shift. The two views share clear logical alignment: Anthropic’s calculation focuses on the economic impact of large-scale automation of knowledge work by AI, while Musk extends AI’s capabilities to the physical world, arguing that after humanoid robots enter mass production, automation will expand from the digital realm to real-world production. However, Anthropic clarified that its current model does not yet include humanoid robots with superhuman capabilities. The firm’s survey of 10,980 U.S. respondents found that their typical expectation only translates to a 10% higher GDP in 2030 than in the no-AI scenario, with only around 10% of respondents offering judgments close to the extreme scenario.

1 seconds ago

Upbit will delist Ravencoin (RVN), with trading support to be terminated on October 12.

Upbit announced it will terminate trading support for Ravencoin (RVN), covering three trading pairs: RVN/KRW, RVN/BTC, and RVN/USDT. Trading will officially end at 15:00 Korean Standard Time (KST) on October 12. The exchange stated it had previously classified RVN as a "trading attention asset" on August 11. Following further review, Upbit concluded that relevant risk factors have not been resolved. Citing past security incidents involving RVN that could lead to user losses, the exchange decided to delist the token to protect investors, in line with its trading support termination policy. After the trading halt, all pending orders will be canceled. Upbit will continue to offer withdrawal services for 30 days, with users required to complete their withdrawals by November 11 at the latest. Per Upbit’s trading support termination policy, the exchange typically provides 30 days of withdrawal support after halting trading for such assets.

1 seconds ago

Swap on Monad, one of the fastest EVM chains, move assets cross-chain without a bridge, provide liquidity through Aqua and access Monad through every 1inch API.

Fast chains need fast, efficient trading infrastructure. That is why 1inch has integrated Monad, a high-performance EVM chain built around 300ms blocks, 600ms finality and fees at fractions of a cent.

What is Monad?Monad combines full EVM compatibility with a design built for high throughput. The network targets up to 10,000 transactions per second, with transactions confirming in under a second. And it already has significant DeFi activity.

As of early September, Monad held around $956 mln in TVL, while daily DEX volume ranged from roughly $200 mln to $340 mln, according to DefiLlama. Daily active addresses stood at around 22,000-27,000.

Aggregation, however, still represents only a small part of that activity. Aggregators routed around $4.6 mln-$11 mln per day, or roughly 2%-3% of total DEX volume. Some activity may be boosted by bots and incentives, but the network has already developed a sizable trading ecosystem.

Now, 1inch brings its routing and execution infrastructure to that market.

With Monad support, you can swap assets on the network directly through the 1inch dApp or 1inch Wallet.

Intent-based swaps let you specify the outcome you want while competing resolvers fill the order. For users, that means no gas fees and built-in MEV protection.

Monad already supports a broad range of assets, including:

MON and wrapped MON (WMON)Stablecoins including USDC, USDT0, AUSD, USDe and GHOMajor assets including WETH, WBTC, cbBTC and wstETHMonad ecosystem assets such as aprMON, sMON, gMON, APR and CHOGNative USDC, available through Circle CCTP, also provides a familiar stablecoin route for capital moving into and around the ecosystem.

Move assets to Monad without a bridgeGetting onto a new chain traditionally means finding a bridge, moving assets across and then opening another interface to make the trade you actually wanted.

1inch cross-chain swaps remove those extra steps.

You can swap an asset on another supported network directly for an asset on Monad in one cross-chain transaction. There is no need to interact with a traditional bridge, and the process remains self-custodial end to end.

That makes Monad accessible not only to traders already active there, but also to existing 1inch users looking to move liquidity onto the network.

One more chain, one connected DeFi experienceMonad is built around speed. 1inch makes that speed accessible across a broader DeFi environment.

Whether you are trading directly on Monad, moving assets there from another chain, providing liquidity through Aqua or adding Monad to an application through 1inch APIs, the network is now part of the same 1inch experience.

Explore Monad on 1inch.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational purposes only. Nothing in this material constitutes financial, investment, legal or tax advice, or a recommendation to enter into any transaction. Providing liquidity involves risk, including the possible loss of all funds involved. Fees are not guaranteed.

Major blockchains are processing more activity while transactions get cheaper. For developers, the combination could open the door to a new generation of applications built around frequent, low-cost onchain interactions.

Blockchains are getting busier just as using them gets cheaper. For developers, that combination could matter more than token prices.

In Q2 2026, the Ethereum L1 processed 203.9 mln transactions, up 68% from 121.1 mln a year earlier, while the average transaction cost fell from $1.08 to $0.31. Solana handled 9.8 bln non-vote transactions, up from 8.9 bln, as average costs dropped from $0.03 to just $0.005. Avalanche went further still, processing roughly four times as many transactions as a year earlier, according to Bitwise’s Q3 2026 Staking Report.

This signal is hard to ignore. More activity shows that people are using blockchain infrastructure, while lower costs make entirely new types of high-volume applications practical to build.

“This growth in onchain activity is a real indicator that blockchain technology is relevant and valuable despite market conditions,” says Tanner Moore, Developer Relations Engineer at 1inch. “Builders working on these networks today will be well-positioned when the markets recover.”

More activity, lower costsHistorically, rising blockchain usage often came with a painful trade-off: congestion.

More transactions meant more competition for limited blockspace, pushing fees higher. Applications that required frequent transactions could quickly become too expensive to use.

Blockchain infrastructure has been moving in the opposite direction. Networks have been expanding capacity so that more activity does not necessarily mean higher costs.

Ethereum is a good example. Bitwise found that its mainnet throughput rose from about 15 transactions per second in Q2 2025 to 26 a year later after increases to the block gas limit. Ethereum’s broader scaling roadmap has also pushed activity toward rollups and made data availability cheaper. Ethereum.org estimates that current rollups can already be around 5-20 times cheaper than Ethereum Layer 1, with further scaling improvements planned.

Bitwise describes lower network revenue alongside higher activity as one of the main themes of the quarter. The report argues that the decline in fees largely reflects protocol design: networks are deliberately making blockspace cheaper and more abundant rather than simply seeing demand disappear.

That distinction matters for developers. Lower fees combined with growing activity mean blockchains can support applications that would have struggled economically only a few years ago.

Builders can look beyond token pricesCrypto development has always moved alongside market cycles. Rising prices attract capital and attention. Falling prices can create the impression that the underlying technology is also losing relevance.

Network activity tells a different story. For Tanner, growing usage during a weaker market is a particularly useful signal for builders. People continue to transact even when speculation around token prices is less favorable.

The opportunity for developers is therefore not necessarily to wait for the next market cycle. It is to build while the infrastructure is becoming capable of supporting more demanding products.

“If you look back at almost all of the breakout applications on Ethereum, you will find the founders were working hard on their ideas during bear markets and they were focused on making applications that solved user needs. Investor sentiment is still important, but being positioned correctly before the next market upswing is where the hockey stick growth usually happens,” Tanner says.

The economics of an application can change significantly when the cost of each interaction falls. Features that once needed to minimize onchain transactions can become viable with much higher transaction frequency.

High-volume apps become more viableThe clearest example is perpetual futures.

Perps require a very different kind of blockchain infrastructure from an application where a user makes one transaction occasionally. Trading applications can involve frequent orders, position changes, liquidations and other interactions. Low transaction costs and high throughput are therefore central to making the experience practical.

Perp DEX growth shows what becomes possible as infrastructure improves. CoinGecko found that decentralized perpetual exchange volume grew 346% in 2025 to $6.7 trn. In the first four months of 2026, the top 12 perp DEXs averaged $611.57 bln in monthly trading volume, up from an average of $531.65 bln in 2025.

“Apps that rely on very high transaction volume are cheaper and more viable than ever,” Tanner says. “The popularity of perps is an obvious example.”

The same principle can extend beyond trading. Games, payments, social applications, automated agents and other products can all require large numbers of small onchain actions. When every action is expensive, developers have to design around the blockchain’s limitations. When blockspace becomes abundant and inexpensive, they have more room to design around what users actually need.

A lower cost per transaction therefore does more than make existing applications cheaper. It expands the range of applications developers can realistically build.

Cheaper blockspace changes what you can buildDevelopers once had to assume that every onchain interaction was scarce and potentially expensive. That assumption is becoming less reliable.

Ethereum’s recent upgrades have increased capacity and reduced costs, while Solana continues to operate around a fee model designed for high-throughput applications. Other networks are pursuing similar goals.

The change does not mean scalability problems are solved. Networks still have different trade-offs, congestion can return during demand spikes and applications still need to optimize execution carefully. Financial applications also remain subject to applicable regulatory requirements, whatever the infrastructure costs.

But the direction matters. More activity alongside cheaper transactions suggests that blockchain infrastructure is moving toward a point where developers can build products around frequent onchain interactions rather than treating every transaction as an expensive event.

For Tanner, that makes the current environment an opportunity.

The applications that benefit most from cheaper blockspace may not simply be cheaper versions of today’s DeFi products. They could be products that previously did not make economic sense to build onchain at all.

And the developers experimenting with those models now may be the ones best positioned when the next wave of users arrives.

For 1inch news and updates subscribe to our newsletter

Disclaimer: This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any particular digital asset or to employ any specific investment strategy.

1inch runs several bug bounty programs that reward researchers for finding vulnerabilities and helping make 1inch products more secure.

Are you a whitehat hacker or crypto enthusiast keen on dissecting smart contracts? We at 1inch value support in discovering vulnerabilities and other issues across our products. Audit our smart contracts, find bugs and earn rewards for eligible reports.

These are the bug bounty programs we’re currently running - the same programs are mirrored on HackenProof and Immunefi, though platform requirements differ. Choose the platform you prefer. The process is simple. You discover a bug, submit it on one of the two platforms and, if it’s approved, you get rewarded there.

1inch Business

This bug bounty program is focused on 1inch Business, a platform for enterprise-grade DeFi APIs. The program offers rewards of up to $100,000.

Details: Hackenproof Immunefi

1inch Aqua

1inch Aqua is a self-custodial shared liquidity layer. It enables your liquidity to stay active across many positions, while your tokens stay in your wallet. This bug bounty program offers rewards of up to $100,000.

Details: Hackenproof Immunefi

1inch Smart Contract

The 1inch ecosystem relies on interconnected smart contracts that aggregate liquidity from multiple decentralized exchanges to execute optimal token swaps. This bounty program focuses on potential vulnerabilities in 1inch smart contracts and offers rewards of up to $500,000.

Details: Hackenproof Immunefi

1inch Wallet

This bug bounty program focuses on potential vulnerabilities in 1inch Wallet, a multi-chain non-custodial DeFi crypto wallet with a simple interface for storage and transactions. The program offers rewards of up to $100,000.

Details: Hackenproof Immunefi

1inch Web

The 1inch dApp is a major DeFi aggregator, providing access to the deepest liquidity and the best token swap rates across various DEXes. Its distinctive features include partial fill and the ability to identify the best swap paths across multiple liquidity sources. This bounty program focuses on uncovering potential vulnerabilities in the 1inch dApp and offers rewards of up to $50,000.

Details: Hackenproof Immunefi

1inch Infrastructure

This program focuses on finding vulnerabilities that affect the overall infrastructure of the 1inch platform, complementing the product-specific programs listed above. The program offers rewards of up to $20,000.

Details: Hackenproof Immunefi

Be aware of platform requirements. On HackenProof, the current 1inch programs require at least 100 reputation points to submit a report, and a proof of concept (PoC) is required. Some programs may also have additional requirements, such as KYC.

On Immunefi, the current 1inch programs require a PoC for all severity levels and KYC for payout processing, but the Pay to Submit doesn’t apply to 1inch’s programs.

Requirements can change, so always review the rules, eligibility criteria, scope and submission terms on the relevant HackenProof or Immunefi program page before starting your research or submitting a report. Reward eligibility and payouts are subject to the applicable platform’s terms, including identity verification and applicable sanctions requirements.

Join 1inch bug bounty programs, discover vulnerabilities and earn rewards for eligible findings.

Disclaimer: Bug bounty programs are governed by the terms, scope and eligibility criteria published on the relevant HackenProof or Immunefi program pages and may be modified or discontinued at any time. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or a guarantee of payment.

In the first article of our series on CREATE3 we’ll discuss what a CREATE3 address actually depends on and when two "CREATE3 deployments" land on the same address. 

CREATE3 is a deployment technique that lets developers keep the same smart contract address even if they change the contract before deploying it. We’re digging deep into it CREATE3 to explore options it opens up for developers.

1. Why 1inch needs deterministic deployment1inch deploys related smart contracts across multiple Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) chains. For these deployments, a contract address is part of the integration interface: other contracts, deployment scripts, configuration files and off-chain services may need it. This creates two practical requirements:

Use the same address on every chain. A shared address reduces chain-specific configuration and lets integrations refer to one contract address across supported networks.Use a pre-mined vanity address on every chain. Some contracts need an address with a recognizable hexadecimal prefix or another chosen pattern. The address must be mined before deployment and reproduced on each target chain.The EVM does not provide one deployment mechanism that satisfies every version of these requirements. Plain CREATE derives an address from the deployer and its nonce. CREATE2 replaces the nonce with a salt and the target's init-code hash, which supports vanity mining but binds the mined address to the exact creation code. CREATE3 is not an opcode: it combines CREATE2 and CREATE so the final address can depend on the factory address and salt rather than the target's creation code. This distinction matters when constructor arguments differ between chains or the bytecode changes after a vanity salt has been mined.

This article first examines the native CREATE and CREATE2 address derivations, then shows how the CREATE3 pattern composes them and which conditions must hold to reproduce a target address across chains.

2. How CREATE determines a contract addressThe Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) has exactly two contract-creating instructions: CREATE (opcode 0xf0) and CREATE2 (0xf5). Everything else, including CREATE3, is built from these two.

For CREATE, the new address depends on the deployer and the deployer's account nonce:

address = keccak256(rlp([deployer, nonce]))[12:]

Simplified:

address = f(deployer, nonce)

rlp is Recursive Length Prefix encoding, Ethereum's canonical serialization; [12:] means the last 20 bytes of the 32-byte hash. The executable Ethereum specification implements exactly this (compute_contract_address), using the deployer's nonce as it was before the creation increments it.

Two properties follow:

The created contract's code is not an input: what lands there is whatever init code you run.The address is predictable only if the nonce is. For an externally owned account that means predicting its transaction count at deployment time; for a contract, tracking every creation it performs with CREATE or CREATE2 (even some failed creations consume a nonce).That second property is why CREATE alone does not solve cross-chain deployment: it means keeping an account's nonce synchronized across half a dozen networks, forever. One emergency transaction on one chain, and that chain's future addresses diverge until you pad the nonce everywhere else.

3. How CREATE2 improves deterministic deploymentEIP-1014 added the second creation opcode, whose formula replaces the nonce with two values the deployer chooses:

address = keccak256(0xff ++ deployer ++ salt ++ keccak256(initCode))[12:]

Simplified:

address = f(deployer, salt, initCode)

where ++ is byte concatenation. Each input has a distinct job:

deployer is the contract executing CREATE2 (20 bytes); addresses are namespaced per deployer, so two factories can use the same salt without colliding.salt is an arbitrary 32-byte value: the "which one of my deployments is this" selector.keccak256(initCode) commits the address to the exact init code: the bytecode that executes at creation, running the constructor and returning the runtime code.0xff is a one-byte domain separator. EIP-1014's rationale: an RLP encoding of [deployer, nonce] can never start with 0xff (that prefix would imply an absurdly long payload). So a CREATE2 address can never collide with a CREATE address, and the hash preimage has a fixed size of 85 bytes.This buys a lot. The address no longer depends on account history: a deployment can happen at any time, from any transaction, and still land where predicted. Salts can be brute-forced for vanity addresses. And with no chain-specific input in the formula, the same (deployer, salt, init code) triple produces the same address on every chain that implements Ethereum's creation semantics.

4. The limitation of CREATE2: the address commits to the init codedifferent initCode  →  different address

To see how sensitive this is, look at what "init code" contains for a Solidity contract. Сonstructor arguments are ABI-encoded and appended after the compiled creation bytecode, and by default the compiler embeds in the bytecode a metadata hash covering the compiler version, the settings and the source files.

So the CREATE2 address changes when any of the following changes:

Constructor arguments. A different wrapped native currency address per chain means a different init code per chain, and "same address everywhere" is gone.The compiler version. With solc's default metadata mode, upgrading the compiler changes the creation bytecode even if the source is untouched. (Teams doing deterministic deployments sometimes strip the metadata hash for this reason.)Optimizer settings. Measured concretely (solc 0.8.30, the small contract from section 10): optimizer at 200 runs, at 1,000,000 runs, and off produce three different creation-bytecode hashes.The source itself. Adding one require-check changes the bytecode, and with default metadata settings the Solidity documentation warns that even renaming a source file can.Timing against a mined salt. A vanity salt brute-forced for one init-code hash is valid only for that exact bytecode. Find the salt first, touch the code later, and the vanity address no longer belongs to your contract.None of this is a flaw in CREATE2. Committing the address to the code is a security feature: whoever verifies the address knows exactly which init code must have created any contract that appears there. But for the multichain scenario from section 1, the formula couples two things the team wants to decouple: the address's identity and the exact bytes of the release candidate.

5. How CREATE3 works5.1. CREATE3 is a pattern, not an opcodeThe name suggests a third EVM instruction. There is none. The current instruction set contains CREATE (0xf0) and CREATE2 (0xf5) only.

"CREATE3" is a community name for a pattern that composes the two real opcodes:

Factory

   │

   │  CREATE2(salt, fixed proxy init code)

   ▼

Single-use proxy

   │

   │  CREATE(target init code)

   ▼

Target contract

The factory deploys a minimal proxy with CREATE2; the proxy's only ability is to deploy whatever it is sent, using plain CREATE. Chain the two formulas and the target's init code drops out of the derivation.

Because this is a pattern rather than a standard, every implementation makes its own choices. Solady ships it as a Solidity library (Vectorized/solady, src/utils/CREATE3.sol), CreateX as a shared public factory contract (pcaversaccio/createx), 1inch as an owner-gated factory plus a vanity-salt miner (1inch/create3-contract).

5.2. Step one: deploying the proxy with CREATE2The factory deploys the proxy using the ordinary CREATE2 formula:

proxy = keccak256(0xff ++ factory ++ salt ++ keccak256(proxyInitCode))[12:]

The decisive property: proxyInitCode is a constant, the same bytes for every deployment the implementation ever performs. Solady, CreateX and the current 1inch Create3 code all use the same minimal proxy bytecode:

proxyInitCode      = 0x67363d3d37363d34f03d5260086018f3

keccak256(of it)   = 0x21c35dbe1b344a2488cf3321d6ce542f8e9f305544ff09e4993a62319a497c1f

Since the third hash input is a constant, the proxy address depends on the factory address and the salt, and on nothing else; the factory does not yet need to know what will be deployed.

Three different "codes" are in play here:

Proxy init code: the one-time setup code that creates the proxy and installs its minimal behavior.Proxy runtime code: the small program that remains at the proxy address and deploys the target contract.Target init code: the deployment code for the actual contract. It is used only in step two, so it does not affect the proxy address.The proxy is a general-purpose deployer and explained in detail in Part 2.

5.3. Step two: deploying the target with CREATEThe factory now calls the proxy, passing the target's init code as raw calldata. The proxy copies it and executes CREATE, so the plain CREATE formula from section 2 applies, with the proxy as deployer:

target = keccak256(rlp([proxy, proxyNonce]))[12:]

Which nonce? EIP-161 requires that a newly created contract's nonce start at 1, not 0. The proxy, fresh from step one, has never deployed anything, so its first CREATE uses nonce exactly 1.

Now compose the two steps. The proxy address came from (factory, salt, proxy init code); the target address comes from (proxy, constant 1). Writing effective salt for the value that actually reaches CREATE2 (some factories transform user input first — Part 2), the composition gives:

target = f(factory address, effective salt, proxy init code)

When the factory and its proxy init code are fixed — the usual case inside one deployment system — that simplifies further to:

address = f(factory, salt)

and the target address does not depend on: target init code, constructor arguments, target runtime bytecode.

5.4. What CREATE3 actually guaranteesThe precise guarantee:

A CREATE3-style factory lets you compute the target's address in advance, independent of the target's init code, provided the factory address, the effective salt and the proxy init code are all fixed.

Beware the popular shorthand "the address depends only on the salt". Inside a single factory that reading is harmless (the other inputs are that factory's constants); across systems it is wrong. The full identity of a CREATE3 deployment is:

CREATE3 identity = factory address

                 + effective salt

                 + proxy init code

Fix all three and the address is yours regardless of what the target code becomes; change any one and the address moves. The word effective is doing real work there: the next section turns the identity into a compatibility condition.

6. When two CREATE3 deployments share an addressTwo systems can truthfully say "we use CREATE3" and still derive different addresses from the same user-provided salt. They produce the same target address if and only if:

same target address

  =  same factory address

  ∧  same effective salt     (after each factory's transformation)

  ∧  same proxy init code    (byte-identical)

  ∧  proxy nonce = 1         (target is the proxy's first CREATE)

Break any one of those and the addresses diverge:

Different factory address. The factory is hashed into the proxy address, so two factories at different addresses produce disjoint address spaces even with identical code and salts.Different proxy init code. One byte change in the proxy constant moves every target address. The hash is over the bytes: "equivalent" is not enough.Different salt transformation. The user salt and the effective salt that reaches CREATE2 need not be the same. Compare effective salts, not user salts; how each implementation derives that value is Part 2.Proxy nonce not 1. Any extra creation by the proxy before the target changes the nonce and the address.7. CREATE, CREATE2 and CREATE3 comparedEach method fits a different deployment workflow:

Use CREATE for simple, one-off deployments. It is the most direct option when the contract address does not need to be chosen in advance or reproduced across chains.Use CREATE2 when the address must be known before deployment and the code is already fixed. The address is tied to that exact deployment code, which gives integrators an additional integrity check.Use CREATE3 when the address must remain stable while the code or constructor arguments may change. This is useful for multichain deployments and vanity addresses mined before the final contract is ready.No method is a universal upgrade. The choice is between simplicity, an address tied to fixed code and an address that stays stable as the deployment changes. CREATE3 provides the last property, but the deployment process must verify the code separately, as the next section explains.

8. Security implications8.1. Same address does not mean same codeUnder CREATE2, the address itself certifies the init code. Under CREATE3, by construction, it certifies nothing about the code: any init code deployed through the same factory with the same salt would have received the same address.

CREATE3 stabilizes the address, and in exchange it moves code-integrity control from the address formula into the deployment process.

8.2. Salt squatting and front-runningA public, permissionless factory will deploy for anyone. If your planned salt is observable (in a pending transaction, a public repository, or a deployment on another chain) and the factory does not bind salts to senders, someone else can submit it first and occupy your address, on the chain you were about to use or on one you have not reached yet.

The three implementations answer the threat differently in cost and in what they protect; the comparison belongs to Part 2. What matters here: a salt not bound to a sender on a shared factory is claimable by anyone, on every chain the factory exists on.

8.3. InitializationCREATE3 changes where an address comes from - not the state of the contract that appears there. The classic hazard is unchanged: a proxy-based or otherwise initializable contract deployed and left uninitialized is an open invitation. A stable, beautiful, pre-announced address that briefly hosts an uninitialized contract is a stable, beautiful, pre-announced attack target.

9. ConclusionCREATE2 makes the address depend on init code; CREATE3 removes that dependency by chaining the two real opcodes: a factory deploys a fixed proxy with CREATE2, and the proxy deploys the target with CREATE. The target address is then fixed before the target's code exists:

address = f(factory, salt)

when the factory and its proxy init code are fixed. Across systems the full identity is factory address, effective salt and proxy init code - break any one and the addresses diverge. The trade-off is that the address no longer certifies the code; that check moves into the deployment process, along with salt-squatting and initialization risks.

Part 2 of this series opens the shared proxy bytecode and compares Solady, CreateX and the 1inch deployer. Part 3 will walk through 1inch’s CREATE3 deployment end-to-end.

Stay tuned for more 1inch tech content.

The third and final part of the CREATE3 series offers an example of how 1inch uses CREATE3.

The first part of this series focused on deriving CREATE3 addresses. In the second part, we explained the proxy bytecode and compared Solady, CreateX and 1inch. Now, let’s turn that analysis into an executable deployment workflow with the 1inch factory.

The example below applies to EVM-compatible chains with standard CREATE, CREATE2, contract-nonce and JSON-RPC behavior. It stores the RPC endpoint and generated addresses in environment variables. It signs with a Foundry encrypted-keystore account. Test it on a disposable network before using a production chain.

1. Check out and test the pinned codegit clone https://github.com/1inch/create3-contract.git

cd create3-contract

git checkout 8f347373c319aa6df672c6d60afd99aafc410b54

git submodule update --init --recursive

forge build

forge test

cargo test --release

The repository pins Solidity 0.8.23. It does not pin a Rust toolchain, so record the Foundry and Rust versions used by your deployment pipeline. Run the remaining commands from the repository root in the same shell because later steps reuse the exported variables.

2. Configure the RPC endpoint and signerImport the funded deployment key into Foundry's encrypted keystore:

cast wallet import create3-deployer --interactive

export RPC_URL='<chain RPC URL>'

export ACCOUNT='create3-deployer'

The command prompts for the private key and a keystore password without placing either in shell history. Avoid passing a production private key through --private-key or an environment variable.

The account that deploys the factory becomes its owner. Keep that account as owner for this walkthrough. Section 6 explains what changes if ownership moves to a multisignature wallet.

3. Deploy and verify the factoryRun the repository's Foundry script:

forge script script/DeployCreate3Deployer.s.sol \

  --rpc-url "$RPC_URL" \

  --account "$ACCOUNT" \

  --broadcast

The script prints the factory address. Export it, confirm that code exists and verify that owner() returns the address imported under $ACCOUNT:

export FACTORY='<printed factory address>'

cast code "$FACTORY" --rpc-url "$RPC_URL"

cast call "$FACTORY" 'owner()(address)' --rpc-url "$RPC_URL"

The script deploys the factory with plain CREATE, so its address depends on the signer and that account's nonce. Reusing this script on another chain does not automatically reproduce the factory address. Cross-chain target parity requires the factory itself at the same address on every chain.

4. Mine a vanity saltChoose one miner based on the CPU architecture. Use the portable binary on any supported CPU:

cargo run --release --bin create3-miner -- \

  "$FACTORY" --leading dead

On an aarch64 machine, including Apple Silicon, use the NEON binary instead:

cargo run --release --bin create3-miner-neon -- \

  "$FACTORY" --leading dead

The miner prints a salt and its predicted target address:

Salt:     0x...

Address:  0x...

Export both values, then compare the factory's prediction with $PREDICTED before mining a longer pattern:

export SALT='<printed salt>'

export PREDICTED='<printed address>'

cast call "$FACTORY" 'addressOf(bytes32)(address)' "$SALT" \

  --rpc-url "$RPC_URL"

The returned address must equal $PREDICTED. The miner defaults to the current proxy init-code hash 0x21c35dbe…497c1f; use a bytecode override only after verifying that a deployed factory uses another proxy version.

5. Build the target init codeFor a minimal example, add contracts/Example.sol:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

pragma solidity 0.8.23;

contract Example {

    address public owner;

    constructor(address owner_) {

        owner = owner_;

    }

}

The constructor receives the owner explicitly because its msg.sender will be the temporary CREATE3 proxy.

Build the contract, encode the constructor argument and append it to the creation bytecode:

forge build

export TARGET_OWNER='<target owner address>'

BYTECODE=$(forge inspect contracts/Example.sol:Example bytecode)

CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS=$(cast abi-encode 'f(address)' "$TARGET_OWNER")

INIT_CODE="${BYTECODE}${CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS#0x}"

cast abi-encode returns the encoded argument tuple without a function selector; the synthetic function name f only supplies the argument types.

The 1inch deployment path cannot send native tokens to a target constructor: deploy is non-payable, and the factory calls the proxy with zero native token value. Use a target whose constructor does not require a nonzero msg.value.

6. Simulate and broadcast the target deploymentRead the factory owner into $OWNER, then simulate deploy from that address:

OWNER=$(cast call "$FACTORY" 'owner()(address)' --rpc-url "$RPC_URL")

cast call "$FACTORY" 'deploy(bytes32,bytes)(address)' \

  "$SALT" "$INIT_CODE" \

  --from "$OWNER" \

  --rpc-url "$RPC_URL"

The simulated return value must equal $PREDICTED. If $ACCOUNT still owns the factory, broadcast the same call:

cast send "$FACTORY" 'deploy(bytes32,bytes)' \

  "$SALT" "$INIT_CODE" \

  --rpc-url "$RPC_URL" \

  --account "$ACCOUNT"

If a multisignature wallet owns the factory, submit the same call data through that wallet instead. Any other signer reverts. A salt can be consumed only once through a given factory on a given chain.

If target creation fails, the library discards the proxy's return data and reverts with ErrorCreatingContract(). The target constructor's original revert reason is not propagated.

7. Verify the deployed contractConfirm that code exists at the mined address and that the constructor stored the intended owner:

cast code "$PREDICTED" --rpc-url "$RPC_URL"

cast call "$PREDICTED" 'owner()(address)' --rpc-url "$RPC_URL"

The first command must return nonempty bytecode. The second must return $TARGET_OWNER. Complete the deployment record with the source commit, compiler settings, constructor arguments, creation and runtime bytecode hashes and explorer verification. CREATE3 stabilizes the address. It does not prove which code was deployed there.

Stay tuned for more 1inch tech content.

Just-in-time liquidity can let opportunistic bots capture fees from swaps without taking the same ongoing exposure as long-term LPs. 1inch Aqua changes the structure that makes this possible.

You provided liquidity, took the market risk and waited for trades. Then a bot appeared for a single swap, captured part of the fee and disappeared.

That is the problem with just-in-time, or JIT, liquidity, which 1inch Aqua addresses at the level of liquidity architecture. In conventional pooled AMMs, fees are distributed to whoever has liquidity active when a trade executes. A sophisticated actor can therefore add liquidity immediately before a large swap and remove it immediately afterwards, taking a share of fees that would otherwise have gone to existing LPs.

Research suggests the impact can be significant. A 2025 academic study of concentrated liquidity market makers found that strategically deployed JIT liquidity could reduce passive LP profits by up to 44% per trade on average in its model. The same research also found that JIT liquidity can improve execution for traders by adding depth at the moment it is needed, making JIT a more nuanced phenomenon than a simple attack on the market as a whole. For passive LPs, however, the fee dilution is very real.

Conversely, with 1inch Aqua, an external LP cannot add liquidity to your Aqua strategy immediately before a swap and snipe your fee. The strategy executes only against your balance, and only you collect fees for your strategy. With that setup, a traditional JIT fee-sniping mechanism can’t work.

JIT liquidity exploits a simple feature of pooled AMMs: fee ownership depends on who is providing liquidity when the swap happens.

A typical sequence looks like this:

A large pending swap becomes visible in the mempool.A JIT actor adds a large amount of concentrated liquidity around the price range the trade is expected to cross.The swap executes and generates fees.The temporary liquidity receives a share of those fees.The JIT actor removes the liquidity immediately afterwards.The actor can provide and withdraw liquidity even in a single block - providing liquidity immediately before actual swap transaction and withdrawing it immediately after, gathering most of the swap fees. A long-term LP, meanwhile, may have kept capital in the pool for days or weeks while taking continuous market exposure.

The problem is not that the AMM distributes fees incorrectly. The system is working exactly as designed. Fees are distributed according to active liquidity at execution time.

That design creates an opening for fee-sniping.

As the 1inch analysis of liquidity provision and MEV explains, JIT differs from a conventional sandwich attack. A sandwich attack targets a trader’s execution. JIT targets the LP side of the trade by temporarily changing who receives the fees.

Why pooled liquidity creates the opportunityA conventional AMM pool combines capital from many LPs.

When a swap executes, fees are shared among eligible liquidity providers according to the protocol’s rules. In concentrated liquidity AMMs, that generally means LPs whose liquidity is active in the price range through which the trade passes.

This creates a shared fee event.

Anyone able to add enough liquidity at the right moment can increase their share of that event. The JIT actor does not need to have provided liquidity before the transaction appeared or remain exposed after it finishes.

For a passive LP, the effect is dilution. The swap still generates the same fee, but the long-term LP receives a smaller share because temporary liquidity arrived just in time to compete for it.

JIT strategies are especially relevant when a trade is large relative to existing liquidity and the expected fee is large enough to justify the cost and risk of inserting temporary capital.

Aqua removes the shared fee position1inch Aqua uses a fundamentally different liquidity model.

Aqua is a shared liquidity layer rather than a conventional pooled AMM. Tokens stay in the LP’s wallet until a swap fills, and the same wallet balance can support multiple positions at once.

More importantly for JIT, each Aqua strategy belongs to one LP.

An external LP cannot add liquidity to somebody else’s Aqua strategy immediately before a swap. The strategy executes against the balance of its owner, and fees generated by that strategy belong to that owner.

This removes the core mechanism behind traditional JIT fee-sniping.

There is no shared pool position that an outside actor can enter for one transaction, collect part of another LP’s fee and immediately leave.

One owner changes the fee equationConsider the difference between the two models.

In a pooled AMM, Alice and Bob may both provide liquidity to the same pool. If a large swap appears, a JIT bot can potentially add far more liquidity than either of them for the duration of that swap. Alice and Bob remain LPs, but their relative share of active liquidity falls, so their share of the fee falls with it.

With Aqua, Alice’s strategy is Alice’s strategy.

A bot cannot inject its own tokens into Alice’s position to claim part of the fee. If a swap is executed against Alice’s strategy, the resulting fee accrues according to that strategy’s rules without an external LP diluting her position at the last moment.

The protection comes from ownership structure rather than from trying to detect or outrun JIT bots.

No deposit-and-withdraw raceAqua also changes another part of the JIT mechanics. Traditional JIT depends on rapid liquidity entry and exit: deposit before the trade, withdraw after it.

Aqua LPs do not deposit their tokens into a shared pool. Tokens remain in the wallet, while strategies receive permission to use them when their execution conditions are met. Aqua’s architecture allows the same wallet balance to support several strategies without locking that balance into separate pools.

Because liquidity is not repeatedly added to and removed from a shared LP pool, there is no equivalent race to temporarily become part of another LP’s position.

This does not mean nobody can create a competing Aqua strategy. Different LPs can still quote competing prices and liquidity, which is a normal part of a market.

The key distinction is that competition happens between independently owned strategies, not by inserting temporary liquidity into somebody else’s strategy and taking part of its fee.

What Aqua does - and does not - protect againstAqua’s single-owner strategy model removes a structural JIT vector, but it does not remove the normal risks of liquidity provision.

LPs can still face:

price movements and impermanent loss;unfavorable market conditions;strategies that receive little or no order flow;smart contract risk;execution and strategy-design risk.Swap fees are also not guaranteed. The 1inch Aqua FAQ makes clear that a position earns fees only when swaps fill against it.

Aqua’s JIT protection is more specific: an outside actor cannot temporarily add liquidity to your strategy simply to dilute your fee share on an incoming trade.

Protecting the fee you actually earnedLiquidity provision means taking risk in exchange for the possibility of earning fees. A system in which somebody can arrive for a single profitable transaction and take a disproportionate share of those fees changes that equation for long-term LPs.

Pooled AMMs make JIT possible because liquidity and fees are shared at the moment of execution.

Aqua removes that shared ownership layer. Each strategy has one LP, so another liquidity provider cannot insert capital into your position just before a swap and leave with part of the fee afterwards.

The result is a simpler principle: if a swap executes against your Aqua strategy, another LP cannot use traditional JIT fee-sniping to dilute that strategy’s fee share.

Explore 1inch Aqua and learn how shared liquidity changes liquidity provision in DeFi.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational purposes only. Nothing in this material constitutes financial, investment, legal or tax advice, or a recommendation to enter into any transaction. Providing liquidity involves risk, including the possible loss of funds. Swap fees are not guaranteed, and 1inch Aqua remains subject to market, smart contract and strategy-related risks.

Coinbase has brought a new range of tokenized equities to Base, using the B20 token standard. From day one, eligible users can trade supported assets through 1inch.

Traditional markets are moving onchain, and 1inch has always been at the forefront of these changes, supporting RWAs from Ondo, xStocks and Maple.

Now, 1inch also supports Coinbase tokenized stocks on Base. The initial selection includes assets linked to Apple, Alphabet, Meta and Nvidia.

The launch strengthens 1inch’s position as a gateway to tokenized real-world assets, giving eligible users direct access to Coinbase’s new B20-based equities on Base. Because B20 is compatible with existing ERC-20 infrastructure, these assets can plug into 1inch’s swap routing from day one, expanding choice while keeping access within the same DeFi trading flow.

Tokenized equities on BaseTokenized equities are blockchain-based assets designed to track or provide exposure to companies and other equity-related instruments.

By bringing them on-chain, issuers can connect traditional financial assets with programmable DeFi infrastructure. These assets can be held in compatible wallets and integrated into trading applications and other on-chain products, subject to the issuer’s terms and regional restrictions.

Base has identified tokenized markets as a major part of its 2026 strategy. The network aims to support equities, commodities and other asset classes across spot, tokenized, prediction and derivatives markets.

Coinbase’s new assets take this strategy a step further by launching on Base through B20, a token standard designed with tokenized finance in mind.

What is the B20 token standard?B20 is a Base-native standard for issuing fungible assets such as stablecoins, tokenized equities and other RWAs.

Unlike a conventional ERC-20 token deployed through an individual smart contract on the Ethereum network, B20 is implemented at the protocol level. It gives issuers a standardized framework without requiring them to build and audit a new token contract from scratch.

B20 supports built-in controls for functions such as minting, burning, pausing, supply limits and transfer policies. At the same time, it remains compatible with ERC-20 infrastructure, helping existing wallets, exchanges and DeFi applications interact with B20 assets.

The standard has two configurations:

Asset tokens, designed for RWAs, tokenized equities and other fungible assetsStablecoin tokens, which use a fixed six-decimal format and specify a fiat currency denominationThis combination of standardized issuance, issuer controls and ERC-20 compatibility is designed to make it easier to bring regulated and real-world assets on-chain.

Which Coinbase tokenized assets are supported?The initial selection available through 1inch includes:

AAPLc - AppleGOOGLc - AlphabetMETAc - Meta PlatformsNVDAc - NvidiaAvailability, liquidity and trading conditions may differ between assets. The tokens are not available in the US, UK and other restricted jurisdictions.

Trading Coinbase RWAs through 1inchEligible users can now access supported Coinbase tokenized assets on Base through the 1inch dApp, 1inch Wallet and 1inch APIs.

When you initiate a swap, 1inch scans available on-chain liquidity and routes your transaction along an efficient path. This removes the need to check individual liquidity venues manually.

To explore the assets:

Open the 1inch dApp.Connect a compatible wallet.Select Base as the network.Choose one of the supported tokenized assets.Review the route, rate and transaction details before confirming the swap.As with any new on-chain asset, liquidity may vary. Always verify the token, issuer information and transaction details before proceeding.

Towards an onchain futureTokenized equities connect familiar financial assets with open, programmable infrastructure. B20 provides Base with tokenization tools built directly into the network. Coinbase is using those rails to bring a new selection of equity-linked assets on-chain. And 1inch makes supported tokens accessible through its swap infrastructure from day one.

Explore Coinbase tokenized assets on 1inch.

Disclaimer: This campaign is operated by Merkl (Angle Labs), which calculates and distributes all rewards, and is subject to Merkl's applicable terms and policies. The campaign forms part of the tokenized-equities launch programme on Base; 1inch Network has contributed funding. It is not sponsored or endorsed by Base or Coinbase. Rewards are paid in USDC on qualifying purchases made through the 1inch dApp or 1inch Wallet and held through the applicable epoch; purchases made through other interfaces, integrations or APIs do not qualify. Rewards are not an investment opportunity, and no reward, rate or return is guaranteed. Reward calculations are final once processed. Campaign parameters may change, and the campaign may be modified, suspended or discontinued at any time. Participation is subject to eligibility, geographic, integrity and compliance screening, and any wallet or participant may be excluded from the campaign or from rewards on that basis at any time; attempts to circumvent geographic or eligibility restrictions, including through VPNs or other means, result in exclusion and forfeiture of rewards. Rewards must be claimed on the Merkl app and may cease to be claimable after the end of the campaign. Tokenized stocks are issued by third parties and are subject to the issuer's terms and to transfer and regional restrictions; their availability, liquidity, transferability and market value may fluctuate, are not guaranteed and are outside the campaign's control. 1inch is not the issuer of, and is not responsible for, any tokenized asset. You are solely responsible for any taxes arising in connection with rewards or trading. Any figures shown on campaign interfaces are informational only and not a promise of returns. By participating in the campaign or claiming rewards, you agree to the campaign rules described in this post and to the 1inch.com Terms of Use, which also apply to campaign participation to the extent relevant. Not available to persons located in, residents of, or accessing from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, or any sanctioned or otherwise restricted jurisdiction. Nothing in this post constitutes financial, investment, legal or tax advice, or a recommendation, solicitation or inducement to buy or sell any security or other asset.

More and more traditional assets are moving onchain. But how far are we into the RWA cycle? We discussed that with several major RWA providers on 1inch.

Eventually, most real-world assets are going to be traded onchain. But we are still closer to the beginning of that road, and a few hurdles will have to be cleared before onchain trading of tokenized assets becomes universally accepted.

“First car on the road”Industry insiders say that tokenized assets have moved beyond the early adoption stage, as volumes of RWA onchain trade have proven.

“The diversity of assets held, the consistency of net inflows, and the caliber of institutional integration proves that tokenized securities have moved beyond early adoption into a fundamental capital markets product,” says Ian De Bode, President of Ondo Finance.

However, there are entire asset classes that haven’t yet been touched by tokenization, which suggests that the process is likely to be still in an early stage.

“Tokenized real-world assets hit $38 bln onchain this year, nearly triple the total from twelve months ago,” adds Val Gui, GM of xStocks. “That's live capital running through production infrastructure. Offchain, equities, credit, and real estate markets add up to tens of trillions of dollars, and almost none of that has touched a blockchain yet. This is early. The growth curve suggests that won't last.”

“It's still very early days,” agrees Martin de Rijke, Head of Commercial at Maple. “We've seen T-bills come onchain, several private credit structures, a handful of corporate bonds, and tokenized stocks that are just starting to move. But the total across all of it still sits around ten to twenty billion. Think of it like the first car on the road. Someone's uncle's uncle's uncle owns one, and everyone else is still watching.”

Tokenized Treasuries take the leadAccording to RWA issuers, tokenized versions of Treasury bills have so far been the most popular asset class onchain.

“Tokenized Treasuries lead by a wide margin, sitting around $15 bln onchain. Institutions treat this category as production-grade, backed by more than a hundred distinct products,” says xStocks’ Val Gui. “Private credit sits close behind in dollar terms, though a large share of that volume traces back to a small number of issuers. Tokenized equities are smaller by total value but the fastest growing by product count. xStocks went from 60 tokenized stocks and ETFs at launch to more than 500 in the first year.”

“Tokenized yield products, tokenized stocks, T-bills, and private credit structures are where the activity is concentrated right now,” adds Martin de Rijke. “Tokenized stocks in particular are starting to gain traction on Robinhood Chain and Solana.”

The biggest bottlenecksStill, bottlenecks preventing asset tokenization from rolling out more rapidly need to be resolved first, such as insufficient liquidity and a lack of clear regulation.

“Two things need to move before the market can really scale,” says Maple’s Martin de Rijke. “First, regulatory clarity: the US Clarity Act is the catalyst that unlocks broader institutional participation, the same way earlier clarity did for stablecoins. Second, liquidity: Real liquidity flow onchain hasn't properly started yet. Once both regulation and liquidity are in place, adoption follows.”

xStocks’ Val Gui, GM, agrees that liquidity is the biggest bottleneck. “Most tokenized Treasuries and private credit get minted and redeemed rather than traded on a secondary market, so a lot of that capital just sits there,” he explains. “What liquidity exists gets split across issuers, chains, and trading venues instead of pooling somewhere deep enough to trade well.”

“Regulatory frameworks still vary sharply by jurisdiction, which adds cost and delay for anything built to operate globally,” he adds.

Direction: onchainAt this point, few doubt that the process of assets moving onchain is irreversible. The question is how fast it is going to be and what share of real-world assets will be available in a tokenized form.

“You should prepare for a world in which tokenized securities coexist with normal securities,” says Ondo Finance’s Ian De Bode.

“Right now we're at the beginning of an S-curve for trading moving onchain, and that curve hasn't really started in earnest yet,” says Maple’s Martin de Rijke, adding that the pace of growth is likely to accelerate once the regulatory and liquidity bottlenecks have been cleared.

“Here's the mechanism,” Martin de Rijke goes on to say. “Liquidity enables arbitrage, arbitrage draws in more liquidity, and more liquidity produces better prices. Onchain markets run 24 hours a day, every day, with a global pool of participants able to trade at any time. That combination makes onchain markets a more accurate representation of an asset's true price than their offchain equivalents. Once price discovery happens onchain, trading follows it there, because that's where the real opportunity sits.”

xStocks’ Val Gui agrees. “Onchain markets run continuously, settle in seconds, and reach anyone with an internet connection regardless of where they live,” he explains. “Those advantages get stronger as more liquidity and more assets show up in the same place. I won't attach a percentage or a year to it. The direction is set, and the infrastructure to support it is close to ready.”

For more insights from 1inch subscribe to our newsletter

1inch Aqua gives you several options to provide liquidity, depending on the assets you're trading and how actively you want to manage your position. In this article, we’ll explain what options you have.

1inch Aqua offers several position types designed for different trading scenarios. Here's some advice on creating Aqua positions for:

passive vs active strategiesstable vs volatile pairsshort- vs long-term goalsexperienced LPs vs newcomers.But before choosing, make sure you understand the risks of liquidity provision - see our guide on risk management for LPs.

Full rangeFull range is the simplest way to provide liquidity.

Your liquidity is available across the entire possible price range, so the position never goes out of range. You don't need to predict where the market will move or adjust your range as prices change.

This makes full-range positions well suited for users who prefer a low-maintenance approach.

The trade-off is capital efficiency. Because your liquidity is spread across every possible price, less of it is concentrated around the current market price compared with narrower positions.

Best for:

Users newer to liquidity provisionLong-term liquidity providersVolatile trading pairs when you don't want to manage rangesConcentrated liquidityConcentrated liquidity lets you choose the price range where your liquidity is active.

Instead of covering the entire market, your capital is focused within a specific range. If trading happens there, more of your liquidity is available, potentially increasing fee generation.

The trade-off is that if the market moves outside your chosen range, your position stops earning swap fees until the price returns or you create a new position.

Aqua offers preset ranges for convenience, while advanced users can define a custom range that better matches their market view.

Also, with 1inch Aqua, it is easy to create single-sided positions: simply set either the minimum or maximum price equal to the current market price. The position will then start with one token only, gradually converting into the other token as trades are executed.

Best for:

Experienced LPsVolatile assets such as ETH or BTCUsers seeking higher capital efficiencyPegged positionsPegged positions are designed for assets that typically trade close to the same value.

Examples include:

USDC and USDTETH liquid staking tokens and ETHOther closely correlated assetsInstead of setting separate minimum and maximum prices, you choose a symmetric range around the current market price. Aqua then configures the position for assets expected to maintain a close relationship.

Because these assets usually experience relatively small price differences, pegged positions can provide highly efficient liquidity.

They are not intended for assets with large price swings. And pegged assets can still lose their peg: if that happens, a pegged position can end up holding mostly the weaker asset.

Best for:

Stablecoin pairsLiquid staking tokensOther correlated assetsChoosing your rangeWhen creating a position, Aqua automatically suggests range presets based on the type of assets you're providing.

For volatile pairs, the available presets are wider to accommodate larger price movements.

For correlated assets, the presets are much narrower because those assets are expected to remain close in value.

If you have a specific market view, you can also define your own custom range.

Fees are reinvested automaticallyOne feature applies to every Aqua position.

Any swap fees your position earns are automatically reinvested into your liquidity. There is nothing to claim or manually compound. Where a protocol fee applies, reinvested amounts are net of that fee.

Keep in mindOnce a position is created, its parameters cannot be edited.

If you later decide to change the range, fee settings or other configuration, you'll need to close the existing position and create a new one.

This keeps every deployed position immutable while making its behavior predictable on-chain.

Which position should you choose?There isn't a single "best" position type.

Choose Full range if you want the simplest, lowest-maintenance experience.Choose Concentrated liquidity if you're comfortable selecting a price range in exchange for greater capital efficiency.Choose Pegged when providing liquidity for assets that are designed to stay close in value.Whichever position you create, Aqua lets you back it with the same wallet balance through shared liquidity while keeping your assets in your wallet until a qualifying swap is executed. As with any form of liquidity provision, all position types remain exposed to market risk, and fees are not guaranteed.

Explore Aqua and start creating liquidity positions at 1inch.com/aqua.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational purposes only. Nothing in this material constitutes financial, investment, legal, or tax advice, or a recommendation to enter into any transaction. Interacting with Aqua involves risk, including the possible loss of all funds involved.

1INCH: Pay for 1inch APIs by the call with x402

The US Senate has pushed consideration of the CLARITY Act to September, narrowing the window for crypto market-structure legislation this year. For DeFi, 1inch Senior Legal Counsel Maylea Ma says an imperfect but protective framework is still preferable to continued regulatory uncertainty.

The CLARITY Act will have to wait. The US Senate did not take up the crypto market-structure bill before its August recess, pushing the next possible action to September. The delay is significant because lawmakers are running out of time before the November midterms, when passing major legislation becomes considerably harder.

For DeFi, the stakes go beyond the timing of one vote. Maylea Ma, Senior Legal Counsel at 1inch, argues that the current bill contains important protections for non-custodial protocols, software developers and self-custody. The question now is whether lawmakers can preserve those provisions and pass the legislation this year.

Why passage this year mattersMaylea says passing the CLARITY Act this year is very important, even if some parts of the legislation remain imperfect.

One point of contention has been ethics provisions. But Maylea notes that those rules are essentially self-contained and do not change how a non-custodial aggregator such as 1inch would be regulated.

The provisions that matter most for DeFi are already in the merged text: protections under the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, safeguards for software developers and self-custody, and exclusions that recognize the difference between non-custodial software and traditional financial intermediaries. Some of these protections were narrowed during earlier amendment rounds, which makes preserving the remaining language in the current text all the more important. 

For Maylea, imperfect ethics language should therefore not be enough to derail the broader framework.

“The alternative to imperfect-but-enacted is not perfect-but-enacted,” she says. “It is no law at all.”

The August recess had been widely viewed as an important deadline because the legislative window becomes much tighter as the midterms approach. With the vote now pushed back, September becomes the next critical opportunity.

Is an imperfect framework better than uncertainty?For 1inch, Maylea says yes - as long as the DeFi-specific protections remain intact.

A federal law would turn today’s favorable but reversible regulatory guidance into a more durable framework. Agency interpretations can change under a new administration or new regulators. Legislation is harder to reverse.

A law could also reduce reliance on case-by-case enforcement and provide greater consistency across US states.

The qualification is important. “Imperfect” does not mean the industry should support any bill simply to get legislation passed.

Maylea points to Coinbase’s temporary withdrawal of support earlier this year as evidence that the industry can and should push back if legislation becomes affirmatively worse for DeFi than the status quo.

On the current text, however, she believes the DeFi provisions remain protective enough to justify supporting passage.

What happens if the CLARITY Act fails?If negotiations break down, DeFi would remain dependent on the existing regulatory environment.

That would mean continued reliance on agency interpretations that can be reversed, continued uncertainty around enforcement and continued differences between state-level regulatory regimes.

For 1inch, the practical approach would not suddenly change. The non-custodial model would continue operating under the same conservative legal posture centered on self-custody.

What would remain missing is statutory certainty.

Without legislation, future administrations and regulators could reinterpret how existing financial laws apply to DeFi. Developers would continue operating without the type of explicit legal protections that the current CLARITY Act text aims to provide.

Failure this year could also stall legislative momentum until after the November 2026 midterms. The next Congress may have a different composition and a different appetite for crypto legislation.

September becomes the next testThe CLARITY Act has not failed, but the clock is running.

The Senate delay gives negotiators more time to resolve outstanding disagreements. It also leaves less time to move the bill through the remaining legislative process before election politics take over.

For Maylea, the priority is not a perfect bill at any cost. It is a durable framework that preserves meaningful protections for DeFi developers, non-custodial infrastructure and self-custody. September will show whether Congress can deliver one.

For more insights from 1inch subscribe to our newsletter

Disclaimer: This article discusses pending legislation and reflects policy perspectives shared by 1inch Senior Legal Counsel Maylea Ma. It does not constitute legal advice. Statements reflect the status of the legislation as of early August 2026. The CLARITY Act remains subject to change as it moves through the legislative process.

1INCH: Aqua vs LP vaults and liquidity managers

1INCH: Aqua vs concentrated liquidity (Uniswap v3)

Recently, 1inch’s Chief Legal Officer Orest Gavryliak joined Cointelegraph’s Chain Reactions to discuss the situation around Clarity Act.

For years, the crypto industry has faced the same problem: innovation moved fast while regulation struggled to keep up. The result? A patchwork of rules, legal uncertainty and, in the US, regulation by enforcement.

That may finally be changing. In a recent episode of Cointelegraph's Chain Reaction, 1inch Chief Legal Officer Orest Gavryliak explained why the US Clarity Act could become a watershed moment not only for DeFi, but for the entire digital asset industry. If passed, the legislation would establish the first comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto, including decentralized, non-custodial protocols that have long operated without clear legal guidance.

Moving beyond regulation by enforcementAccording to Orest, the industry's biggest challenge has never been regulation itself. It has been the absence of clear rules.

"Just give us rules," he said, describing the uncertainty that DeFi builders have faced for years. Without established playbooks, projects have been forced to navigate legal gray areas while trying to innovate responsibly.

The Clarity Act aims to change that by replacing enforcement-driven oversight with a defined legislative framework covering crypto, DeFi and decentralized protocols. Unlike existing regulations that largely focus on custodial businesses such as exchanges and stablecoin issuers, the proposed law recognizes that non-custodial protocols operate fundamentally differently.

Why DeFi needs its own frameworkOne of the biggest shortcomings of previous regulatory efforts is that decentralized protocols simply do not fit into traditional financial categories.

For years, regulators have attempted to apply rules designed for custodians and financial intermediaries to protocols that never take custody of user assets. Orest argues that this mismatch has been the root cause of much of the industry's legal uncertainty.

Instead of forcing DeFi into legacy frameworks, the Clarity Act creates dedicated regulatory "boxes" for decentralized technologies and non-custodial services. That distinction could give developers and businesses the certainty they need to continue building.

Building ahead of the rulesOrest noted that 1inch has actively participated in discussions with policymakers and industry working groups while sharing the company's approach to compliance and risk management.

According to him, 1inch has been building its risk management and compliance infrastructure in the same direction the Clarity Act is heading, including through publicly documented risk management frameworks. While the text is still evolving through the legislative process, he believes this proactive approach positions the company well as the final framework takes shape.

Compliance without compromising decentralizationOne topic that continues to generate debate is KYC requirements for DeFi.

Orest argued that blockchain-native risk management can often provide stronger protection than traditional identity verification alone. Modern DeFi platforms can combine onchain analytics, machine learning, wallet risk assessment, behavioral analysis and law enforcement cooperation to identify malicious actors.

At the same time, he emphasized that 1inch is prepared to comply with whatever framework lawmakers ultimately adopt.

"If you're putting that inside the rulebook, we're OK to implement and obey," he said.

Protecting open-source developmentThe interview also touched the wider debate about legal exposure for open-source software developers.

Orest stressed that developers should not face liability simply for publishing open-source code. Regulatory obligations, he argued, should reflect the degree of control a person actually exercises over user assets and transactions, rather than the act of writing and releasing code.

That distinction is particularly important for projects like 1inch, which develop open-source infrastructure while also operating user-facing products. Clear legal standards would help define where protocol development ends and business responsibilities begin.

A global impactThe significance of the Clarity Act extends far beyond the United States. Orest believes the legislation could go beyond Europe's MiCA framework by covering a much broader range of crypto businesses, including DeFi and emerging technologies such as AI-powered financial services. Rather than regulating only centralized players, the Act seeks to provide legal certainty across the entire crypto ecosystem. If successful, the framework could become a model for regulators worldwide.

One financial systemFor Orest, the long-term vision goes well beyond regulation. He believes clear rules could accelerate the convergence of traditional finance, centralized finance and DeFi into a single financial ecosystem built on modern infrastructure.

"We need new rails," he said. "I really believe that Clarity will make CeFi, TradFi and DeFi be one thing, which is the new finance."  

Disclaimer: This article summarizes views shared during a public discussion of pending legislation. It reflects personal policy perspectives, does not constitute legal advice, and the Clarity Act remains subject to change as it moves through the legislative process.

For more insights from 1inch subscribe to our newsletter

1inch Aqua activates DeFi liquidity. Back multiple positions with one token balance and keep your assets in your wallet until swap.

DeFi liquidity isn’t working. Most tokens in most pools do nothing most of the time. You still bear the risk, without the reward DeFi was built on. 1inch Aqua is here to solve that.

Now you can back multiple liquidity positions with the same token balance, without depositing your assets in a pool, while your tokens safely remain in your wallet and any swap fees are protected from JIT attacks.

That means assets can stay active across more markets and positions from a single balance instead of being split across fragmented positions. 

We call this approach Shared Liquidity. 

We released the protocol for developers last November. Now, 1inch Aqua is available for all users to access at 1inch.com/aqua.

The liquidity problemMost DeFi liquidity sits idle most of the time. A protocol can show high TVL, but only part of that liquidity may be useful when swaps actually happen. Liquidity can sit outside the active price range, earn no fees and still carry exposure to market movement.

And even if it does see activity, LPs’ liquidity is fragmented. They have to split limited balances across protocols, pairs and price ranges. No single position has the full balance behind it, reducing capital utilization.

To make things worse: tokens deposited into a pool leave the LP’s wallet, meaning their utility is lost, and bringing all the security and control issues that come when you give up custody of your tokens. 

In addition, LPs’ tokens are exposed to attacks from JIT (just-in-time) bots that skim fees the LPs should have earned.

1inch Aqua addresses all of these problems.

What 1inch Aqua is1inch Aqua is a self-custodial shared liquidity layer. It enables your liquidity to stay active across many positions, while your tokens stay in your wallet.

It works as a registry: a user connects their wallet to approve a token balance and create liquidity positions that can access that balance.  The Aqua protocol tracks that balance, and when it receives a swap order that meets the criteria of the position, it pulls the requested tokens from the wallet and pushes back received tokens and fees in a single atomic transaction.  

Otherwise, the user’s funds remain in their wallet and completely under their control. Tokens are not deposited into Aqua - or any other - contracts. They remain in your wallet and move only when a taker swap fills against a position.

How Aqua works1inch Aqua lets you create positions by choosing the pair, range and swap fee. A position can be full range, concentrated or pegged, depending on the selected pair and position type. You can open and close positions yourself, with no lock-up.

Your exposure is capped by the tokens you actually hold, not by the theoretical combined size of every position you create. If your wallet cannot cover a swap, Aqua simply does not call on your funds.

From today, you can create positions across 13 EVM chains, including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Robinhood Chain and BNB Chain.

Why shared liquidity matters1inch Aqua changes the way you think about liquidity provision. In a traditional model, providing liquidity often means splitting tokens between multiple pools and positions. That can reduce capital utilization.

With Aqua, the same wallet balance can stand behind many positions. This gives you better capital utilization and more flexibility.

This is especially important in a multi-chain DeFi market, where liquidity is spread across venues, networks and trading flows. 

Self-custody by design1inch Aqua is built around self-custody. You do not deposit tokens into a pool. You do not hand custody to Aqua. Your tokens remain in your wallet until a swap fills.

Approvals are handled per token and per chain, and they can be revoked. Your actual exposure is still limited by your wallet balance.

This matters because liquidity provision has often required LPs to move tokens into a specific pool or contract. 1inch Aqua keeps you closer to the wallet-native DeFi model: keep your keys, keep your tokens, choose your positions.

Risk-controlled liquidityWe’re rapidly moving toward risk-controlled and regulated DeFi. And Aqua is the first risk-controlled liquidity venue where every swap is settled by verified counterparties, while you keep full self-custody of your tokens.

Why is Aqua liquidity risk-controlled? Every swap is executed by a verified counterparty - a market maker or arbitrage bot that has been verified, enforced on-chain at swap time. Therefore, LPs are not exposed to unverified counterparties.

And the product itself has been audited by 8 independent teams, including Hexens, OpenZeppelin, Bailsec and Nethermind.

JIT protectionAqua liquidity is protected from JIT fee sniping by design. In normal pooled AMMs, JIT bots can insert liquidity right before a large swap and pull it out right after, skimming the fees that waiting LPs should have earned. Due to JIT attacks, LPs could lose up to 44% of their fee income. An Aqua position has a single owner, making it impossible for a JIT bot to carry out such an attack.

The future of liquidityDeFi does not just need more liquidity. It needs more risk-controlled and useful liquidity - liquidity that can be active where demand appears. 1inch Aqua is designed to make that possible. 

Disclaimer: Aqua involves risk, including loss of funds. It's built for experienced users - do your own research. Not financial advice.

Activate your DeFi liquidity with 1inch Aqua.