How these prices are computed, and what they do and do not claim.
Every price here comes from the exact curve of every pool that trades the token, on Elexium, Ayin and Powfi. Nothing is averaged from an outside source, and nothing is smoothed.
Each pool is priced at its marginal rate — what an infinitesimal trade would get, before fees. It is derived from each curve directly: the reserve ratio for constant-product pools, the invariant's derivative for Elexium's stable pools, the pool's own square-root price for Powfi's concentrated liquidity.
Depth is what you can actually trade within 1% of that price. For a concentrated-liquidity pool this is unrelated to what the pool holds — liquidity can sit in a price range the market is not in. A pool's balance would call those deep; they are not.
Pools disagree. The published price is the mean of every pool's mid, weighted by that pool's depth in ALPH, so a pool holding a few ALPH cannot move a headline number. Tokens with no direct ALPH pair are priced through the tokens that have one, and an indirect quote is capped by the depth of the token it routes through.
Three factors, multiplied: how deep the market is, how closely its pools agree, and how directly it connects to ALPH. A single thin pool and two pools 5% apart both score low, for different reasons — the Spread column tells them apart.
The USD column converts at ALPH's off-chain market rate. Beside it sits the rate this chain's own dollar-pegged pools imply, taking each at $1. They are usually close; when they are not, bridged stables here are trading off peg, and that is worth seeing rather than averaging away.
Every number is the current state of the chain, with no time-averaging. A moving average would resist manipulation better and would also mean publishing a price known to be out of date. The defence offered instead is the depth beside the price: it says what moving it would cost.
Reserves come from each pool's own state, not its token balance. Every pool holds a little more than it trades — its own deposit sits in the same balance — which on a thin pool is a whole percent of error in the wrong direction.
Three factors, multiplied. Each is stated so it can be argued with rather than taken on trust.
| Factor | Definition | What it catches |
|---|---|---|
| depth | ln(1 + depthAlph) / ln(1 + 10000), capped at 1 | A market too thin to trade. Logarithmic, because the difference between 10 and 100 ALPH matters far more than between 10,000 and 100,000. |
| agreement | 1 / (1 + dispersionBps / 100) | Pools that disagree. 100 bps of spread scores 0.5. Disagreement is the best single evidence that a price is uncertain. |
| directness | 0.8 ^ (hops − 1) | Error compounding along a route. A direct ALPH pair scores 1.0. |
| unknown decimals | A price without them is wrong by a factor of 10ⁿ, so the token is omitted rather than guessed at. |
| more than 3 hops | Error compounds with every pool a price routes through. |
| staking as depth | xALPH minting is one-way — unstaking vests over weeks — so its rate is shown but given no weight. It is a redemption rate, not a market. |
The USD column converts at ALPH’s off-chain market rate. Published beside it is the rate this chain’s own dollar-pegged pools imply, taking each at $1. They are usually close. When they are not, bridged stables here are trading off peg — a fact about this chain that a single blended number would erase.