What we counted on the chain
In a 400 block sample on Robinhood Chain taken on 14 September 2026, we saw 21 distinct v2 style pairs emitting swap logs under the classic topic 0xd78ad95f..., plus a router candidate at 0x89e5db8b5aa49aa85ac63f691524311aeb649eba carrying the selector 0x791ac947, which is the familiar swap-with-fee-on-transfer path. For comparison, the same sample showed 97 v3 pools and one v4 PoolManager.
The sample also gives the tempo of the chain: about 0.10 seconds per block, 7,872 ERC-20 Transfer logs in the window, roughly 200 per second, touching 1,980 distinct addresses.
What we did not confirm
For a copier, this distinction is mostly academic. The pool type determines how your fill behaves, and the pool type is visible in the event shape. The brand on the front end does not change the maths.
Why constant product is easier to copy into
A v2 pair holds reserves of two tokens and quotes a price from their product. Slippage for a given trade size follows directly from the reserves: no bands, no hooks, no dynamic fees, no active range to leave. That is the whole reason these pools are the friendliest target for an automated copier.
| Property | v2 style pair | Consequence for a copy |
|---|---|---|
| Liquidity distribution | Along the entire curve | Depth degrades smoothly, never falls off a cliff |
| Fee | Fixed by the pair | Your break-even is a constant you can calculate once |
| Slippage model | Function of size and reserves | A copy's price is predictable before it is sent |
| Reverts | Rare outside slippage limits | Fewer unexplained failures in the log |
| Pool identity | One contract per pair | The log address is the market |
Detecting a v2 trade
The v2 swap event is the most informative of the three generations: it carries amounts in and out directly. Even so, the sender it reports is the router in most retail flow, and on this chain ERC-4337 smart accounts through the EntryPoint at 0x4337084d9e255ff0702461cf8895ce9e3b5ff108 mean the transaction sender can be a bundler.
So the detection primitive stays the same as everywhere else: ERC-20 Transfer logs filtered by the followed wallet as an indexed topic, one filter for tokens arriving and one for tokens leaving, with a topic OR list so the number of followed wallets does not change the call count.
Sizing against reserves rather than against the leader
Because slippage is a clean function of reserves, you can decide a maximum acceptable price impact and turn it into a size. That is a better discipline than copying the leader's absolute amount, and it is easier to hold to on v2 than on any other pool type.
- Pick the price impact you will tolerate on entry, for example a low single-digit percentage.
- Let the per-trade cap and the minimum pool size filter express that in practice, so a thin pair simply produces a smaller or skipped copy.
- Use fixed sizing as the default and percent-of-theirs only on pairs whose reserves comfortably exceed your size.
Settings for v2 style pairs
| Setting | Starting point | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Buy slippage | Tighter than on v3 or v4 | Predictable pricing means you do not need the headroom |
| Minimum pool size | On, with a real floor | Reserves are the whole story on a constant-product pair |
| Per-trade cap | Derived from acceptable price impact | The maths lets you be precise instead of cautious |
| Maximum trade age | Moderate | No band to leave, so staleness costs less than on v3 |
| Exit mode | Mirror, partial mirroring on | Symmetric depth makes mirrored exits behave sensibly |
| Contract filters | All on | Fee-on-transfer tokens live on these routers for a reason |
The one caveat specific to v2 routers is fee-on-transfer support. The presence of a swap-supporting-fee-on-transfer selector is a hint that taxed tokens trade here, so keep the buy and sell tax ceilings enabled rather than assuming a simple pair means a simple token.
v2 versus v3 versus v4, for a copier
| v2 style pairs | Uniswap v3 | Uniswap v4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counted in our sample | 21 pairs | 97 pools | 1 PoolManager, busiest |
| Pricing | Constant product | Concentrated in bands | Hook dependent |
| Slippage predictability | High | Medium | Variable |
| Pool identity in logs | Contract address | Contract address | Key in topics |
| Trader identity in swap event | Router | Router | Router |
| Best default for copies | Tight slippage, size from reserves | Firm ceiling, small size | Firm ceiling, skip revert-prone tokens |
Copying a wallet that trades v2 pairs
- 01Confirm the pool typeA v2 style pair emits swap topic 0xd78ad95f... and lives at its own contract address, which makes the market easy to identify.
- 02Read the reservesReserves are the only depth number you need on a constant-product pair, so use them to set your size.
- 03Set a tight slippage ceilingPredictable pricing means you do not need the headroom that v3 and v4 sometimes require.
- 04Keep tax filters onFee-on-transfer tokens are common on v2 routers, and an exit tax is the expensive kind.
- 05Mirror exits proportionallySymmetric depth makes a mirrored exit behave the way the leader's did.
- 06Arm the engine and check the fillsOn these pools, fills should land close to your expected price. If they do not, your size is too large for the reserves.
Questions people actually ask
Is Pleiades a Uniswap v2 fork?
Pleiades is the v2 style venue named on Robinhood Chain, and the pairs we counted emit the classic v2 swap topic that such a venue produces. We have not linked those specific pair contracts to the Pleiades factory ourselves, so we describe them as v2 style pairs, which is what the logs actually prove. Check a pair's factory on the explorer if you need attribution.
How many v2 style pairs are there on Robinhood Chain?
We counted 21 distinct pairs emitting swap logs in a 400 block sample on 14 September 2026, against 97 v3 pools and one v4 PoolManager. It is a sample rather than a complete census, but it shows the v2 corner of the chain is small and active rather than empty.
Why are v2 pairs easier to copy into?
Because pricing is a constant-product function of the reserves, with no liquidity bands to leave, no hooks changing behaviour and no dynamic fees. Slippage for a given size is predictable before the trade is sent, which means a copy can be sized precisely instead of cautiously.
Can I use a tighter slippage setting on these pools?
Usually yes. Predictable pricing removes most of the reason for headroom, so a strict ceiling rejects genuinely bad fills without blocking good ones. If a copy is rejected repeatedly, the honest reading is that your size is too large for the reserves rather than that the ceiling is too tight.
What is the risk specific to v2 routers?
Fee-on-transfer tokens. The presence of the swap-supporting-fee-on-transfer selector on the router candidate we observed is a hint that taxed tokens trade there, so keep buy and sell tax ceilings enabled. A simple pool type does not imply a simple token.
Should I prefer v2 pairs for my whole wallet list?
No, because you follow wallets rather than venues, and the leaders worth following trade wherever the flow is, which on this chain is mostly v4. Treat v2 pairs as the pool type where your copies behave most predictably, and let the same engine handle the rest with firmer slippage and depth settings.