A penny stock sits in several pools at once and they disagree. vunex reads them as one book, quotes every venue at your actual size, and reverts any fill a single venue would have beaten.
—
The problem
Sorting a book by price is what best bid and offer has always meant. Here is a listed name against vUSD, sorted exactly that way — beside what each venue can absorb before it moves 1%, and what $1,000 would actually get you there.
| Venue | Fee tier | Advertised price | Depth to 1% | Fills |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reading the chain… | ||||
—
This table is live state, read from the router the moment you asked for it. Venues we refuse to route to are listed too — hiding them would hide what you are being protected from.
What it costs
—
A venue is admitted only if the pool really exists on the contract it claims and declares the fee tier it says it does. Every filter is deny-by-default, both token addresses are read off the venue rather than supplied, and the registry is published.
Not spot. Each venue's real reserves are walked for the size you are trading, the same way the pool will when it fills you. Reserves live inside the venue rather than being read from balances, so a donation cannot move a quote and an off-chain quoter reproduces every fill to the wei.
One venue, or several when splitting genuinely wins. At retail size on a penny name it usually does not — the cheapest venue is normally the deepest — so the solver picks one place and says so rather than carving the order up for show.
Before executing, the contract quotes every registered venue at your size. After executing, it compares. If any single venue would have done better, the transaction reverts and you keep your money. Legs are checked before the router takes custody, so a refused order never moves your balance at all.
Across the board
Every listed name, widest disagreement between its own venues first. These are real sub-dollar listings on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges, and nobody arbitrages pools this thin.
red is up, green is down — the way the boards read in shanghai
FAQ
The listings are real. Chongqing Iron & Steel, Angang, Sinopec Oilfield Service and the rest are genuine sub-dollar listings on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges, and the price each pool opened at was pulled from the live tape at deploy time.
The tokens are not the shares. Each is a synthetic, unbacked ERC-20
that references a ticker — no custodian, no oracle, no redemption, no claim
on the company. The disclosure is in the bytecode: name() ends in
"(synthetic, unbacked)" and isSynthetic() returns true, so an
integrator learns what this is without trusting this page.
Precisely this: no single registered venue could have filled your order better. The contract quotes them all at your size before executing, then checks the result. If it was beaten, it reverts.
It is deliberately not a claim of global optimality across every possible split — that is an exponential search. It is the claim you care about and the one a contract can actually prove.
Depth decides what may receive an order, not what may be seen. There is no depth floor on admission at all — only on routing. A pool that has drained to nothing and still advertises a price is the clearest example of the problem this exists to solve, so it stays in the book with a real quote and a plain label.
No. One transaction: tokens enter, every leg executes, and the output lands with you — or the whole thing reverts. Every leg is validated before the router takes custody of anything, and a test asserts it retains no balance of either token after any fill.
Usually not, and we would rather say so. Multi-leg routing exists and works, but on a penny name the cheapest venue is nearly always also the deepest, so the solver normally picks one place.
Splitting pays only on orders large enough to exhaust the best venue. The value of routing is picking the right venue, not carving the order up.
Because nothing prices them keylessly any more — Yahoo and Stooq both stopped serving equity quotes without a key. Listing a name whose price cannot be honestly sourced would mean inventing one.
The router is generic over any ERC-20 pair. A US name lists the day there is a price for it.
The proof covers venues in the registry. A pool outside it is not considered, so the guarantee is exactly as good as the curation — which is published, and driven by depth rather than by advertised price.
The contracts are unaudited. The owner can add and remove venues; entries are validated against the venue contract, so a compromised owner cannot point your order at an invented pool, but they can still choose which pools are eligible.
