Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquidity Management
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- arrakis.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 64 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)
Market-making vaults for token issuers
Liquidity Management
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 8 liquidity management in the published ranking
64
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority7/10; the category best is 8
- Manager audit and exploit record9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published return versus holding2/10 here; Kamino Liquidity scores 7
- Fee stack read on chain2/10 here; ICHI scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best liquidity manager shows where it lands for you.
What will Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your position
- $10k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)
Compare all 4- 4Kamino Liquidity5 points above · stronger on return versus hold disclosure (7 against 2)69
- 5ICHILevel on score · stronger on fee stack onchain (8 against 2)64$50
- 6Kodiak IslandsLevel on score · stronger on rebalance control (8 against 7)64$50
For your setup
Find out if Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best liquidity managerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (14.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
402+2.563.59#5/8Loading evidence…
207+4.485.08#2/8Loading evidence…
202+1.283.09#5/8Loading evidence…
209+5.767.59#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Kodiak Islands, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 61–66 and ranks #5–#7
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Published return versus holding 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Kodiak Islands+166#7 → #5
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Kodiak Islands+165#7 → #5
Fee stack read on chain 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Kodiak Islands+165#7 → #5
Manager audit and exploit record 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Kodiak Islands+165#7 → #5
Smallest climb: published return versus holding 2 → 3 passes Kodiak Islands, #6.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Manager audit and exploit record — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published return versus holding — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Fee stack read on chain — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Arrakis is not sold to you, it is sold to the issuer of the token you would be pairing against. The vault NFT carries withdrawal rights over the assets, and Arrakis says so plainly: "Because the NFT carries withdrawal rights, transferring it transfers control of the underlying funds." A retail LP evaluating Arrakis alongside Gamma or Beefy is comparing a treasury market-making mandate with a deposit product, which is why the audit record is superb, the rebalance key is a 4-of-11 multisig, and the depositor-facing performance disclosure is absent.
Competitive position
Where Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#5 / 810.6 of 30 · best 16.8
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) leads
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority#2 / 8
- Manager audit and exploit record#1 / 8
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Kodiak Islands#6 of 8 · score 64 · same score
Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) leads on
- Manager audit and exploit record9 vs 8
Kodiak Islands leads on
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority8 vs 7
Scenario cost: Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
ICHI#5 of 8 · score 64 · same score
Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) leads on
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority7 vs 5
- Manager audit and exploit record9 vs 5
ICHI leads on
- Fee stack read on chain8 vs 2
Scenario cost: Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Kamino Liquidity#4 of 8 · score 69 · 5.0 points ahead
Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) leads on
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority7 vs 5
- Manager audit and exploit record9 vs 5
Kamino Liquidity leads on
- Published return versus holding7 vs 2
Largest single reason Kamino Liquidity is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Kamino Liquidity has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 64 · gap 16.0Why Charm Alpha Vaults ranks above Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 16.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCharm Alpha VaultsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.616.8−16.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisCharm Alpha VaultsPoints
Published return versus holding · w4029−8.96, worse
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority · w2075+1.28, better
Fee stack read on chain · w2024−1.28, worse
Manager audit and exploit record · w2098+0.64, better
Net6480−16.0
Your scenario
Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) is not priced for this scenario
The manager's cut of the swap fees your position earns — not a trade fee, and not a charge on the deposit. Expected yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your position · your input$10k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$503 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest priced$50 · Kodiak IslandsDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Kodiak Islands
5 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #5 to #7 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published return versus holdingstrength 2 · weight 40Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Rebalancing policy and trigger authoritystrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Fee stack read on chainstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Manager audit and exploit recordstrength 9 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Contract failure (Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) 9/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Manager audit and exploit record · 20%
- Control failure (Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) 7/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Rebalancing policy and trigger authority · 20%
- Information failure (Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) 2/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Published return versus holding · 40%
Not assessed by this ranking: Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit 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: Fee stack read on chain (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No management or performance fee rate is published. docs.arrakis.finance/llms.txt (HTTP 200, re-fetched 28 September 2026) lists 19 entries; all 17 documentation pages were fetched on 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200 each) and none states a rate Arrakis charges the vault. The one fees page, "Dynamic Fees" at docs.arrakis.finance/dynamic-fees.md, documents the pool's dynamic trading fee charged to swappers, not a charge levied by Arrakis on the vault owner, and states that "The fee is not an onchain parameter the team configures". The Arrakis Pro page describes the commercial arrangement only as "Arrakis runs the market-making strategy within the parameters the issuer sets". Recorded as an explicit gap, not as a claim that the service is free: reading the contracts at Ethereum block 26074834 on 28 September 2026, ArrakisStandardManager 0x2e6e879648293e939aa68ba4c6c129a1be733bda returns defaultFeePIPS() = 500000, while the module 0x505f0cc4d88e1b32d3f0f7fbf21258d2b30ad1e5 on the Arrakis Public LP USDC/WETH vault returns managerFeePIPS() = 10000; on the 1e6 PIPS scale the two are a factor of fifty apart, and a vault owner must read their own module to learn which applies. Both values are unchanged from 11 August 2026.Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDArrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Plasma
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular): where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category 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
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
8 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 64, #7 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt liquidity_management:arrakis:2026.10.18:d0bc585ae0ff
Are you Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.