I've been covering Pact Swap for a while now, but I still see a lot of people missing the point: Their protocol mechanics design choice. TLDR: execution is enforced by the protocol itself → on-chain sentinels → adjudication logic → collateral as the final arbiter So: No committees. No operators. No bridge trust assumptions. That design choice matters in practice. Why? Because it lets them support chains most DEXs quietly avoid: • BTC, LTC, DOGE (UTXO, no wrappers) Ignoring DOGE might look “clean” architecturally, but it creates massive liquidity blind spots. @Pact_Swap seems to be deliberately optimizing for where volume actually exists, and that's an honest, solid strategy we know works. The numbers people are posting back it up: • BTC → ETH swaps costing ~$1 vs $10–$15 elsewhere • ~90–95% fee reduction on BTC routes • Native settlement, no bridge slippage, no wrapped asset risk The most convincing takes this week weren’t hype threads, but builder-style breakdowns calling this “quiet infrastructure”: predictable failure paths, capital is only locked when active, liquidity is competing instead of coordinating. Not saying this replaces every DEX overnight. But if cross-chain is going to scale without blowing up, this enforcement-first model feels directionally right.

Pact looks packed bro

Pact Swap’s enforcement first model is smart, efficient, and groundbreaking.