CSC/XRP
CasinoCoin65safety: ModerateAMM account rf7g4J…hCaV · issuer rCSCMa…gkwr
The issuer publishes no website on-ledger, so its identity cannot be verified at all.
Inside the CSC/XRP pool
The CSC/XRP pool is an XRP Ledger automated market maker holding CSC against XRP at the AMM account rf7g4JWC…hCaV. It currently holds $51.8k of liquidity (about 37.8K XRP across both sides) and charges a 0.987% trading fee, which is paid to liquidity providers rather than to any company. It has existed for roughly 904 days.
Our scoring reads as a strong pool, with dependable depth and steady trading, producing a health score of 67/100, while the underlying CSC issuer carries a safety score of 65/100. Those two numbers answer different questions: health asks whether the pool works as a market, and safety asks whether the token inside it can be frozen, clawed back or reissued.
Over the last 24 hours the pool traded $1.5k across 103 swaps, a turnover of 2.9% of its own size. At that pace, fee income annualises to roughly 23.37% before any impermanent loss — a description of past volume, not a promised yield. Liquidity comes from 285 providers, with the largest holding 16.1% of the LP tokens.
Why this score?
This pool reads moderate on safety (65/100) and healthy on health (67/100). Open the breakdown to see, in plain English, exactly what moved each number.
Pool health — 67/100 · Healthy
Strongest area: lp distribution. Weakest: structural resilience.
- Liquidity depth & stability60
- Organic trading activity54
- LP distribution96
- Asset quality70
- Age & track record100
- Fee sustainability86
- Volatility / IL risk64
- Structural resilience38
What helps this score
- +Liquidity has held steady, with no large withdrawals in the tracked window.
- +Trades nearly every day — activity looks organic, not a one-off spike.
- +Liquidity is spread across many wallets, with no single dominant provider.
- +Has survived more than six months on the ledger.
- +Fee rate and fee income are both in a sustainable range.
- +The issuer is blackholed — supply and settings are locked forever.
- +Freeze is permanently disabled, so your LP position cannot be frozen.
- +No single liquidity provider dominates the pool.
- +A long, continuous pool history with no break in liquidity.
What holds it down
- −No domain is published, so the issuer is fully opaque.
Earnings activity
Historical trading activity in this pool. These figures describe what already happened — they are not a forecast or a yield promise.
Est. fee APY (7D)
23.37%
(1 + (7-day average daily volume × fee rate ÷ current TVL)) ^ 365 − 1
Est. fee APY (24H)
10.96%
Yesterday alone — far noisier than the 7-day figure.
Turnover (24h)
2.9%
Activity
A little trading: some daily volume, but thin and easily disrupted.
Recent daily volume
Last 15 days
Each bar is one calendar day of traded volume. Days we hold no snapshot for show as zero.
Fee income breakdown
- 24h volume
- $1.5k
- Fee rate
- 0.987%
- Fees to LPs (24h)
- $15
- Fees to LPs (7d)
- $209
Calculated from historical on-chain trade volume. Fee income is shared across all liquidity providers in proportion to their share and changes with volume. Past volume does not predict future volume.
Pool size
$51.8k
24h volume
$1.5k
24h volume / size
2.9%
Trading fee
0.987%
Top LP share
16.1%
Pool age
904 days
Score breakdown
Issuer control
weight 26% · risk 12/100- Issuer is blackholed — no new tokens can be minted and settings cannot be changed.
- The issuing key is burned, so no freeze can ever be signed.
Issuer quality & transparency
weight 15% · risk 88/100- The issuer publishes no domain at all — completely opaque identity.
Liquidity quality
weight 14% · risk 50/100- Roughly $52k of value is locked in this pool.
- Moderate liquidity — fine for small positions, painful for large ones.
LP distribution
weight 16% · risk 19/100- The largest liquidity provider controls 16.1% of the pool, the top five control 40.9%.
- 285 addresses hold LP tokens.
- A broad set of providers makes a sudden liquidity exit far less likely.
- Liquidity is well spread across providers.
Track record & longevity
weight 13% · risk 0/100- Pool has existed for about 904 days.
- A long, continuous history is a meaningful positive signal.
Verification & signals
weight 7% · risk 92/100- Nothing is published on-ledger that could be verified against a website.
Risk history & behaviour
weight 6% · risk 8/100- No aggressive issuer powers remain, and none have been used.
Pair / impermanent loss
weight 3% · risk 70/100- A volatile token paired with XRP: large price moves in either direction cause impermanent loss.
- Unidentified tokens tend to be the most volatile of all.
Impermanent loss & slippage calculator
Move the sliders to see what happens to a position in this pool.
Impermanent loss: 5.72% versus simply holding both assets.
Historical fee income of 23.37% divided by this pool's ×1.2 red-flag multiplier, minus that loss, gives a risk-adjusted result of 13.76%. Based on past volume, not a projection.
At the last 24 hours of volume that stake would have earned about $0 in fees, while the price move above implies roughly −$57 of impermanent loss versus just holding.
Estimated price impact: 3.71%
Constant-product estimate against this pool's current size, before fees.
Where to go next
Impermanent loss, worked
Three scenarios showing what a 25%, 100% and 300% price move actually costs.
Open →How AMM pools pay
Fees, depth, turnover and what separates a healthy pool from a fragile one.
Open →Check the token first
Look up CSC's issuer permissions and supply concentration before providing liquidity.
Open →Compare all pools
Health scores, fee income and LP concentration across every XRP-paired AMM we track.
Open →Learning path
Stage ten covers AMM pools step by step, with the checks to run before depositing.
Open →CampXRP blog
Written guides on tokens, liquidity pools, risk and security.
Open →Data is read from the public XRP Ledger and refreshed periodically; issuer settings and balances can change at any moment. This is educational information, not financial advice.