Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Launch Platforms
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- bags.fm
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Bags
Token launch venue on Solana
Token Launch Platforms
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 9 token launch platforms in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Bags right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8/10, the category best
- Creator control surface and published ranges8/10; the category best is 9
- Graduation and LP disposition8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers6/10 here; Clanker scores 9
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 token launch platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Bags cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Bags?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Bags
Compare all 4- 1Raydium LaunchLab1 point above · stronger on creator control surface (9 against 8)81
- 2Clanker1 point above · stronger on post deploy rug surface (9 against 6)81
- 4Jupiter Studio1 point below · stronger on creator control surface (9 against 8)79
For your setup
Find out if Bags fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Bags 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 token launch platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Bags ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (24.6 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
308+7.687.08#1/9Loading evidence…
308+7.688.09#3/9Loading evidence…
258+6.407.09#2/9Loading evidence…
156+2.884.09#3/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Clanker, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 78–81 and ranks #1–#4
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 Bags’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.
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Clanker+181#3 → #1
Creator control surface and published ranges 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Clanker+181#3 → #1
Graduation and LP disposition 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Clanker+181#3 → #1
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Clanker+181#3 → #1
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 7 on its ladder · Jupiter Studio passes it−178#3 → #4
Creator control surface and published ranges 8 → 7 on its ladder · Jupiter Studio passes it−178#3 → #4
Graduation and LP disposition 8 → 6 on its ladder · Jupiter Studio passes it−277#3 → #5
Smallest climb: unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 9 passes Clanker, #2.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure — 8/10, the category best
- Creator control surface and published ranges — 8/10, category best 9/10
- Graduation and LP disposition — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The issuer's side of the contract freezes at launch and the venue's side does not. "The `bagsConfigType` is set once when creating the fee share config and cannot be changed after the token is launched" — the fee mode is permanent. But Bags' own powers over an already-launched token are retained and live: BagsBondingCurve and BagsFeeShare are beacon proxies where a single `upgradeTo` "retargets **all** curves at once" / "retargets **all** fee-shares at once", i.e. one transaction rewrites the trading and fee-claiming logic of every token ever launched on the chain simultaneously. `factory.owner()` on the deployed BagsFactory returns 0xDEf671F11C8a30818eb3D9Cc9476EEEc805f9058, which has no bytecode — a plain EOA, not a multisig, holding that key. Second discovery: the published fee is not the fee. Docs state creationFee "default 0.02 ETH"; the live `factory.creationFee()` returns 0, and `factory.graduationThreshold()` returns 5 ETH, a figure the docs never state. The docs concede this themselves — "Always read these live from the contracts before rendering or signing — never hardcode" — so a buyer budgeting from the page is working off numbers the vendor disclaims. Third: on Solana, the flagship product, the disposition of the SPL mint, freeze and update authorities is never stated anywhere in the developer corpus (118 pages in its doc index on 2026-09-30). Fourth, found on verification: Bags answers the question of whether you can ever change who receives your fees TWICE, in opposite directions. The developer docs sell it as a feature — `bags config update` "requires admin authority", `bags config transfer-admin --new-admin` moves the key. The consumer help centre refuses it as policy: "We cannot allow changes to royalty recipients, as doing so would undermine trust and integrity within our community… That's why this policy is in place" (support.bags.fm/en/articles/13434866-change-royalty-recipient). Both were live on 2026-08-27.
Competitive position
Where Bags 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 / 914.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#3 / 918.5 of 30 · best 18.8
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Bags leads
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure#1 / 9
- Creator control surface and published ranges#3 / 9
- Graduation and LP disposition#2 / 9
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers#3 / 9
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.
Clanker#2 of 9 · score 81 · 1.0 point ahead
Bags leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8 vs 6
Clanker leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition9 vs 8
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers9 vs 6
Largest single reason Clanker is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Clanker has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Jupiter Studio#4 of 9 · score 79 · 1.0 point behind
Bags leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition8 vs 7
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers6 vs 4
Jupiter Studio leads on
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
Largest single reason Bags is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Jupiter Studio has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Raydium LaunchLab#1 of 9 · score 81 · 1.0 point ahead
Bags leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8 vs 7
Raydium LaunchLab leads on
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers7 vs 6
Largest single reason Raydium LaunchLab is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Raydium LaunchLab has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 80 · gap 1.0Why Raydium LaunchLab ranks above Bags
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 1.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRaydium LaunchLabGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.518.8−0.8, 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 criterionThisRaydium LaunchLabPoints
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure · w3087+0.96, better
Creator control surface and published ranges · w3089−0.96, worse
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · w1567−0.48, worse
Net8081−1.0
Your scenario
Bags is not priced for this scenario
Trading fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/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 medianNot priced0 of 9 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
9 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 30 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 #1 to #4 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 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosurestrength 8 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Creator control surface and published rangesstrength 8 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Graduation and LP dispositionstrength 8 · weight 25Report an error—30 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.Post-deploy rug surface and admin powersstrength 6 · weight 15Report an error—30 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
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Creator control surface and published ranges · 30% (Bags 8/10)Scored by Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · 15% (Bags 6/10)
- Custody failure (Bags 8/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Graduation and LP disposition · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, 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: Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure (30%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Solana trade fees, https://
docs .bags .fm /how-to-guides /customize-token-fees (HTTP 200, fetched 30 September 2026): "There are seven SOL fee modes." Default mode, columns Total Fee | Protocol | Creator | Compounding: Pre-migration "2%" / "1%" / "1%"; Post-migration "2%" / "0.75%" / "0.75%" / "0.5%". Across the seven modes the total fee runs from "0.25%" to "10%", and the 96%-supply-locked mode decays after graduation "starting at 2% and decaying to a 0.5% floor". New since 27 August 2026, same page: the Creator column is a gross claimers pool and "Creator is not the final payout to the configured fee recipients." "Newly created SOL fee-share v2 configs give the separate deployer 25% of the gross claimers pool", so "With no compounding, a 2% trading fee therefore gives 1% to the platform, 0.25% to the deployer, and 0.75% to the configured recipients." "Most modes graduate at 85 SOL"; the 96%-supply-locked mode now graduates at 80 SOL (55 SOL in August), the 85%-locked mode at about 100 SOL, and "Existing configs keep the threshold and curve with which they were created." Non-WSOL custom-quote configs keep each mode's rates with zero compounding. Launch cost: the help centre (https:// support .bags .fm /en /articles /13434740 -sol-needed-to-launch, HTTP 200, re-read 30 September 2026, dated 20 January 2026) still gives about 0.2 SOL for network fees and transaction costs; no Bags-charged Solana creation fee is published. Robinhood Chain (https:// docs .bags .fm /robinhood /overview, HTTP 200): a flat 2% on the ETH/WETH leg of every trade, split into creator and protocol halves, and a launch fee documented with a 0.02 ETH default; read on-chain on 30 September 2026 at Robinhood Chain block 76047121, BagsFactory 0xe8Cc4431adF8b5A847C113EF0c6af9043219Cb37 returns creationFee() 0, graduationThreshold() 5 ETH and partnerFeeBps() 2500, as in August.Bags — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDBags — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- 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 Bags: 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.
10 methodology entries
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 80, #3 of 9. 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 token_launch_platforms:bags_fm:2026.10.18:f28b4b445d40
Are you Bags? 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.