Token Launchpads
Token Launchpads evaluated across published launch track record, allocation rules and named exclusions, published cost to participate, and upfront sale and unlock terms.
9providers tracked
9ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
27 September 2026oldest read · due 11 NovIndependent. Evidence-based.We rank with a published method and sourced evidence. No one can pay to rank.How it works
Set your country and amount to see your costs ·
Your setup
What your country changes
Pick a country to see which token launchpads serve it. Nothing is hidden — any that does not is listed with that reason.- 🇺🇸 United States
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇳🇴 Norway
This affects provider availability.
Requirements (0)
Preferences (0)
Preferences re-weight Fit for you, which needs your country.
More filters
Funding & access
9 providers match your requirements
Out of 9 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: token launchpads, platforms whose token sales you can take part in, compared on how previous launches went, allocation rules, the cost to participate, and sale and unlock terms.Not ranked here: anything other than a launchpad platform whose token sales you can take part in.9 of the 9 assessed are ranked.Requirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
DAO Maker
How DAO Maker was chosen
Leads this ranking on Published launch track recordStaking-tier launchpad running public and private Strong Holder Offerings with an on-chain lottery contract.
78 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 9 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Published cost to participateUpfront sale and unlock terms
Why it leads
- DAO Maker scores higher than everything else in this ranking on its published track record.
- Best in this ranking on published track record (5/10; next 4/10)
- Tied with Kraken Launch on the published total; the tie-break orders them
Tradeoff
Access rules and exclusions: 4 points below the best in this ranking
Share
#ProviderPriceCompare
2
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (41.50 against 41.40)
Exchange-hosted token sale
78 / 100 out of 100
3
FJ
Permissionless multi-chain sale venue running...
76 / 100 out of 100
4
Merit-scored pre-ICO sale platform
73 / 100 out of 100
5
BI
Lock BNB or designated tokens to farm a new...
72 / 100 out of 100
6
KYC-gated token sale platform running...
70 / 100 out of 100
7
POLS-staking IDO platform
65 / 100 out of 100
8
EC
Compliance and settlement infrastructure
64 / 100 out of 100
9
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (36.20 against 36.10)
Exchange launchpad allocating pre-listing...
64 / 100 out of 100
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Cost to participate
Published cost to participate
20% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Cost to participate (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Fjord Foundry | 9 | 76 |
| DAO Maker | 8 | 78 |
| Binance Launchpool | 7 | 72 |
| Echo (Sonar) | 6 | 64 |
| Kraken Launch | 5 | 78 |
| Legion | 4 | 73 |
| Bybit Launchpad | 4 | 64 |
| Polkastarter | 3 | 65 |
| CoinList | 2 | 70 |
Published track record
Published launch track record
35% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Published track record (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| DAO Maker | 5 | 78 |
| Binance Launchpool | 4 | 72 |
| Kraken Launch | 2 | 78 |
| CoinList | 2 | 70 |
| Polkastarter | 2 | 65 |
| Fjord Foundry | 1 | 76 |
| Legion | 1 | 73 |
| Echo (Sonar) | 1 | 64 |
| Bybit Launchpad | 1 | 64 |
Access rules and exclusions
Allocation rules and named exclusions
25% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Access rules and exclusions (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Kraken Launch | 8 | 78 |
| Fjord Foundry | 7 | 76 |
| Legion | 7 | 73 |
| Bybit Launchpad | 7 | 64 |
| CoinList | 6 | 70 |
| Polkastarter | 6 | 65 |
| DAO Maker | 4 | 78 |
| Echo (Sonar) | 4 | 64 |
| Binance Launchpool | 3 | 72 |
Sale terms and unlock disclosure
Upfront sale and unlock terms
20% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Sale terms and unlock disclosure (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Kraken Launch | 9 | 78 |
| Legion | 9 | 73 |
| CoinList | 8 | 70 |
| Fjord Foundry | 7 | 76 |
| DAO Maker | 6 | 78 |
| Binance Launchpool | 5 | 72 |
| Echo (Sonar) | 4 | 64 |
| Polkastarter | 3 | 65 |
| Bybit Launchpad | 2 | 64 |
All 4 published criteria
Every ranked row’s score on each criterion, in the published order. Choose a column to order by it.
| Provider | ChainChoice Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DAO Maker | 5 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 78 |
| 2 | Kraken Launch | 2 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 78 |
| 3 | Fjord Foundry | 1 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 76 |
| 4 | Legion | 1 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 73 |
| 5 | Binance Launchpool | 4 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 72 |
| 6 | CoinList | 2 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 70 |
| 7 | Polkastarter | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 65 |
| 8 | Echo (Sonar) | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 64 |
| 9 | Bybit Launchpad | 1 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 64 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which token launchpads were assessed and left out.
One point from changingDAO Maker and Kraken Launch are tied on the published score
A one-point change on one criterion puts Kraken Launch first, so read both.
See the arithmetic
Move published launch track record — the heaviest criterion that changes it, weighted 35 — by a single point and Kraken Launch takes first place. Both are worth reading. The published rankings file
Why this score4 published criteria · leads 1 of 4
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10 out of 10Pts
Published launch track record8.4·55.6
Allocation rules and named exclusions6−443.2
Published cost to participate4.8−185.1
Upfront sale and unlock terms4.8−363.8
Σ methodology points17.8/32
Each bar is the score on that criterion’s own 0–10 scale, never rescaled to the pool. The dark line is the best any product here reached on that axis. Wt is the most the criterion can add to the 86-point weighted total. Pts is weight × score × 32; the sum is the methodology score, and each weighted point behind the leader costs 2.6 on the displayed score. how these are weighted
Why it ranks first
Why DAO Maker leads this category right now
Staking-tier launchpad running public and private Strong Holder Offerings with an on-chain lottery contract. Strongest on published cost to participate (8/10): DAO Maker's documentation states a '5% platform fee for each round (Deducted from tokens)' when a buyer claims an allocation, and quantifies the DAO Power staking behind allocations (0x multiplier up to 250 DAO Power, 1.3x at 100K+). No issuer-side fee is published. Weakest on allocation rules and named exclusions (4/10): DAO Maker publishes its DAO Power tiers and multipliers, but its documentation names no excluded country and no KYC requirement; a United States restriction appears only as a notice shown to visitors located in the US. Published price: "There is 5% platform fee for each round (Deducted from tokens) if you decide to claim your allocation" — DAO Maker documentation, "Welcome to DAO Maker", fetched 2026-09-27.
Best for
Published cost to participate — 8/10
Main tradeoff
Selling or unstaking your DAO after a sale can cost you the tokens you already paid for: drop below the DAO Power you participated with and, after a 3-day grace period, you lose all future unlocks of that project's tokens.
Verify before signup
"There is 5% platform fee for each round (Deducted from tokens) if you decide to claim your allocation" — DAO Maker documentation, "Welcome to DAO Maker", fetched 27 September 2026. The same page defines the two round types: "a) Public SHO (Open to everyone)" and "b) Private SHO (Open to DAO Stakers)". No issuer-side fee is published on any DAO Maker page read on 27 September 2026. Past sale pages on app.daomaker.com label sales "IDO Type: Refundable".
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
Can you reconstruct how the platform's previous launches performed, from the platform itself?
Which jurisdictions are excluded — and is that list actually reachable?
What are the vesting and unlock terms at the moment you commit, not after?
Quick picks
Strong options in this category
Start with the lead choice first, then use the shortlist only if you still need a challenger or stronger fit for a specific setup.
Best overall
DAO Maker
Staking-tier launchpad running public and private Strong Holder Offerings with an on-chain lottery contract.
Staking-tier launchpad running public and private Strong Holder Offerings with an on-chain lottery contract. Strongest on published cost to participate (8/10): DAO Maker's documentation states a '5% platform fee for each round (Deducted from tokens)' when a buyer claims an allocation, and quantifies the DAO Power staking behind allocations (0x multiplier up to 250 DAO Power, 1.3x at 100K+). No issuer-side fee is published. Weakest on allocation rules and named exclusions (4/10): DAO Maker publishes its DAO Power tiers and multipliers, but its documentation names no excluded country and no KYC requirement; a United States restriction appears only as a notice shown to visitors located in the US. Published price: "There is 5% platform fee for each round (Deducted from tokens) if you decide to claim your allocation" — DAO Maker documentation, "Welcome to DAO Maker", fetched 2026-09-27.
Best for: Published cost to participate — 8/10
Published launch track record · weight 35%5/10Allocation rules and named exclusions · weight 25%4/10Published cost to participate · weight 20%8/10Upfront sale and unlock terms · weight 20%6/10
Quick pick
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (41.50 against 41.40)
Kraken Launch
Exchange-hosted token sale where allocation is scored on Kraken account history rather than pledge size, run alongside Legion.
Exchange-hosted token sale where allocation is scored on Kraken account history rather than pledge size, run alongside Legion. Strongest on upfront sale and unlock terms (9/10): Kraken's Squid sale page lists a $0.045 token price, a $45,000,000 FDV, 50,000,000 tokens (5%) for sale out of 1,000,000,000, a $10 minimum pledge and '100% unlocked at Token Generation Event (TGE)'. No per-buyer maximum is stated; that sale closed on 3 July 2026 and no newer sale is listed. Weakest on published launch track record (2/10): Kraken Launch shows three 'notable' past sales (Squid, Sport.Fun, YieldBasis) with start dates, unlock terms and eligible regions, but no price performance, return figure or complete archive of its launches. Published price: Sale-details table read cell by cell on the Squid ($QUID) support article ("Last updated: June 30, 2026"), fetched 2026-09-27: "Accepted currencies" / "USDC"; "Minimum pledge" / "$10"; "Fully Diluted Value (FDV)" / "$45,000,000"; "Price" / "$0.045"; "Vesting"…
Best for: Upfront sale and unlock terms — 9/10
Published launch track record · weight 35%2/10Allocation rules and named exclusions · weight 25%8/10Published cost to participate · weight 20%5/10Upfront sale and unlock terms · weight 20%9/10
Quick pick
FJ
Fjord Foundry
Permissionless multi-chain sale venue running LBP, fixed-price and tiered sales with no platform KYC.
Permissionless multi-chain sale venue running LBP, fixed-price and tiered sales with no platform KYC. Strongest on published cost to participate (9/10): Fjord states that participants pay a 2% swap fee on their contribution. It also publishes an issuer fee, at two different rates: its Terms of Use set a 2% platform access fee on standard LBPs, while its creator FAQ says collateral is sent 'minus the 5% Fjord fee'. Weakest on published launch track record (1/10): Fjord's homepage 'Previous Success Stories' shows three hand-picked sales with undated 'Current FDV MC' figures ($1.20bn for Autonolas, $149m for RSS3), roughly 50 times CoinGecko's valuations for the same tokens on 2026-09-27; its completed-sales archive shows no rows. Published price: "Yes. When buying into a sale, participants pay a 2% swap fee on their contribution.
Best for: Published cost to participate — 9/10
Published launch track record · weight 35%1/10Allocation rules and named exclusions · weight 25%7/10Published cost to participate · weight 20%9/10Upfront sale and unlock terms · weight 20%7/10
Quick pick
Legion
Merit-scored pre-ICO sale platform where a reputation score, not capital or speed, determines allocation priority.
Merit-scored pre-ICO sale platform where a reputation score, not capital or speed, determines allocation priority. Strongest on upfront sale and unlock terms (9/10): Legion's Solstice Finance sale overview lists a $130,000,000 raise valuation, a $6,500,000 hard cap, $100 minimum and $250,000 maximum allocations, and '50% of tokens unlock at TGE' with the rest vesting linearly over 3 months. No token price or supply is stated. Weakest on published launch track record (1/10): Legion's homepage sale cards show 'ATH ROI + 0 %' and 'Oversubscription + 10 %' on every card, and a second card block dated 'as of Feb 2026' gives different figures for the same sales. No complete list of past sales with outcomes is published. Published price: "Raise Valuation: $130,000,000", "Raise Target: $4,000,000", "Raise Hardcap: $6,500,000", "Minimum Allocation: $100", "Maximum Allocation: $250,000" and "Allocation limits are enforced per investor" — Solstice Finance public sale overview (Legion Help Center…
Best for: Upfront sale and unlock terms — 9/10
Published launch track record · weight 35%1/10Allocation rules and named exclusions · weight 25%7/10Published cost to participate · weight 20%4/10Upfront sale and unlock terms · weight 20%9/10
Considered and not ranked
None left out by name
We assessed 9 products here and rank all 9. No product has been turned away by name; when one is, its name and the reason appear here. Evidence last read 27 September 2026.
What this ranking does not assess
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.
These can still cost you money here; the ranking does not measure them, so a high place says nothing about them. Which criterion scores each family, and why the others do not apply, is in /data/risk-coverage.json.
How this ranking is built
Reviewed on published launch track record, allocation rules and named exclusions, published cost to participate, and upfront sale and unlock terms.
Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
Reviewed Published Methodology v2026.11.1
Re-read due since
The published cadence is 45 days; this page's next read was due on 11 November 2026.How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means every product ranked on this page was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
Direct answer
What is the best token launchpad in 2026?
DAO Maker ranks #1 overall for token launchpads on ChainChoice. Staking-tier launchpad running public and private Strong Holder Offerings with an on-chain lottery contract. It holds that rank under an affiliate-blind methodology scored across 4 published, weighted criteria — the code that ranks providers physically cannot read affiliate payouts (CI-enforced), so a payout can't move a rank. The verdict re-computes on every fee change, incident, or regulatory action; the full reasoning and the audit receipt are under Methodology.
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Regulatory failure: no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Allocation rules and named exclusions · 25% (DAO Maker 4/10, Kraken Launch 8/10, Fjord Foundry 7/10)
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Upfront sale and unlock terms · 20% (DAO Maker 6/10, Kraken Launch 9/10, Fjord Foundry 7/10)
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Published launch track record · 35% (DAO Maker 5/10, Kraken Launch 2/10, Fjord Foundry 1/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Published cost to participate (20%).
FAQs
3 questions readers ask before choosing token launchpads.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing token launchpads
Do launchpads publish how their previous launches performed?
Not in a form a buyer can check. All nine advertise outcomes; none publishes the full set with dates. CoinList is the clearest case: the homepage shows an ATH ROI multiple for three deals, and the archive at coinlist.co/token-launches links 76 launches from 2017 to 2026 containing no ROI, no percentage, no price and not one "$" character anywhere in its text. Legion is the sharper one, because it does publish a number and the number is broken — under "Recent pre-ICO sales on Legion" the "ATH ROI" value renders as +0% on all six sale cards and "Oversubscription" as +10% on all six, including the Sport.fun card pairing a Sale Target of $500,000 with Committed Funds of $10,000. A sale that raised 2% of its target is displayed as 10% oversubscribed, and the same page reports two different Committed Funds for the same Giza deal.
Can I find out whether I am eligible before I register?
Often not, and CoinList shows how a list can be documented and still unreachable. Its sale FAQ sends readers to "unsupported jurisdictions found on our Legal page" and separately says eligibility is "on its deal page". The Legal page fetched the same day contains no country list — no "unsupported", no "Cuba", no "Iran", no "North Korea" — the two deal pages loaded name no jurisdiction either, and the help article search engines still index for that list returns 404. Both routes the site offers lead nowhere, so the only way to discover you are excluded is to try.
Is Binance Launchpad still a launchpad?
No, and this matters because it is the most-cited brand in the category. launchpad.binance.com/en 302-redirects to the Launchpool page, which offers only Launchpool, a Simple Earn subscription and HODLer Airdrops — locking assets to receive tokens, not buying into a sale. Anyone arriving expecting to purchase an allocation is being offered a different product. Bybit, by contrast, still runs sales but documents only how to win an allocation: searching both Launchpad 3.1 FAQ bodies returns zero occurrences of "vest", "unlock" or "fee".
Free advisor·No signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best token launchpads pick
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — then review the evidence before deciding.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Best picks
Best token launchpads in 2026
Weighted on the published launch track record, allocation rules and named exclusions, published cost to participate, and upfront sale and unlock terms. The finding that shapes the whole category: not one of the nine publishes a complete list of its prior launches with a post-listing performance figure and a stated measurement date. Every performance number found was hand-picked, undated, or wrong. CoinList shows an ATH ROI multiple for three deals on its homepage while its archive of 76 launches from 2017 to 2026 contains no ROI, no percentage, no price and not one "$" character. Legion advertises the number and the number is broken: "ATH ROI" renders as +0% on all six sale cards and "Oversubscription" as +10% on all six — including a sale pairing a $500,000 target with $10,000 committed, displayed as 10% oversubscribed.
Best overall
DAO Maker
Staking-tier launchpad running public and private Strong Holder Offerings with an on-chain lottery contract.
Data checked Sep 2026
Staking-tier launchpad running public and private Strong Holder Offerings with an on-chain lottery contract. Strongest on published cost to participate (8/10): DAO Maker's documentation states a '5% platform fee for each round (Deducted from tokens)' when a buyer claims an allocation, and quantifies the DAO Power staking behind allocations (0x multiplier up to 250 DAO Power, 1.3x at 100K+). No issuer-side fee is published. Weakest on allocation rules and named exclusions (4/10): DAO Maker publishes its DAO Power tiers and multipliers, but its documentation names no excluded country and no KYC requirement; a United States restriction appears only as a notice shown to visitors located in the US. Published price: "There is 5% platform fee for each round (Deducted from tokens) if you decide to claim your allocation" — DAO Maker documentation, "Welcome to DAO Maker", fetched 2026-09-27.
Best for: Published cost to participate — 8/10
Browse this network
MS
Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research