Liquidity pools and swaps that settle on-chain, not on trust.
Automated market makers, liquidity pools, and swap routing, built as smart contracts, not backend services, so trades settle on-chain and your users never hand custody of their funds to us or to you. We treat pool math and MEV exposure as first-class engineering problems, not an afterthought bolted onto a UI.
Same vetting bar either way, whether we staff the project or fill the seat. See the rubric
Constant-product and concentrated-liquidity curves, modeled before a line of Solidity is written.
Users keep custody of funds in their own wallet, every trade, every time.
Swaps settle on-chain, with slippage and MEV exposure engineered down, not ignored.
Adversarial testing before pool contracts touch mainnet liquidity.
What we build for DEX platforms.
Constant-product or concentrated-liquidity pools, with the curve, fee tier, and slippage behavior modeled against realistic trade sizes before deployment, not tuned after users start losing money to slippage.
Router contracts that find the best price across pools, with sandwich-attack and front-running exposure reduced through batching, private mempools, or slippage bounds, whichever fits your chain.
LP deposit, withdrawal, and fee-accrual contracts, plus the dashboards that show providers their real position and impermanent loss exposure, not just a headline APR.
Deploying the same pool logic across EVM chains, with bridging or cross-chain messaging where liquidity genuinely needs to move, scoped honestly against the extra attack surface that adds.
DAO governance contracts for fee and parameter changes, backed by the same adversarial testing and audit discipline as the pools themselves before anything with real liquidity goes live.
Current tools, not last year's.
The nearest thing we've actually shipped.
Real-time dispatch platform
A real-time platform processing 12,000 time-sensitive transactions a day, the same throughput and correctness discipline a DEX's settlement path requires, though the engagement itself wasn't blockchain-based.
On camera, in their own words.
Why he brought his development work to Code Elevator.
Scoped fast. Shipped on a real timeline.
Building something adjacent?
Answered before you ask.
Same engineering discipline, different failure mode. A DEX's contracts hold and move user liquidity continuously, so pool math, slippage bounds, and MEV exposure need to be right under adversarial market conditions, not just correct in a test suite.
No. That's the point of a DEX. Trades execute through smart contracts directly from a user's own wallet; we never hold custody, and neither does your platform, unless you deliberately add a custodial layer on top.
Yes. Forking and adapting a proven AMM model is often the right call. We'll tell you honestly when a custom curve is worth the added audit surface and when it isn't.
For any pool that will hold real liquidity, yes. We do our own rigorous internal audit and fuzzing, then recommend an independent third-party audit as a second layer before mainnet.
Non-custodial design reduces certain regulatory surface, but it doesn't eliminate it, and rules vary by jurisdiction and continue to shift. We build the technical side well; the legal classification of your specific platform should be reviewed with counsel.
Every way out of this build is already written down.
Code, prompts, models and pipelines: all work-product IP assigns to you by contract from day one, not on final payment.
Nothing is locked to us or to a proprietary platform you can't leave. You get the repository, the documentation, and full access.
Bring us the pool design. We'll tell you what's realistic.
New AMM, existing protocol fork, or an audit of pool contracts already written. We'll treat the liquidity like it's real, because it is.
We reply within an hour during our working day in India and the UAE.