Crypto Staking
Compared by slashing cover, lock-ups, price and custody.
7providers tracked
6ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
10 November 2026oldest read · due 25 DecIndependent. 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 crypto staking platforms 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
6 providers match your requirements
Out of 6 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: validator operators that sell native or delegated staking to institutions as an operator contract.Not ranked here: retail exchange staking and liquid staking, which the site already covers in its exchange and liquid staking categories.6 of the 7 assessed are ranked; 1 were turned away by name. Who, and whyRequirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
Kiln
How Kiln was chosen
Leads this ranking on How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?The white-label validator operator running under other firms' staking buttons
79 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 6 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Lock-up disclosureVoting from custody
Why it leads
- Kiln is 3 points ahead of Luganodes, mainly because it scores higher on its lock-up disclosure and its rate transparency.
- Best in this ranking on lock-up disclosure and voting from custody
- Ahead of Luganodes on lock-up disclosure (+6.9 points) and rate transparency (+1.5 points)
Tradeoff
Slashing cover: 3 points below the best in this ranking
Share
#ProviderPriceCompare
2
Institutional non-custodial validator operator...
76 / 100 out of 100
3
FI
Institutional non-custodial validator operator...
72 / 100 out of 100
4
EV
Cayman-domiciled non-custodial validator...
69 / 100 out of 100
5
Cayman-registered, Nethermind- and Webn-backed...
61 / 100 out of 100
6
BL
Bank-facing non-custodial validator operator
60 / 100 out of 100
Not confirmed (1) — not ranked until its source is read again; listed, not ruled out.
- Chorus One · Re-read pending, new operator: Chorus One is now part of Bitwise, and its staking offer is being re-read on Bitwise's own pages..
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Rate transparency
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?
24% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Rate transparency (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Everstake | 8 | 69 |
| Kiln | 6 | 79 |
| Figment | 6 | 72 |
| Luganodes | 5 | 76 |
| Blockdaemon | 3 | 60 |
| Twinstake | 2 | 61 |
Slashing cover
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?
34% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Slashing cover (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Luganodes | 9 | 76 |
| Kiln | 6 | 79 |
| Figment | 5 | 72 |
| Twinstake | 2 | 61 |
| Blockdaemon | 2 | 60 |
| Everstake | 1 | 69 |
Voting from custody
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?
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 | Voting from custody (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Kiln | 7 | 79 |
| Luganodes | 6 | 76 |
| Everstake | 6 | 69 |
| Twinstake | 6 | 61 |
| Figment | 5 | 72 |
| Blockdaemon | 5 | 60 |
Lock-up disclosure
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?
22% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Lock-up disclosure (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Kiln | 8 | 79 |
| Everstake | 7 | 69 |
| Figment | 6 | 72 |
| Twinstake | 6 | 61 |
| Blockdaemon | 5 | 60 |
| Luganodes | 3 | 76 |
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 | Kiln | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 79 |
| 2 | Luganodes | 9 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 76 |
| 3 | Figment | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 72 |
| 4 | Everstake | 1 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 69 |
| 5 | Twinstake | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 61 |
| 6 | Blockdaemon | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 60 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which staking were assessed and left out.
FirmThis verdict holds under every one-point re-read
See the arithmetic
Every published criterion was moved up and down by one point and the ranking re-run. The same product came first each time. The published rankings file
Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10 out of 10Pts
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?8.2−366.5
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?5.3·85.6
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?5.8−264.6
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?4.8·74.5
Σ methodology points21.2/32
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 Kiln leads this category right now
The white-label validator operator running under other firms' staking buttons, with 15 named custody-platform integration guides and a per-network lock-up figure published across 26 protocol docs pages (2026-09-28 count) — but a slashing base layer whose size it has never quantified, a commission printed for only two of those 26 networks, and a governance posture stated for two niche products while the Cosmos-family chains where delegated stake actually votes are left silent. Strongest on “How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?” (8/10): Kiln's protocol docs state a lock-up or exit rule for each of 26 networks; the Ethereum page says the duration depends on the network's exit queue and points to a live tracker on beaconcha.in, but no page prints a dated review or a live figure of Kiln's own. Weakest on “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” (6/10): Kiln's own post says it shares a base level of slashing coverage with all customers and that customers can buy additional cover from Chainproof, reinsured by Munich Re; the size of the base layer is never stated. Published price: Kiln validator docs page "Solana (SOL)" (https://docs.kiln.fi/v1/kiln-products/validators/protocols/solana-sol, fetched 2026-11-10), Mainnet table with columns Name | Commission | MEV commission | Address: Kiln1 — "5%" commission, "100% (offchain rebates &…
Best for
Unbonding disclosure — 8/10
Main tradeoff
Read all three parts of the September 2025 breach disclosure before you sign, and then ask for the base slashing coverage limit in writing. Kiln itself names the victim. (1) https://www.kiln.fi/post/sol-incident-swissborg---announcement, September 8, 2025: "SwissBorg and Kiln are investigating an incident that may have involved unauthorized access to a wallet used for staking operations... The incident resulted in Solana funds being improperly removed from the wallet used for staking operations." (2) https://www.kiln.fi/kiln-responds-tot-infrastructure-issue-with-validator-exit-funds-remain-protected, "PARIS, FRANCE — September 9, 2025": "Kiln today began the orderly exit of all of its Ethereum (ETH) validators", and "The exit process is expected to take between 10 and 30 days depending on the validator" — an operator-side security event that put every ETH client's principal into a multi-week forced exit, which no unbonding table warns you about. (3) The post-mortem at https://www.kiln.fi/post/re-enablement-of-kiln-services-and-security-incident-information, October 7, 2025: a threat actor compromised "a GitHub access token belonging to a Kiln infrastructure engineer", harvested cloud credentials via CI workflows, and "modified the Kiln Connect API backend controller to return a malicious transaction, which one Kiln enterprise customer signed in their custody solution, causing a loss of funds." The malicious transaction "changed the withdrawal authority of the Solana stakes, only if the existing withdrawal authority of the stake account provided in the POST call held stake balances above 150k SOL" — targeted at the largest clients, and the customer's own quorum approved it inside their custody instance. NOTE THE DIVERGENT ATTRIBUTION, which is the single most useful thing here: Kiln places the mitigation duty on the client — "Kiln has consistently recommended that customers decode transactions to verify their integrity before signing", and "Signing and broadcasting a transaction without decoding may result in a loss of authority over stake accounts, as occurred in this case" — while SwissBorg's own primary statement (https://swissborg.com/blog/swissborg-security-update-kiln-breach) puts it on Kiln: "the tampering of the transaction happened within Kiln's infrastructure", and states "no breach occurred within SwissBorg's infrastructure", quantifying the loss at "over 192,000 SOL". The lesson for this category is precise: non-custody protected the keys but not the client, because the attack came through the transaction the operator constructed, and it was not a slashing event — so the Chainproof base layer, whose size Kiln has never published, would not obviously have answered it. Ask for the base coverage limit, what perils it covers beyond slashing, and whether the operator or the client bears an API-origin malicious-transaction loss. Get it in the contract; Kiln's own institutional docs tell you to, saying "For more details and Kiln's coverage please read our T&Cs or the Order Form you have signed with Kiln."
Verify before signup
Kiln validator docs page "Solana (SOL)" (https://
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
If a validator you delegated to is slashed, who makes you whole — and where is that written?
Can you get a rate for your networks without booking a call?
Under your custodian, who actually presses the button on a governance vote?
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
Kiln
The white-label validator operator running under other firms' staking buttons, with 15 named custody-platform integration guides and a per-network lock-up figure published across 26 protocol docs pages (2026-09-28 count) — but a slashing base layer whose size it has never quantified, a commission printed for only two of those 26 networks, and a governance posture stated for two niche products while the Cosmos-family chains where delegated stake actually votes are left silent.
The white-label validator operator running under other firms' staking buttons, with 15 named custody-platform integration guides and a per-network lock-up figure published across 26 protocol docs pages (2026-09-28 count) — but a slashing base layer whose size it has never quantified, a commission printed for only two of those 26 networks, and a governance posture stated for two niche products while the Cosmos-family chains where delegated stake actually votes are left silent. Strongest on “How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?” (8/10): Kiln's protocol docs state a lock-up or exit rule for each of 26 networks; the Ethereum page says the duration depends on the network's exit queue and points to a live tracker on beaconcha.in, but no page prints a dated review or a live figure of Kiln's own. Weakest on “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” (6/10): Kiln's own post says it shares a base level of slashing coverage with all customers and that customers can buy additional cover from Chainproof, reinsured by Munich Re; the size of the base layer is never stated. Published price: Kiln validator docs page "Solana (SOL)" (https://docs.kiln.fi/v1/kiln-products/validators/protocols/solana-sol, fetched 2026-11-10), Mainnet table with columns Name | Commission | MEV commission | Address: Kiln1 — "5%" commission, "100% (offchain rebates &…
Best for: Unbonding disclosure — 8/10
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · weight 34%6/10How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · weight 22%8/10Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · weight 24%6/10Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · weight 20%7/10
Quick pick
Luganodes
Institutional non-custodial validator operator on 40+ networks that is the only member of this pool to name a licensed insurer for slashing — confirmed on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own register — and state the client pays nothing for it, while publishing a commission figure for just three of those networks (TRON, Sui and Hyperliquid on 2026-09-28), no exit-queue figure for Ethereum at all, and a contract that caps its own liability at the fees it collected.
Institutional non-custodial validator operator on 40+ networks that is the only member of this pool to name a licensed insurer for slashing — confirmed on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own register — and state the client pays nothing for it, while publishing a commission figure for just three of those networks (TRON, Sui and Hyperliquid on 2026-09-28), no exit-queue figure for Ethereum at all, and a contract that caps its own liability at the fees it collected. Strongest on “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” (9/10): Luganodes' homepage states institutional insurance coverage available through Chainproof at no additional cost, a named insurer that applies by default; its Terms of Service never mention Chainproof or insurance and exclude slashing penalties. Weakest on “How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?” (3/10): Luganodes' network directory and Ethereum page show reward rates with no unbonding, exit-queue or withdrawal figure; only single-network pages such as TRON and Hyperliquid state a lock-up (Hyperliquid: delegation lockup 1 day, unstaking queue 7 days). Published price: Luganodes' TRON network page (https://luganodes.com/network/tron/, fetched 2026-11-10) answers "What APR can I earn staking TRX with Luganodes?" with: "Luganodes returns 95% of staking rewards to voters at a 5% commission, currently a 3.21% APR.
Best for: Slashing indemnity — 9/10
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · weight 34%9/10How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · weight 22%3/10Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · weight 24%5/10Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · weight 20%6/10
Quick pick
FI
Figment
Institutional non-custodial validator operator publishing a 25-network catalog table (2026-09-28 count) with per-network unbonding and 28 named custody integrations, whose only public price is an Ethereum self-serve app fee stated as "10% of total rewards" in an answer that first scopes it to execution-layer rewards, while the institutional contract rate, and the size of its slashing coverage, are both set behind "Meet With Us".
Institutional non-custodial validator operator publishing a 25-network catalog table (2026-09-28 count) with per-network unbonding and 28 named custody integrations, whose only public price is an Ethereum self-serve app fee stated as "10% of total rewards" in an answer that first scopes it to execution-layer rewards, while the institutional contract rate, and the size of its slashing coverage, are both set behind "Meet With Us". Strongest on “How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?” (6/10): Figment's Ethereum page says the time to unstake varies with how many validators are exiting and can take several days; its queue figures are undated constants, and the live activation and withdrawal estimates sit on the dashboard inside the Figment app rather than on a public page. Weakest on “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” (5/10): Figment's slashing-coverage page gives Ethereum customers the option to purchase Nexus Mutual double-sign cover beside an unquantified layer of Figment's own coverage, and its Staking Terms of Use disclaim liability for losses in connection with slashing penalties. Published price: Figment app FAQ "How much does it cost to stake through the Figment app?" on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ (read 2026-11-10): "You keep all of the consensus layer rewards earned by your validator when staking through the Figment app and only…
Best for: Unbonding disclosure — 6/10
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · weight 34%5/10How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · weight 22%6/10Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · weight 24%6/10Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · weight 20%5/10
Quick pick
EV
Everstake
Cayman-domiciled non-custodial validator operator claiming 130+ networks and $7B+ staked, which publishes a numeric per-network commission and a 14-day fee-change notice on its own pages without a sales call — while its Terms of Use expressly disclaim all liability for slashing losses and cap total liability at six months of fees, and its pages name no insurer, limit or policy.
Cayman-domiciled non-custodial validator operator claiming 130+ networks and $7B+ staked, which publishes a numeric per-network commission and a 14-day fee-change notice on its own pages without a sales call — while its Terms of Use expressly disclaim all liability for slashing losses and cap total liability at six months of fees, and its pages name no insurer, limit or policy. Strongest on “Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?” (8/10): Everstake's Ethereum page prints a 10% fee on staking rewards for its Easy Stake tier, marks the institutional tier's fee as Lower and the custom tier as Custom, and its Terms of Use give fourteen days' notice of fee changes; the institutional number itself is not printed. Weakest on “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” (1/10): Everstake's Terms of Use say it shall not be held liable for any losses incurred due to slashing penalties imposed by a Blockchain Network; its Ethereum page names no insurer and cites only a record of zero material slashing since inception. Published price: Everstake's Ethereum page (https://everstake.com/staking/protocols/ethereum, fetched 2026-11-10) prints a three-tier table. Easy Stake: "Stake as little as 0.01 ETH with Everstake.", Fee "10%".
Best for: Commission transparency — 8/10
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · weight 34%1/10How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · weight 22%7/10Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · weight 24%8/10Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · weight 20%6/10
Considered and not ranked
1 product we looked at and left out
A shortlist is only honest if it says who it turned away. It was assessed against the same published criteria as the ranked table and excluded for a stated reason — not overlooked.
We assessed 7 products here and rank 6 — 86% of what we looked at. That share is of the products we assessed, not of the category: how many exist is not something we can count, so we do not claim a number for it.
Chorus One· Re-read, new operator
What this ranking does not assess
- Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.
- Custody failure: whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.
- Regulatory failure: no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.
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
Ranked on four questions
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · 34%
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · 22%
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · 24%
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · 20%
Data checked Nov 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
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 crypto staking platform in 2026?
Kiln ranks #1 overall for staking on ChainChoice. The white-label validator operator running under other firms' staking buttons, with 15 named custody-platform integration guides and a per-network lock-up figure published across 26 protocol docs pages (2026-09-28 count) — but a slashing base layer whose size it has never quantified, a commission printed for only two of those 26 networks, and a governance posture stated for two niche products while the Cosmos-family chains where delegated stake actually votes are left silent. 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
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · 20% (Kiln 7/10, Luganodes 6/10, Figment 5/10)
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · 34% (Kiln 6/10, Luganodes 9/10, Figment 5/10)
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · 22% (Kiln 8/10, Luganodes 3/10, Figment 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Information 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: Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? (24%).
Guides & FAQs
4 questions readers ask before choosing staking, and 2 guides that go further.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing staking
Can I find out what this costs before talking to sales?
Not from anyone in this pool. Zero of the seven publish the price an institution would actually pay — every operator routes the rate to a commercial conversation. Where numbers do exist they cover a fraction of what is offered: one operator’s pricing page returns 404 while only two of its twenty-three documented networks carry a rate anywhere. Treat any published percentage as an anchor for the negotiation rather than the price, and ask for the rate on YOUR networks specifically.
Is the slashing protection real?
All seven advertise it. Only three name an insurer at all, and none publishes terms a buyer could read before signing. Where the cover is described it is narrower than the marketing implies — one is an opt-in purchase covering Ethereum only and double-signing only, which excludes the downtime penalties that are far more common. The question to ask is not whether they have coverage but what it excludes, what the limit is, and whether you can see the policy.
Why do the numbers on an operator’s own site disagree?
Because nobody reconciles them, and it is universal here: seven of seven contradict themselves on their own domain, on the exact figures an allocator underwrites. One prints two different Ethereum service fees in near-identical wording — 10% of total rewards in one place, 30% of execution-layer rewards in another. Another’s marketing page and its documentation disagree on how long unstaking takes. Get the number you are relying on restated in the agreement.
How long is my capital actually locked?
The unbonding period belongs to the network, but what the operator adds to it — and whether they tell you — belongs to the operator. Six of seven publish no review date on any per-network lock-up figure, and one states explicitly that it "undertakes no obligation to update the information". On the one network where the figure genuinely moves, disclosure is thinnest. Ask for the current number in writing rather than reading it off a page with no date.
Free advisor·No signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best staking 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 staking in 2026
Weighted on who writes the cheque if a validator you delegated to is slashed (34), whether you can find the rate you would pay without booking a sales call (24), how long the assets are locked per network and whether that was disclosed before you signed (22), and whether you keep custody and still get to vote (20). The heaviest is slashing indemnity: a named instrument that pays by default, read from the operator's own pages.
Best overall
Kiln
The white-label validator operator running under other firms' staking buttons, with 15 named custody-platform integration guides and a per-network lock-up figure published across 26 protocol docs pages (2026-09-28 count) — but a slashing base layer whose size it has never quantified, a commission printed for only two of those 26 networks, and a governance posture stated for two niche products while the Cosmos-family chains where delegated stake actually votes are left silent.
Data checked Nov 2026
The white-label validator operator running under other firms' staking buttons, with 15 named custody-platform integration guides and a per-network lock-up figure published across 26 protocol docs pages (2026-09-28 count) — but a slashing base layer whose size it has never quantified, a commission printed for only two of those 26 networks, and a governance posture stated for two niche products while the Cosmos-family chains where delegated stake actually votes are left silent. Strongest on “How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?” (8/10): Kiln's protocol docs state a lock-up or exit rule for each of 26 networks; the Ethereum page says the duration depends on the network's exit queue and points to a live tracker on beaconcha.in, but no page prints a dated review or a live figure of Kiln's own. Weakest on “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” (6/10): Kiln's own post says it shares a base level of slashing coverage with all customers and that customers can buy additional cover from Chainproof, reinsured by Munich Re; the size of the base layer is never stated. Published price: Kiln validator docs page "Solana (SOL)" (https://docs.kiln.fi/v1/kiln-products/validators/protocols/solana-sol, fetched 2026-11-10), Mainnet table with columns Name | Commission | MEV commission | Address: Kiln1 — "5%" commission, "100% (offchain rebates &…
Best for: Unbonding disclosure — 8/10
Starter guides
High-intent guides linked to this category
How to stake crypto and earn yield
Staking yield is real, but the right setup depends on custody posture, lock-up tolerance, and how much validator complexity you want to manage.
How to lend or borrow crypto
Crypto lending and borrowing can generate yield or unlock liquidity, but the real decision is about counterparty risk, collateral ratios, and liquidation mechanics.
Browse this network
MS
Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research