ICPSwap Holds $3.27 Million TVL as ICS Burns Pass 56.8 Million

DefiLlama lists ICPSwap at $3.27 million in total value locked, with $542.58 million in cumulative decentralized-exchange volume on the Internet Computer Protocol.

That is the clearest measure of the exchange’s current footprint. It comes with a scale caveat: the chain’s entire reported DeFi TVL stands at roughly $7.5 million to $7.7 million.

ICPSwap therefore holds about 42% to 44% of the network’s reported DeFi TVL, based on DefiLlama’s figures. The totals are small next to larger blockchain ecosystems, as the report notes, but ICPSwap holds a clear lead within Internet Computer.

What do the figures show?

DefiLlama’s protocol page provides four relevant readings:

• TVL: $3.27 million for ICPSwap.
• Internet Computer DeFi TVL: approximately $7.5 million to $7.7 million for the chain.
• Cumulative DEX volume: $542.58 million for ICPSwap.
• 30-day DEX volume: $8.43 million for ICPSwap.

The report describes ICPSwap’s TVL more broadly as roughly $3.2 million to $3.3 million. The protocol page supplies the more precise $3.27 million reading.

DefiLlama’s data also assigns ICPSwap all reported DEX volume on the chain. That ranking leaves no second venue with recorded DEX volume in the cited snapshot, although it does not show how much trading Internet Computer attracted over time.

The distinction between stock and flow matters. TVL describes assets deposited in the protocol at the measurement point. Cumulative volume describes trading activity across an unspecified period. Neither metric, on its own, tells a trader how much liquidity will remain available when an order reaches the market.

How large is ICPSwap’s lead?

Using the reported chainwide range, ICPSwap represents roughly 43% of Internet Computer’s DeFi TVL. It leads every other protocol shown by DefiLlama, but it does not account for a majority of the chain’s TVL.

Its 30-day DEX volume of $8.43 million is more than two times its current TVL. That comparison indicates substantial turnover relative to deposited value, although the report provides no breakdown by trading pair, fee, trader or transaction size.

The $542.58 million cumulative figure tells a longer story of activity, but it cannot be read as a day, annual or monthly total without the relevant time series. The report provides no starting date, historical peak or detailed volume methodology.

DefiLlama’s TVL reading changes from day to day. Other snapshots of the same protocol page show higher or lower numbers, so one figure should not be treated as a fixed balance.

What happened to the ICS token?

The report’s headline says ICPSwap’s ICS token burns have passed 56.8 million. Its body does not provide a burn address, transaction history, supply denominator, schedule or mechanism.

That omission limits what readers can verify. The report gives a quantity but not enough context to determine how many tokens remain or whether the burns have affected liquidity, token supply or user activity.

Readers should separate the headline’s 56.8-million count from the separately displayed DefiLlama metrics. The TVL, cumulative-volume and 30-day-volume figures can be tied to DefiLlama. The burn count cannot be checked against a transaction record in the report.

What does this change for users?

For traders and liquidity providers, the immediate change is concentration. One exchange handles all DEX volume in the cited data and holds roughly 43% of the chain’s DeFi TVL.

That concentration makes ICPSwap the chain’s clearest liquidity venue. It also leaves users dependent on one execution environment while the chainwide liquidity pool remains small.

The burn milestone adds a token narrative, but not enough detail to translate it into a market-structure conclusion. For now, the practical measure is observable activity: $8.43 million over 30 days, alongside $3.27 million in TVL.

The next test is whether ICPSwap keeps that lead as Internet Computer’s broader DeFi TVL moves; future DefiLlama snapshots would show whether the market structure is strengthening or fragmenting.