Hashflow: RFQ swaps, routing costs and settlement conditions

Hashflow uses requests for quotes to connect token traders with professional market makers. Makers calculate prices offchain and sign the resulting quotes; settlement then uses blockchain contracts. This lets a maker incorporate inventory and external market information into its price instead of relying solely on the reserve curve of one automated market-maker pool.[3]

The 2.0 launch explicitly distinguishes AMM routes: it describes an Auto slippage setting with alternative tolerances when an AMM supplies the trade. Consequently, the protocol’s RFQ price-protection description cannot be applied indiscriminately to every transaction routed through its interface. The route and final confirmation matter.[10]

These deployments establish technical network scope, not that every token, trade size or cross-chain combination has an available quote. Hashflow’s 2024 Aggregator+ announcement expanded the liquidity sources reachable through routing; its broad marketing language is not used here as a count of currently executable assets.[11]

Minimum size depends on the maker and pair: its first advertised price level sets the floor. Available depth constrains the quoted amount.[5]

The fee is collected through the quoted trade outcome, so an RFQ should be compared using the amount actually received or paid. A quote-inclusive fee is still a trading cost. The published fee page does not establish one maker/taker schedule based on monthly retail trading tiers.[4]

Maker API documentation applies the charge by reducing output for a fixed-input request; for a fixed-output request it increases the required input instead. The indicative liquidity levels precede this adjustment. An indicative market price and a final executable quote therefore need not show the same net exchange rate.[6]

A 2022 announcement described gasless trading in alpha for USDC, USDT and DAI on Ethereum, with makers paying gas and incorporating it into quotes. That is evidence of the design at that launch, not a current all-chain promise. Gasless also described who submitted and paid the transaction; it did not mean network execution had no economic cost.[15]

The Solana trading announcement describes connecting an existing wallet, selecting the network and token pair, then trading onchain. This is a wallet transaction flow rather than a conventional exchange cash balance followed by a withdrawal request. The destination network and receiving wallet are therefore part of the trade itself.[12]

Hashflow announced a MoonPay integration in May 2023 for card and bank purchases of crypto, initially naming several EVM networks and major tokens. This was a third-party on-ramp. The announcement also warned that a bank or card provider could decline payment. Current available countries, payment fees, purchase limits and delivery times were not independently established for that integration.[14]

The inspected application did not expose its rendered funding controls. Exact present-day withdrawal minimums, fiat cash-out routes, guaranteed transfer times and a universal recovery process could not be assigned from that interface. This is a limitation of the verified product information, not evidence that a pending transaction will complete or can be cancelled.[2]

In the published EVM pool implementation, the router is authorised to call the trade function; the function verifies an enabled signing configuration and the maker signature, then transfers output to the trader named in the quote. Liquidity can be sent from the pool or an external account. This is reference-code evidence, not a fresh audit or proof that every deployed contract matches the repository.[20]

A valid quote still has execution constraints. The API includes an expiry, and Solana instructions reject an expired quote. It also separates price discovery from onchain submission. A displayed price therefore does not itself demonstrate a completed transfer.[5]

CertiK’s analysis of the June 2023 incident identifies an approval-related transfer vulnerability in code outside its audited scope. The report gives inconsistent loss totals in different sections, so no single exact total is adopted here. The material finding is that wallet-held tokens can remain exposed through spending permissions and that the existence of an audit does not establish coverage of every contract.[19]

The Immunefi program, updated in June 2026, advertises a maximum $50,000 bounty and requires a proof of concept. The listed payments reward eligible vulnerability reports under program rules. They are not a per-customer insurance limit, deposit guarantee or compensation entitlement for a failed trade.[18]

A complete current country list, trading-app minimum age and identity-verification policy were not established in the material available for this review. Wallet connection is a technical prerequisite, not proof of legal eligibility. The profile therefore does not designate Hashflow unrestricted, globally available or universally available without identification.[2]

For integration access, the taker guide distinguishes multi-wallet aggregators from individual wallet traders. The team provides credentials; wallet-trader keys are bound to the relevant wallet. Developers should not treat the presence of a public API reference as confirmation that authenticated production access has already been granted.[5]

The maker operations guide requires coordination with the team when adding another chain, creating its pool, configuring allowances and publishing price levels. Participation and usable liquidity are consequently more specific than merely possessing tokens on one of the listed networks. The guide also allows makers to post trader restrictions with a reason and optional expiry.[7]

Maker onboarding requires allowlisting. Documented errors include compliance restrictions, insufficient liquidity and unsupported pairs; a wallet connection alone does not ensure acceptance.[6]

Hashflow’s engineering update describes an offchain WebSocket quoting service alongside onchain settlement. The practical implication is that a blockchain can continue producing blocks while a user still cannot obtain a quote from the service or a participating maker. The update does not establish an emergency telephone dealing desk or a guaranteed recovery time for a quoting outage.[13]

The official-links directory should be the starting point for community support. No ticket number, chat promise or social reply should be treated as authority to disclose a wallet secret or to sign an unrelated transfer. No general power for support to reverse a final onchain transaction was established.[8]

The accessible forum terms identify Hashflow Foundation, but expressly limit their application to the governance forum and state that other products can have different terms. They cannot establish the trading app’s contracting entity, jurisdiction, customer protections or admission rules. Their thirteen-year forum threshold is not adopted as a trading eligibility age.[9]

No verified licence, regulator-register entry or investor-compensation entitlement for an identified trading-app entity is assigned in this profile. The Foundation’s role in an implemented Base deployment proposal supports a development/governance role. It does not by itself establish a regulated custody service or a contractual obligation to reimburse traders.[25]

The bug bounty is likewise limited to security research. Its maximum payment should not be inserted into a customer-protection table as insured account coverage. No customer insurance wording or claims process was established from the inspected program.[18]

Hashflow’s 2023 engineering account describes rebuilding its market-maker connection service while retaining blockchain settlement. This helps explain the operating model: offchain coordination and pricing are part of the service even though token execution occurs through contracts. Decentralised settlement does not make every component an independently available public blockchain function.[13]

The website emphasises a network serving makers, aggregators, wallets and applications. Volume routed through another interface can therefore contribute to protocol activity without corresponding to a separate person registered on the Hashflow app. Counts of integrations, liquidity and trade volume measure different things and should not be substituted for one another.[1]

Operator

Hashflow protocol; incorporated trading-app counterparty not established.

Exchange model

Decentralised

Service scope

Wallet swaps and RFQ execution infrastructure; routing also reaches external AMM liquidity.

Client types

Retail clients; Institutional clients

Pricing publication

Quote only

Pricing scope

The fee model is public; exact costs are included in the executable quote.

Funding scope

Crypto-wallet funding; historically announced MoonPay fiat purchase integration needs current route confirmation.

Custody and asset handling

Wallet-signed execution through contracts; maker liquidity may sit in pools or authorised external accounts.

Client eligibility

Current country, age and trading-app identity-verification rules were not established.

Support

Official Discord and social channels; developer onboarding through the documented team contact.

Authorisation and registration scope

No verified trading-entity licence or compensation entitlement established from the inspected materials.

Exchange metadata checked 21 Oct 2026Source 1Source 2Source 3Source 4Source 5Source 8Source 9Source 11Source 14Source 17Source 20

The maker operations reference describes authenticated, paginated trade retrieval for a specified pool and time range. This can support maker reconciliation, but it is not evidence of a retail tax report or a complete downloadable personal account statement. The precise export format and retention available to an individual app user were not established.[7]

HFT is the protocol’s governance token. Its background documentation describes voting power linked to the amount staked and the duration of the lock. That voting arrangement is separate from holding freely spendable wallet tokens. Neither a governance allocation nor revenue sharing establishes a fixed investment return or an immediately withdrawable trading-account balance.[21]

The old fee-document distribution table and the later governance record differ. The later implemented buyback/burn specification is used for that allocation; neither record supplies a fixed annual yield. Actual claim availability, locking terms and any transaction costs need to be checked for the wallet and contract involved.[24][4]

The passed multiple-vault proposal discusses preserving older positions alongside a new contract and combining voting power. That is a migration design, not an instruction to move assets to an address from this profile. The actual app state, relevant contract and unlocking conditions were not tested here.[26]