Multi-Hop Swap
Sequential swaps through intermediate tokens
Multi-Hop Swap routes trades through one or more intermediate tokens when no direct liquidity pool exists between the input and output tokens.
Structure
TokenA ──[DEX 1]──> TokenB ──[DEX 2]──> TokenC
(Hop 1) (Hop 2)Characteristics:
Sequential token swaps
Uses intermediate "bridge" tokens (WBNB, WETH, USDT, etc.)
Single path through multiple pools
Necessary when direct pair doesn't exist
When Multi-Hop is Used
The API automatically selects Multi-Hop when:
✅ No direct pool - TokenA/TokenC pool doesn't exist ✅ Intermediate liquidity - Strong pools for TokenA→TokenB and TokenB→TokenC ✅ Common bridge token - TokenB is a major token (WBNB, USDT, BUSD) ✅ Better than alternatives - More efficient than batch splitting
Common Routing Patterns
Pattern 1: Through Native Token
Most common pattern for tokens without USDT pair.
Pattern 2: Through Stablecoin
Common for stablecoin swaps or tokens with better stablecoin liquidity.
Pattern 3: Extended Hop (Rare)
Used when TokenA has no USDT pool but has WBNB pool.
Example Response
Real Example: CAKE → USDT
Breakdown:
Hop 1: 100 CAKE → 2.5 WBNB (via PancakeSwapV3)
Hop 2: 2.5 WBNB → 580.12 USDT (via UniswapV2)
Total Gas: 220k (vs 120k for simple)
Smart Contract Encoding
MultiHopSwapParams Structure
Execution Flow
Gas Costs
2 hops
200k-250k
220k-300k
+80-130k
3 hops
280k-350k
320k-450k
+160-230k
4 hops
350k-450k
420k-600k
+230-330k
Gas increases with:
Number of hops
DEX protocol complexity (V3 > V2)
Token transfer costs
Example Calculation:
Advantages
✅ Enables Unavailable Swaps
Without multi-hop, many token pairs would be impossible:
✅ Accesses Deep Liquidity
Bridge tokens have the deepest liquidity:
✅ Predictable Routing
Standard routing patterns:
Most tokens have WBNB pair
WBNB has pairs with all major tokens
Easy to predict and understand
Limitations
❌ Higher Gas Costs
Each hop adds ~80-100k gas:
❌ Compounding Slippage
Each hop has its own slippage:
Must set higher slippage tolerance!
❌ Increased Failure Risk
Any hop can fail:
Bridge token price spike
Intermediate pool depleted
MEV attack on any hop
Atomic execution means one failure = entire swap reverts.
❌ Higher Price Impact
Affects two pools instead of one:
Code Examples
JavaScript Implementation
Python Implementation
Best Practices
✅ Higher Slippage Tolerance
Multi-hop needs more buffer:
✅ Verify Bridge Token Liquidity
Check intermediate pools before executing:
✅ Monitor Bridge Token Prices
Sudden bridge token price moves affect your swap:
✅ Set Appropriate Deadline
Longer paths need more time:
Troubleshooting
Issue: "Insufficient output amount" Error
Causes:
Slippage too tight for multi-hop
Bridge token price moved
One pool had high price impact
Solution:
Issue: One Hop Fails, TX Reverts
Diagnose which hop:
Issue: Worse Rate Than Expected
Check:
Bridge token arbitrage opportunities
MEV bots front-running
Recent price movements
Solution:
Use private transaction relay (Flashbots, BloXroute)
Add MEV protection
Increase slippage slightly
Comparison with Other Types
Direct pair needed
✅ Yes
❌ No
✅ Yes
Gas cost
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Lowest
⭐⭐⭐ Medium
⭐⭐ Higher
Slippage
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Low
⭐⭐⭐ Medium
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Low
Complexity
⭐ Simple
⭐⭐⭐ Medium
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Complex
Use case
Common pairs
Exotic pairs
Large orders
Related Topics
Simple Swap - Direct single-DEX routing
Batch Swap - Parallel liquidity splitting
Parallel Multi-Hop - Complex routing
Slippage Configuration - Configure tolerance
Summary
Multi-Hop Swap is ideal for:
✅ Token pairs without direct pools
✅ Accessing deeper liquidity through bridge tokens
✅ Swapping exotic/new tokens
✅ When indirect routing provides better rates
Not recommended for:
❌ High-frequency trading (gas cost)
❌ Very tight slippage requirements
❌ During bridge token volatility
❌ When direct pool exists with good liquidity
Last updated