Provider at a glance
- Category
- Incentive Distribution
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.boost.xyz
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 71 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Boost (Rabbithole)
Onchain incentive protocol
Incentive Distribution
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 9 incentive distribution in the published ranking
71
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Boost (Rabbithole) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?6/10 here; the category best is 9
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?8/10 here; Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups) scores 10
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?5/10 here; Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups) scores 7
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 incentive distribution platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Boost (Rabbithole) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Boost (Rabbithole)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Boost (Rabbithole)
Compare all 4- 2Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups)7 points above · stronger on budget control after publication (10 against 8)78
- 4Streamflow1 point below · stronger on incident and operator record (6 against 5)70
- 5Hedgey2 points below · weaker on incident and operator record (4 against 5)69
For your setup
Find out if Boost (Rabbithole) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Boost (Rabbithole) 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 incentive distribution platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Boost (Rabbithole) 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 (21.6 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
306+5.766.09#2/9Loading evidence…
288+7.177.010#2/9Loading evidence…
225+3.526.08#6/9Loading evidence…
208+5.127.08#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−7behind Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups), #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 70–73 and ranks #3–#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 Boost (Rabbithole)’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 someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups)+479#3 → #2
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups)+578#3 → #2
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? 6 → 5 on its ladder · Streamflow passes it−170#3 → #4
Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? 8 → 7 on its ladder · Streamflow passes it−170#3 → #4
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? 5 → 3 on its ladder · Streamflow passes it−269#3 → #5
Smallest climb: “If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?” 6 → 10 passes Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups), #2.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- You will pay the 10% take more than once on the same money, and the vendor's own two pages disagree about whether you do. The FAQ that sells the fee promises 'The fee is only charged on rewards that are actually claimed' — but the SDK fee page states the protocol collects fees 'on 3 distinct occasions', including 'At time of Boost creation' and 'On retrieving assets from an incentive back to a budget', and the retrieval page confirms 'The amount reclaimed will be subject to protocol fee collection'. So clawing back your own unspent budget is itself a fee event, on a docs host where another page says it should not be. A budget-holder who sized a campaign off the FAQ's clean '1,000 out, fund 1,100' arithmetic will find the reconciliation does not close.
Competitive position
Where Boost (Rabbithole) 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 / 916.2 of 30 · best 19.9
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 Boost (Rabbithole) leads
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?#2 / 9
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?#2 / 9
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?#1 / 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.
Streamflow#4 of 9 · score 70 · 1.0 point behind
Boost (Rabbithole) leads on
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?8 vs 7
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?8 vs 7
Streamflow leads on
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Boost (Rabbithole) is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Streamflow has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Hedgey#5 of 9 · score 69 · 2.0 points behind
Boost (Rabbithole) leads on
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?5 vs 4
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?8 vs 7
Hedgey leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Boost (Rabbithole) is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Hedgey has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups)#2 of 9 · score 78 · 7.0 points ahead
Boost (Rabbithole) leads onNo scored criterion
Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups) leads on
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?10 vs 8
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?7 vs 5
Largest single reason Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups) is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Sablier Airdrops (Merkle Lockups) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 71 · gap 10.0Why Merkl (Angle Labs) ranks above Boost (Rabbithole)
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 10.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisMerkl (Angle Labs)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.219.9−9.6, 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 criterionThisMerkl (Angle Labs)Points
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? · w3069−2.88, worse
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? · w2258−2.11, worse
Net7181−10.0
Your scenario
Boost (Rabbithole) is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. 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
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 October 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 17 August 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 #3 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 17 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?strength 6 · weight 30Report an error—17 August 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.Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?strength 8 · weight 28Report an error—17 August 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.What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?strength 5 · weight 22Report an error—17 August 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.What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?strength 8 · weight 20Report an error—17 August 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 (Boost (Rabbithole) 5/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? · 22%
- Custody failure (Boost (Rabbithole) 8/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? · 28%
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? · 30% (Boost (Rabbithole) 6/10)Scored by What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? · 20% (Boost (Rabbithole) 8/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- From https://
docs .boost .xyz /v2 /documentation /support /faqs .md, 'What does it cost?' (fetched 28 September 2026, HTTP 200): "Boost charges a 10% protocol fee on rewards distributed through One-Time Actions. The fee is added on top of your spend limit when you deploy — if you want to distribute 1,000 USDC, you'll need 1,100 USDC in your budget account. The fee is only charged on rewards that are actually claimed." and "Time-Based Incentives campaign economics are scoped during onboarding." — so Time-Based Incentives carry no published price. CONFLICTING VENDOR PAGE, https:// docs .boost .xyz /v2 /boost-sdk /protocol-fees .md (28 September 2026): "The Boost Protocol collects protocol fees from budgets on 3 distinct occasions:" — "At time of Boost creation, transferring assets to incentives from budgets", "On claim, recouping assets from the incentive's backing asset", "On retrieving assets from an incentive back to a budget" — and "At time of writing, the base protocol fee in basis points is `10%`"; the FAQ's 'only charged on rewards that are actually claimed' and the SDK page's fee on creation and on retrieval cannot both be the whole story. The marketing page https:// www .boost .xyz / (28 September 2026) carries no figure: "Boost charges a small percentage of distributed rewards. Contact us for enterprise pricing and volume discounts."Boost (Rabbithole) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026 - Prices published in
- USDBoost (Rabbithole) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- base, optimism, celo, world-chain, ethereum-sepolia, base-sepolia
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- STANDARD OFAC/SANCTIONS REPRESENTATION, NOT A MARKET RESTRICTION. Read on the Terms of Service PDF at https://
rabbithole-assets .s3 .amazonaws .com /BoostStudios _Terms _Of _Service .pdf (17 August 2026): '"Restricted Territory" means Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, the Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic regions of Ukraine, and any other country to which the United States embargoes goods or imposes similar sanctions.' The accompanying header reads 'NOTICE ON PROHIBITED USE – RESTRICTED PERSONS: THE SERVICES ARE NOT OFFERED TO AND MAY NOT BE USED BY: PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO RESIDE IN, ARE CITIZENS OF, ARE LOCATED IN, ARE INCORPORATED IN, OR HAVE A REGISTERED OFFICE IN ANY RESTRICTED TERRITORY' and 'WE DO NOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS.' with 'USE OF A VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK ("VPN") OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR MEANS INTENDED TO CIRCUMVENT THE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH HEREIN IS PROHIBITED.' This is the ordinary US-sanctions eligibility rule that applies everywhere, not a regional footprint — the list is exactly the OFAC embargo set. It is enforced by IP blocking at the vendor's discretion: 'we reserve the right, at any time, in our sole discretion, to block access to the Services from certain IP addresses and unique device identifiers.' NO POSITIVE MARKET RESTRICTION FOUND: no page limits Boost to any region, and no page names a permitted-country list. The only other jurisdictional language is a US-customer arbitration clause, which is a dispute-forum term, not an availability term. Practical footprint is bounded by chain support (Base, Optimism, Celo, World Chain), not geography. Scored global.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Boost (Rabbithole): 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.
9 methodology entries
- 17 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 71, #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
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 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 incentive_distribution:boost:2026.10.18:f89bd9058d07
Are you Boost (Rabbithole)? 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.