PIGEONS/XRP
pigeons55safety: ModerateAMM account rn5vs1…VCQg · issuer rfQVVT…cQSf · tvyiblru7ui6d8apdwne.toml.firstledger.net
The only domain on this issuer belongs to a third-party launchpad, not the project — it identifies the minting tool, not the team.
Under $50k locked: high slippage on entry and exit.
A single provider holds more than 40% of the pool and can exit at any time.
Inside the PIGEONS/XRP pool
The PIGEONS/XRP pool is an XRP Ledger automated market maker holding PIGEONS against XRP at the AMM account rn5vs1Q5…VCQg. It currently holds $28.9k of liquidity (about 21.1K XRP across both sides) and charges a 1.000% trading fee, which is paid to liquidity providers rather than to any company. It has existed for roughly 460 days.
Our scoring reads as fair: it functions, but the numbers behind it are modest enough that exits can be slow, producing a health score of 43/100, while the underlying PIGEONS issuer carries a safety score of 55/100. 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 $6 across 5 swaps, a turnover of 0.0% of its own size. At that pace, fee income annualises to roughly 18.22% before any impermanent loss — a description of past volume, not a promised yield. Liquidity comes from 19 providers, with the largest holding 74.9% of the LP tokens — if that provider withdraws, the depth you see today largely disappears.
Why this score?
This pool reads moderate on safety (55/100) and low on health (43/100). Open the breakdown to see, in plain English, exactly what moved each number.
Pool health — 43/100 · Low
Strongest area: age & track record. Weakest: structural resilience.
- Liquidity depth & stability56
- Organic trading activity24
- LP distribution33
- Asset quality62
- Age & track record100
- Fee sustainability84
- Volatility / IL risk64
- Structural resilience23
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.
- +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.
- +A long, continuous pool history with no break in liquidity.
What holds it down
- −Volume is dominated by isolated spikes rather than steady flow.
- −The published domain is a launchpad's, not the project's — the team is still unidentified.
- −Under $50k of liquidity: slippage on entry and exit is high.
- −One provider holds 75% of the pool and can exit at will.
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)
18.22%
(1 + (7-day average daily volume × fee rate ÷ current TVL)) ^ 365 − 1
Est. fee APY (24H)
0.07%
Yesterday alone — far noisier than the 7-day figure.
Turnover (24h)
0.0%
Activity
Almost nothing traded here in the last day — fee income is near zero.
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
- $6
- Fee rate
- 1.000%
- Fees to LPs (24h)
- $0
- Fees to LPs (7d)
- $93
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
$28.9k
24h volume
$6
24h volume / size
0.0%
Trading fee
1.000%
Top LP share
74.9%
Pool age
460 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 78/100- The only domain on this issuer (tvyiblru7ui6d8apdwne.toml.firstledger.net) belongs to a third-party launchpad, not the project.
- That identifies the tool used to mint the token, not the people behind it, so it earns no verification credit.
Liquidity quality
weight 14% · risk 64/100- Roughly $29k of value is locked in this pool.
- Thin liquidity: even a modest trade moves the price a lot, and exiting is costly.
- Almost nothing trades through this pool, so the liquidity is idle rather than working.
LP distribution
weight 16% · risk 81/100- The largest liquidity provider controls 74.9% of the pool, the top five control 94.4%.
- 19 addresses hold LP tokens.
- One provider can exit and drain most of the liquidity without warning.
Track record & longevity
weight 13% · risk 0/100- Pool has existed for about 460 days.
- A long, continuous history is a meaningful positive signal.
Verification & signals
weight 7% · risk 76/100- A launchpad domain is not project verification — anyone can mint a token through the same tool.
Risk history & behaviour
weight 6% · risk 18/100- The pool charges an unusually high trading fee, which eats into every swap you make.
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 18.22% divided by this pool's ×4.32 red-flag multiplier, minus that loss, gives a risk-adjusted result of -1.50%. 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: 6.47%
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 PIGEONS'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.