Where Robinhood Chain's liquidity lives

Liquidity lives in positions, not in balances

On an older automated market maker, adding liquidity mints fungible LP tokens: a divisible balance representing a share of one pool, spread evenly across every possible price. Uniswap v3 gives you something different — a single non-fungible position, minted as an ERC-721 token, recording a pair, a fee tier, an upper and lower price bound, and the liquidity concentrated between them.

Robinhood Chain inherited that model. So when Locksley reads a token's liquidity pool, it is not reading one balance. It is reading a set of positions, each owned by a different wallet, each active over a different price range, each contributing depth only while the price sits inside it.

Everything strange about liquidity on this chain follows from that sentence.

Why a position NFT changed what a lock has to be

A liquidity lock is a contract holding whatever can withdraw the pool. When that is a fungible LP token balance, a lock escrows a balance until a timestamp. When it is an ERC-721 position, a balance lock cannot hold it at all: you need a contract that takes custody of the position NFT itself.

That is why NFT locks became the default here. Team Finance is a multi-chain Web3 token-management suite that projects and individuals use to lock liquidity, vest tokens, mint and manage supply across chains, and it locks those positions directly. Locking inside a MintPlus launch is free, because the standard lock fee is waived there; outside that flow an NFT lock and a liquidity lock are each $150 per use, as of August 2026, plus gas in ETH. Team Finance is our sister product, so take this with the disclosure: its locks run on TrustSwap's own contracts, which is why Locksley reads that state directly rather than trusting a screenshot. To create one, lock liquidity on Robinhood Chain; to read someone else's, follow read a liquidity lock in 60 seconds.

Concentrated liquidity: why a total overstates the depth

Here is the part almost nobody prices in. A position provides depth only while the price sits inside its range. Move the price above the upper bound or below the lower bound and that position stops trading entirely — it converts fully to one side of the pair and sits inert. The liquidity still exists, still shows up in a total, and still cannot absorb a single trade at the current price.

So a pool can be reported as deep and behave as thin, at the same moment. The headline figure sums positions across all ranges. What determines your cost is the liquidity active in the narrow band your trade moves through. On a token that has run hard one way, most of the original range can already be behind the price. Total value locked is a stock measure of assets; depth at the current tick is what you trade against, and price impact and slippage in practice works through the arithmetic.

The same logic applies to locks, which is why a lock deserves a read rather than a checkbox. A locked position sitting entirely outside the current price range is genuinely locked and provides no depth where trading is happening. Across the pairs Locksley indexes, —pending of largest positions are out of range right now. Reading the range is the difference between knowing liquidity is locked and knowing liquidity is present.

One pair, several pools

Uniswap v3 splits each pair across fee tiers, so the same two assets can have separate pools at different fee levels, each with its own price and depth. A launch that funded one tier says nothing about the others, and a router quotes whichever is cheapest at that instant. That is why a pair count and a pool count differ.

Locksley currently indexes —pending pairs on Robinhood Chain, holding —pending of locked liquidity between them. One-sided vs dual-sided liquidity covers how the range you pick at launch decides which of the two you provide.

Burning a position is not the same as burning LP tokens

Sending a position NFT to the dead address is verifiable exactly as an LP burn always was: the address is public, and nobody holds its keys. What differs is what the burn destroys. A v3 position accrues trading fees only its owner can collect, so burning it abandons those fees with the principal. It also freezes the range: nobody can widen it, narrow it, or move it to a fee tier where trading went.

Neither makes a burn better or worse than a lock; permanence buys finality and gives up every future adjustment. Tokens with burned LP lists the ones that took that route, locked at birth lists the ones that locked at pool creation, and locks vs LP burns sets the two side by side.

How to read where a token's liquidity actually is

Four reads, in order. Which positions exist for the pair, and at which fee tiers. What price range the largest position covers, and whether the current price sits inside it. Whether that position is held by a lock contract, and until exactly what timestamp. Whether anything went to the dead address instead.

"No lock found" means we found none — not that none exists. Locksley does not yet index every locker. A negative read is a gap in coverage, not a finding about a project. Every live figure behind these reads, and what each does and does not count, sits on Robinhood Chain by the numbers.

Frequently asked questions

“No lock found” means we found none, not that none exists: we do not index other lockers yet, and it is never a claim about the project.