Gibi Swap (GIBI) is an Ethereum-based modular swap infrastructure layer, not a standalone decentralized exchange. Its official website states it enables digital platforms—starting with Brolyz—to embed token swap functionality directly into their interfaces without redirecting users or managing liquidity independently. The project operates on Ethereum as an ERC-20 token (contract 0xb6CD7fee2daA8a2E7e4c0E194468AF0F08be527D) and is documented in its Litepaper and GitHub repository. Liquidity pools are claimed to be held within Orta Chain’s custody-focused infrastructure, and revenue is tied to transaction fees, with 50% of net profit allocated quarterly to GIBI buybacks and burns until supply halves from 12.5M to 6.25M tokens. The IVO public sale launched via VestraDAO, and the token’s TGE is scheduled for 19 August 2026. Key questions remain: Is the Orta Chain custody infrastructure independently audited? Does the claimed integration with Brolyz reflect live, user-accessible functionality—or only a planned or demo deployment? How is ‘net profit’ defined and verified given no financial statements or operational metrics are publicly available?

  • sleepywalrusEnglish
    1·
    8 hours ago

    Gibi Swap positions itself as a modular swap infrastructure layer for digital platforms, built on Orta Chain’s custody-focused infrastructure and deployed as an ERC-20 token (GIBI) on Ethereum. Its core claim is enabling embedded swaps without redirects—demonstrated via the Brolyz integration—and tying token scarcity to real usage through quarterly buybacks and burns. However, no audit report, verified contract verification status, or on-chain evidence of deployed swap logic is supplied. The sole contract address (0xb6CD…527D) is referenced but not validated for bytecode match, proxy pattern, or upgradeability controls. Privileged functions like pause, mint, or withdrawal are neither described nor confirmed absent in the Litepaper or website. The tokenomics allocate 30% to a Seed Sale via VestraDAO, yet no VSTR-GIBI exchange mechanism or custody terms for pooled liquidity are evidenced. Roadmap items like ‘Cross-Swap Expansion’ and ‘Advanced Swap Routing’ remain unverified future plans. The API snapshot reports zero circulating supply and conflicting max supply figures (12.5M vs. 12.289M), with no reconciliation. No GitHub repository content, Etherscan contract verification status, or third-party security assessment is provided in the evidence set.

    1. Contract security is unsupported: No audit, verification, or bytecode analysis is present in any supplied source (web_1, api_1).
    2. Privileged control structure is undocumented: No description of ownership, pauser, or treasury roles appears in the Litepaper or website text.
    3. Liquidity custody claims rely solely on Orta Chain assertions: No independent confirmation of custody architecture, multisig signers, or fund segregation exists.
    4. Token supply data conflicts across sources: web_1 states max supply = 12,500,000; api_1 reports max_supply = 12,289,061 and circulating_supply = 0 — unresolved discrepancy.
    5. First integration (Brolyz) lacks verifiable on-chain or user-activity evidence: No transaction volume, swap count, or deployed interface proof is supplied.

    Overall score: 5/10 Confidence: Low