Blaster swapBlaster swap exchanges left receipts that connect submitted instructions with delivered tokens.
updated
Blaster swap exchanges can be traced by matching submitted instructions with transaction receipts and recipient balance changes. Start with the selected tokens, spending amount and output constraint. Then identify the executed swap and follow its transfers to the intended recipient. A successful receipt establishes execution, while the balance reconciliation determines whether the expected token amount arrived.
The project announced its closure and set January 15, 2025 as the end of its planned frontend withdrawal window. Historical exchange records remain the focus here. An old quote or working contract address doesn't establish that the trading interface remains available.
Quote Review Before Submission
A quote normally supplied the proposed exchange terms before a transaction carried those instructions to the router. If the displayed terms changed before submission, refreshing the quote required a fresh comparison against the intended output. Once a transaction hash existed, the next task was to establish its execution status before treating another submission as a retry. Keep the last accepted quote beside the transaction data, rather than comparing a receipt with whichever estimate appeared most recently.
Match the Output Constraint to the Swap Method
An exact-input exchange fixes the amount offered and uses an output floor where the selected method supports it. An exact-output exchange specifies the requested output and bounds the input instead. These constraints answer different reconciliation questions. The first asks whether execution met the submitted minimum; the second asks whether the requested delivery stayed within the permitted spending amount.
The quoted estimate and the submitted constraint aren't interchangeable. An output below the estimate can still satisfy a minimum-output instruction. Conversely, a favorable estimate can't compensate for an incorrectly encoded recipient or token. Decode the actual method and its parameters before deciding which comparison applies. Historical router versions need their matching contract interface; applying another version's field layout can misidentify an amount or recipient.
Submitted Data and the Approval Record
A token approval established spending permission, so its successful receipt alone doesn't demonstrate that an exchange followed. Locate the separate swap transaction when the approval and exchange used separate calls. Its input data, often called calldata, records the encoded instructions sent to the contract. Match the sender, destination contract and network before interpreting those instructions. If the available record contains only an approval, the missing evidence is the exchange transaction itself. Another permission change cannot supply that evidence.
What Does a Successful Swap Receipt Establish?
A successful swap receipt establishes that the recorded transaction executed without a top-level failure in its containing block. It also identifies the transaction. The receipt doesn't preserve the earlier screen quote, and its status alone doesn't prove that the recipient received the amount the reader intended.
A transaction receipt contains the logs emitted during that transaction's successful execution. Match those logs to the actual swap call before interpreting a success label. A failed top-level transaction doesn't establish a completed exchange, although execution can still incur a network charge. A missing receipt leaves execution unresolved; it isn't sufficient evidence of either failure or delivery. Resolve that status before attributing a balance change to the attempt.
Follow the Output to Its Recipient
The final recipient's transfer is the relevant delivery record, even when several contracts participated in execution. Blaster swap's V2 pair contracts emitted swap events containing input amounts, output amounts and a destination. Those fields describe the individual pair operation. In a route containing intermediate exchanges, a pair's destination can be another contract rather than the wallet awaiting the final output.
Follow the output asset through the transaction instead of adding every amount labeled as a swap. Intermediate transfers can represent the same value moving between successive operations. For an ERC-20 output, match the emitting token contract and transfer recipient. If execution converted a wrapped asset into the native asset, examine the corresponding native transfer too. A wrapped-token movement into a router doesn't, by itself, establish the wallet's final delivery.
Recipient Balances Beyond the Transfer Log
The recipient's balance difference equals swap delivery only when other changes within the observation interval are absent or accounted for. Use the same account, network and token contract for both readings. A current wallet balance compared with an old screenshot can include later transfers. Narrow the interval around execution, then identify any additional movements before assigning the entire difference to the swap.
Rebasing matters on Blast because eligible balances can change through yield accounting without a new swap. Native ETH balances for externally owned accounts automatically rebase by default, but those accounts can change their yield mode. Contract accounts also have configurable yield modes. Where the asset and account configuration permit such changes, isolate them from exchange proceeds. For native-asset reconciliation, account for transaction charges paid by that address as well. Don't subtract the sender's network charge from a different recipient's token delivery.
Block-level balance readings need particular care. They describe state at a block boundary, which can include other transactions in the same block. When that distinction changes the result, transaction-level transfers or execution traces help isolate the exchange. If the necessary historical state isn't accessible, preserve the transfer-based finding and the unresolved balance difference separately.
Reconstructing an Exchange With a Minimum Output
Consider an exchange during the operating period, with all amounts and execution circumstances treated as hypothetical. The reader wanted to reject unacceptable terms before commitment and required at least 47.23 output tokens. The selected output was an ordinary token without transfer deductions or rebasing.
The quote estimated 47.83 output tokens. Before signing, the reader needed the proposed transaction decoded to confirm the token contract, recipient and encoded minimum. The wallet couldn't initially display those fields.
The reader left the transaction unsigned until compatible decoding exposed the instructions. If decoding remained unavailable, the exchange would stop there. This preserved the opportunity to reject the terms; it didn't create a right to undo a later settled trade.
In the completed hypothetical case, the decoded instructions matched the intended recipient and minimum. Execution succeeded, and the transaction's final token transfer credited 47.51 tokens. The recipient's balance moved from 12.17 to 59.68 tokens, with no other balance-changing activity during the comparison interval.
The calculation is 59.68 - 12.17 = 47.51 tokens received. Delivery exceeded the minimum by 0.28 tokens, although it fell below the estimate. The transfer record and balance difference agreed. A different recipient, an intervening transfer or a balance-changing token mechanism would require a different reconciliation before reaching that conclusion.
Can an Old Quote Explain a Settled Difference?
An old quote can show the expected outcome, but it cannot explain every difference in a settled exchange. Compare it with the submitted constraint and delivered amount using matching token units. Then locate where the difference arose: between quote and submission, during execution or within the later balance interval. If the original estimate wasn't saved, transaction data may still establish the submitted limit. It cannot reliably recreate the exact estimate that appeared on screen.
Close the Record Before Another Exchange
A reconciled record connects the intended instruction to the executed transaction and its attributable delivery. Save the transaction hash, decoded inputs, receipt and relevant transfers together. Retain the balance observation points when they support the result. This keeps a later wallet refresh from replacing the historical evidence with a different balance interval.
An unresolved discrepancy needs a specific next investigation. An unfamiliar token contract requires an identity check; an unexplained balance increase requires examination of intervening activity. Neither finding establishes that another swap is necessary. Once the original exchange is accounted for, decide whether the delivered asset should remain held or whether a separate exchange is appropriate. Any new trade has its own availability, execution terms and record.
FAQ
Can I Inspect an Old Swap Receipt Without Connecting My Wallet?
Public transaction receipts can be inspected without connecting a wallet or supplying a private key. The transaction hash and correct network identify the record. Reading that record doesn't authorize spending. Sharing the hash can also reveal the participating addresses and amounts, so consider that exposure when sending transaction details to someone else.
What Does a Zero Transaction Value Mean When Tokens Were Exchanged?
A zero transaction value means the top-level call didn't attach native currency as its value. Token spending can occur through contract calls instead. For a token exchange, inspect the decoded instructions and token transfers before concluding that nothing moved. The transaction value field isn't a combined total of all assets exchanged.
How Should Raw Token Amounts Be Converted for a Receipt Comparison?
Convert a raw token amount using that token's established decimal precision. The displayed quantity equals the raw integer divided by ten raised to the decimal count. ERC-20 defines decimals as optional metadata, so don't assume a universal value when that field is absent. Keep the raw amount alongside any formatted export.
Is the receipt's Block Time the Moment I Accepted the Quote?
The containing block's timestamp describes the block, not the moment you reviewed or accepted a quote. Submission and inclusion can occur after quote review. A saved quote timestamp can help establish that interval, but a transaction receipt alone doesn't reconstruct the earlier interaction. Keep those times labeled separately when comparing records.
When Should Repeated Transfer Rows Be Treated as Duplicate Records?
Repeated rows represent the same event when their network, transaction hash and log index match. Multiple transfer events within one transaction can be legitimate, even when some amounts match. Preserve their separate log indexes while removing duplicated exports of the same event. Native transfer traces use their own position identifiers rather than ERC-20 log indexes.