Provider at a glance
- Category
- Staking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- blockdaemon.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 60 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Blockdaemon
Non-custodial validator operator
Staking
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 staking in the published ranking
60
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Blockdaemon right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Slashing cover2/10 here; Figment scores 5
- Rate transparency3/10 here; Everstake scores 7
- Lock-up disclosure5/10 here; Everstake scores 7
- Voting from custody5/10 here; Everstake scores 6
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 crypto staking platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Blockdaemon cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Blockdaemon?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Blockdaemon
Compare all 4- 4Figment12 points above · stronger on slashing cover (5 against 2)72
- 5Everstake7 points above · stronger on rate transparency (7 against 3)67
- 6Twinstake1 point above · stronger on lock-up disclosure (6 against 5)61
For your setup
Find out if Blockdaemon fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Blockdaemon 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 crypto staking platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Blockdaemon 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 (11.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
342+2.183.09#5/7Loading evidence…
225+3.526.08#5/7Loading evidence…
243+2.306.07#6/7Loading evidence…
205+3.206.09#6/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Twinstake, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 57–62 and ranks #6–#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 Blockdaemon’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.
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Twinstake+162#7 → #6
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Twinstake+161#7 → #6
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Twinstake+161#7 → #6
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Twinstake+161#7 → #6
Smallest climb: “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” 2 → 3 passes Twinstake, #6.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? — 3/10 against a category best of 7/10
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Read the guarantee's scope before you read its size, and note that Blockdaemon's own pages disagree about it. The headline is an absolute — "backed by 100% slashing insurance guarantee" (/staking) — but the three pages that say anything about what the policy responds to do not agree: /validators scopes it to rewards ("Customers are 100% guaranteed under our slashing insurance policy against rewards missed due to downtime and slashing risks"), while the blog's disclaimer points at principal ("Covers affected staked balances. Additional terms and conditions apply. Inquire here for more information.") and /trust-center says only "Our slashing protection, backed by leading risk advisors and insurers, safeguards clients against potential losses." Not one names a carrier. The single insurance party identified on the entire domain is Marsh, which Blockdaemon itself calls "the world's leading insurance broker and risk advisor" — a broker, not the underwriter that pays; a domain-wide search for Chainproof, Munich Re, Lloyd's, Nexus Mutual, 'underwriter', 'carrier', 'aggregate limit', 'policy limit' and 'certificate of insurance' returns nothing. So settle this in writing before committing: who is the risk carrier, what is the per-incident and aggregate limit, and does cover attach to slashed principal or only to foregone rewards. Second-order: do not read the homepage's "$110B+ Assets Secured" as staked AUM — the staking pages size that business at "$6+ billion worth of staking infrastructure", an 18x difference, because the $110B is the whole platform including custody. Third: the protocol count is inconsistent on Blockdaemon's own site — the homepage counter says 70+ Protocols while /validators says "Supports 50+ protocols" and /protocols links 61 pages.
Competitive position
Where Blockdaemon 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 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#7 / 78.4 of 30 · best 15.9
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Blockdaemon leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?#5 / 7
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?#5 / 7
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?#6 / 7
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?#6 / 7
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.
Twinstake#6 of 7 · score 61 · 1.0 point ahead
Blockdaemon leads on
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?3 vs 2
Twinstake leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?6 vs 5
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Twinstake is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Twinstake has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Everstake#5 of 7 · score 67 · 7.0 points ahead
Blockdaemon leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?2 vs 1
Everstake leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?7 vs 5
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?7 vs 3
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Everstake is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: Everstake has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Figment#4 of 7 · score 72 · 12.0 points ahead
Blockdaemon leads onNo scored criterion
Figment leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?5 vs 2
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?6 vs 5
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?6 vs 3
Largest single reason Figment is ahead: published criteria (+12.2 display points).Scenario cost: Figment has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 60 · gap 19.0Why Kiln ranks above Blockdaemon
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 19.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisKilnGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.415.9−19.5, 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 criterionThisKilnPoints
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · w3426−4.35, worse
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · w2258−2.11, worse
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · w2436−2.30, worse
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · w2057−1.28, worse
Net6079−19.0
Your scenario
Blockdaemon is not priced for this scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross 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 stake · your input$32k
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 and cheapestNot statedOnly 1 of 7 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
6 of 7 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 #6 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
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?strength 2 · weight 34Report 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 long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?strength 5 · weight 22Report 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.Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?strength 3 · weight 24Report 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.Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?strength 5 · 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
- Control failure (Blockdaemon 5/10): 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%
- Insolvency failure (Blockdaemon 2/10): 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%
- Exit failure (Blockdaemon 5/10): 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%
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%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Blockdaemon prints no staking commission figure. The only pricing statement is the "Commission Fee" entry in the glossary of its Trust Center (https://
www .blockdaemon .com /trust-center, fetched 28 September 2026): "The Validator charges the Delegators who choose to stake their tokens to the protocol via the validator infrastructure. This fee is charged as a % of any rewards distributed by the protocol to that validator." The same entry ends: "Validators set the commission fee %, but are only able to change it in accordance with limitations set by the Network. The Commission Fee is public information published on the Network, accessible by any participants including Delegators." That is a general definition of how proof-of-stake commission works, not Blockdaemon's price; the staking, validators and custodian pages show reward rates and route to "Get in touch", so the rate for a contract is reachable only through sales or by reading each validator's on-chain commission.Blockdaemon — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDBlockdaemon — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, Polkadot, Polygon, Avalanche, Cardano, BNB Chain, NEAR, Aleo, TON, Babylon, Hyperliquid, Canton
- 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 Blockdaemon: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 60, #7 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 11 October 2026
2026.10.9No live feed or market rate moves a score- fixed Lending and borrowing: the borrow rate leaves the fee term, which now scores every protocol alike, so the category ranks on its four published criteria. Venus, first on those criteria, moves from #7 to #1; Spark stays #2; Morpho moves from #1 to #3 and Compound from #8 to #6.
- fixed Exchanges: the fee term reads each exchange's taker fee from the catalog instead of a table dated 1 April. Kraken (0.80 %) moves from #6 to #9 and Gemini (1.20 %) from #10 to #11; Coinbase, Luno, Bitvavo and VALR each move up one place, and Bybit stays #1.
- removed Staking: a yield no longer stands in for a staking provider's missing commission. No published score moves.
- added /methodology/live-data publishes which numbers may move a score; on every build a test fills each live feed with extreme values and fails if a single score moves.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt staking:blockdaemon:2026.10.18:03cb591b310e
Are you Blockdaemon? 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.