Robinhood Chain vs. Stable Chain: Titan Locker Deployment Differences

Titan Locker runs on two chains: Robinhood Chain (chain ID 4663), where it launched, and Stable Chain (chain ID 988), where it's the first token and liquidity locker live. The contract code is identical on both - not a fork, not a rewrite, the exact same audited TitanLockerManagerV2_1 bytecode, deployed at the exact same address. What differs is the chain underneath it: native currency, fee denomination, and which Uniswap protocol versions are available.

Same contract, same address, on purpose

A contract's address on a fresh chain is deterministic: it's derived only from the deploying wallet's address and its transaction nonce at deploy time (keccak256 of the RLP-encoded pair) - never from the chain itself. That means the same wallet, sending its transactions in the same order, produces the same contract addresses on any EVM chain. To get TitanLockerManagerV2_1 onto Stable Chain at the identical address it already had on Robinhood Chain, the deploying wallet's nonce on Stable Chain had to be advanced - burned through with zero-value transactions - until it reached the exact nonce that produced the Robinhood Chain address, then the Util library and manager were deployed at that precise point, with the library address manually linked into the manager's bytecode to match byte-for-byte. The result is independently verifiable: anyone can call eth_getCode for 0x102a70bDA2C833b3483A2eE55C14c7ea0fb7A01B on both chains and compare the returned bytecode directly - see the runnable script on the Stable Chain hub.

What's identical

• Contract source and bytecode - TitanLockerManagerV2_1, byte-for-byte.
• Manager and Util addresses - the exact same hex address on both chains.
• The ContractWolf security audit - both deployments run the code that passed the same Standard Audit, all 4 findings resolved.
• Lock mechanics - per-lock isolated child contracts, immutable unlock times, non-custodial withdrawal, linear vesting with an optional cliff.
• Fee structure shape - a flat fee or an in-kind token percentage, payer's choice, at creation.

What's different

Why the fee is denominated differently

Robinhood Chain's native gas currency is ETH, a volatile asset - a flat 0.025 ETH fee is genuinely a fee of varying USD value day to day. Stable Chain's native currency, USDT0, is itself a stablecoin, so the equivalent flat fee (50 USDT0) is denominated in something already pegged to roughly $1 - no separate USD-price feed is needed to know what it costs, and none is used for it.

Why V4 isn't offered on Stable Chain

Titan Locker's position-locking feature only ever offers Uniswap protocol versions that are actually allowlisted on the connected chain's manager, which in turn requires that protocol to actually be deployed there. Uniswap V4 has no deployment on Stable Chain as of this writing, so only V3 position locking is available - the create-lock flow reflects this automatically rather than showing an option that would just revert.

Choosing which chain to lock on

This isn't a competitive choice between two different products - it's the same Titan Locker, so the real question is simply which chain your token or liquidity already lives on. A token deployed on Robinhood Chain locks on Robinhood Chain; a token deployed on Stable Chain locks on Stable Chain. The network switcher in the header works before you connect a wallet, so you can browse either chain's locks first and decide from there.