Curve Finance Accuses PancakeSwap of Copying StableSwap Code

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-03-07Last updated on 2026-03-07

Abstract

Curve Finance has publicly accused PancakeSwap of copying its proprietary StableSwap code without permission, calling it a license breach and warning of legal and technical risks. The accusation, made on March 6 via X, came in response to PancakeSwap’s March 2 announcement of launching StableSwap on its Infinity platform. Curve urged PancakeSwap to seek proper licensing and collaboration to avoid legal issues and ensure user safety. In response, PancakeSwap acknowledged the dispute and entered private talks. Curve later softened its tone, suggesting a potential “build together” partnership. The outcome may set a precedent for intellectual property in open-source DeFi, with users concerned about network security implications.

The stablecoin-focused decentralised exchange, Curve Finance, has accused PancakeSwap of using its proprietary code to back the StableSwap function without having permission.

The accusation was made on March 6 on X, where the Curve team highlighted that this action shows a direct breach of the StableSwap licence, alerting to the legal and technical risks associated with replicating financial software without the proper regulatory framework.

The X post of Curve Finance mentioned that, “Dear PancakeSwap. Looks like you copied out code without permission. It is a violation of its licence. Not only is it illegal, but historically it has shown to be unwise for those who did it this way in other regards.

It further added that in any case. If you want to enjoy using StableSwap without legal problems and to borrow some of our expertise to keep users SAFU, you still can contact us for licensing and collaboration.”

The post was made in reply to the X post made by PancakeSwap on March 2 mentioning, “Introducing better prices for swapping stablecoins and tightly pegged assets, and Stableswap is now live on PancakeSwap Infinity.”

Settlement or Collaboration: What Will The Market Witness

Quickly after the complaint, the DeFi ecosystem witnessed a brief shock, as PancakeSwap had just executed said technology on its “Infinity” platform to provide stablecoin swaps having ultra-low slippage.

Replying to the public pressure, PancakeSwap accepted that it has so far started private talks to settle the dispute, while Curve softened its primary stance by recommending a possible strategic collaboration under the motto “build together”.

In the near future, the market will be able to witness if both decentralised giants manage to formalise an official licensing agreement or a technical alliance. The settlement of this conflict will set a prominent precedent concerning the safeguarding of intellectual property in open source, while users hope that this amalgamation does not compromise the security of the liquidity pools of the network.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

KuCoin Introduces KCS PulseDrop to Turn User Activity Into Crypto Rewards

TagsCurve FinanceMarketPancakeSwap

Related Questions

QWhat is the main accusation that Curve Finance has made against PancakeSwap?

ACurve Finance has accused PancakeSwap of copying its proprietary StableSwap code without permission, which is a direct breach of the StableSwap license.

QOn which date and platform did Curve Finance publicly make this accusation?

ACurve Finance made the accusation on March 6 on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).

QWhat did PancakeSwap announce on March 2nd that prompted Curve's response?

AOn March 2nd, PancakeSwap announced the launch of its StableSwap feature on its 'Infinity' platform, offering better prices for swapping stablecoins and tightly pegged assets.

QHow did PancakeSwap respond to the public pressure following the accusation?

APancakeSwap accepted that it has initiated private talks to settle the dispute.

QWhat potential positive outcome did Curve Finance propose to PancakeSwap?

ACurve Finance proposed a potential strategic collaboration and offered to discuss licensing, suggesting they could 'build together'.

Related Reads

Bitcoin Price Could See Another Crash, But What Is The Long-Term Prognosis?

Bitcoin recently surpassed $78,000, reigniting bullish sentiment and expectations of reaching six figures. However, analyst Behdark warns of a potential price crash before any sustained recovery. He suggests current optimism may be misleading, possibly a tactic by market makers to attract buyers before a downturn. Technical analysis indicates bearish patterns, such as a triangle or diamagnetic formation, signaling a likely decline. Key resistance levels to watch are $77,000 and $80,552, where a reversal may occur. If a correction happens, support levels are identified near $72,800, $67,885, and $67,677, with a break below possibly leading to a further 10% drop. The long-term outlook remains above the $60,000 cycle support, suggesting eventual recovery after a short-term dip.

bitcoinist45m ago

Bitcoin Price Could See Another Crash, But What Is The Long-Term Prognosis?

bitcoinist45m ago

Prediction Markets Under Bias

The article "Prediction Markets Under Bias" by Jeff Park of Bitwise argues against the common media portrayal of prediction markets as mere gambling or a social ill. It distinguishes between gambling and investment based on whether a participant's strategy has a positive expected value (+EV), not the market's structure. The author contends that prediction markets, like poker, are skill-based and can be a legitimate form of investment, offering individuals autonomy, truth discovery, and decentralized value. The piece critiques the common conflation of prediction markets with casino gambling, highlighting their role in risk hedging and capital efficiency, similar to insurance and securitization. A key differentiator is their precision and finite expiration, which makes prices directly anchor to factual outcomes, rewarding deep research and information advantage rather than punishing the uninformed. The author concludes that media opposition often stems from a structural bias, as these markets challenge traditional information gatekeepers and promote a more democratic, transparent system for pricing truth. The real debate is not about information having a price, but about who controls and profits from it.

marsbit1h ago

Prediction Markets Under Bias

marsbit1h ago

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

Why do you always lose money on Polymarket? Because you bet on news, while the pros study the rules. This article explains how top traders ("che tou") profit by meticulously analyzing market rules, not just predicting events. Polymarket, a prediction market platform, often sees disputes over event outcomes due to ambiguous rule wording. For instance, a market asking "Who will be the leader of Venezuela by the end of 2026?" was misinterpreted by many who bet on Delcy Rodríguez, assuming she held power. However, the rules specified "officially holds" as the formally appointed, sworn-in individual. Since Nicolás Maduro was still recognized as president officially, he won the market—even being in prison. To resolve such disputes, Polymarket uses a decentralized arbitration system via UMA protocol. The process involves: 1. Proposal: Anyone can propose a market outcome by staking 750 USDC, earning 5 USDC if unchallenged. 2. Dispute: A 2-hour window allows challenges with a 750 USDC stake; successful challengers earn 250 USDC. 3. Discussion: A 48-hour period on UMA Discord for evidence and debate. 4. Voting: UMA token holders vote in two 24-hour phases (blind then public). Outcomes require >65% consensus and 5M tokens voted; otherwise, four re-votes occur before Polymarket intervention. 5. Settlement: Results are final and automatic. Unlike traditional courts, Polymarket’s system lacks separation between arbitrators and stakeholders—voters often hold market positions, creating conflicts of interest. This leads to herd mentality in discussions and non-transparent outcomes without explanatory rulings, preventing precedent formation. Thus, success on Polymarket hinges on deep rule interpretation, not just event prediction, exploiting gaps between reality and contractual wording.

marsbit1h ago

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

marsbit1h ago

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI company, has initiated its first external funding round, aiming to raise at least $300 million at a valuation of no less than $10 billion. This move marks a significant shift from its founder Liang Wenfeng’s previous idealistic stance of rejecting external capital to maintain independence. Despite strong financial backing from its parent company, quantitative trading firm幻方量化 (Huanfang Quant), which provided an estimated $700 million in revenue in 2025 alone, DeepSeek faces mounting challenges. Key issues include a 15-month gap in major model updates, delays in its flagship V4 release, and the loss of several core researchers to competitors offering significantly higher compensation. The company is also undergoing a strategic pivot by migrating its infrastructure from NVIDIA’s CUDA to Huawei’s Ascend platform, a move aligned with China’s push for technological self-reliance amid U.S. export controls. However, DeepSeek lags behind rivals like智谱AI and MiniMax—both now publicly listed—in areas such as product ecosystem, multimodal capabilities, and commercialization. The funding round, though relatively small in scale, is seen as a way to establish a market-validated valuation anchor, making employee stock options more competitive and facilitating talent retention. It also signals DeepSeek’s transition from a pure research-oriented organization to a commercially-driven player in the global AI ecosystem.

marsbit1h ago

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

marsbit1h ago

Warsh, Trump's Next 'Scapegoat' at the Federal Reserve?

Kevin Warsh, a nominee for the Federal Reserve chair, faces a challenging confirmation hearing amid political pressure from former President Donald Trump to implement immediate and significant interest rate cuts. Warsh has proposed reforms including reducing the Fed’s communication frequency and shrinking its $6.7 trillion balance sheet. However, market expectations for rate cuts remain limited, creating tension with Trump’s demands. Warsh’s stance has shifted over time, from hawkish during the financial crisis to more dovish recently, citing AI-driven productivity gains. His confirmation is further complicated by Republican Senator Thom Tillis’s threat to block the nomination unless an investigation into current Chair Jerome Powell is dropped. Trump has warned of firing Powell if he doesn’t leave on time. Observers note that Warsh risks becoming a "scapegoat"—either by yielding to political pressure and fueling inflation, or by resisting and facing Trump’s backlash. His ties to Trump’s circle and Wall Street support may aid his nomination, but his ability to balance political demands with the Fed’s credibility remains uncertain. Historical precedents, like Arthur Burns’s compliance with Nixon, highlight the risks of political interference in monetary policy.

marsbit2h ago

Warsh, Trump's Next 'Scapegoat' at the Federal Reserve?

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow