Provider at a glance
- Category
- Yield Aggregators
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- cian.app
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 57 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
CIAN Yield Layer
Leveraged LST and LRT vaults
Yield Aggregators
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 yield aggregators in the published ranking
57
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $128 commission/yr
Is CIAN Yield Layer right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Inherited dependency surface3/10 here; Stake DAO scores 5
- Loss record own and inherited5/10 here; the category best is 8
- Total take-rate and whether it is published7/10 here; the category best is 9
- Strategy change control2/10 here; Stake DAO 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 yield aggregator shows where it lands for you.
What will CIAN Yield Layer cost you?
$128 commission/yr
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
- Performance fee on earnings
- 8%
$24 below the median of 3 priced yield aggregators.
How this is calculatedHow safe is CIAN Yield Layer?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to CIAN Yield Layer
Compare all 4- 2Concentrator (AladdinDAO)Level on score · stronger on dependency surface (4 against 3)57
- 3Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)Level on score · stronger on strategy change control (4 against 2)57$320
- 5Stake DAO1 point below · stronger on strategy change control (6 against 2)56
For your setup
Find out if CIAN Yield Layer fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where CIAN Yield Layer 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 yield aggregatorNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why CIAN Yield Layer ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.4 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
303+2.884.09#6/7Loading evidence…
305+4.804.08#2/7Loading evidence…
207+4.486.09#2/7Loading evidence…
202+1.284.06#6/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM), #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 55–59 and ranks #2–#6
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 CIAN Yield Layer’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.
Inherited dependency surface 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)+159#4 → #2
Loss record own and inherited 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)+159#4 → #2
Total take-rate and whether it is published 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)+158#4 → #2
Strategy change control 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)+158#4 → #2
Inherited dependency surface 3 → 2 on its ladder · Stake DAO passes it−155#4 → #6
Loss record own and inherited 5 → 4 on its ladder · Stake DAO passes it−155#4 → #6
Total take-rate and whether it is published 7 → 6 on its ladder · Stake DAO passes it−156#4 → #5
Smallest climb: inherited dependency surface 3 → 4 passes Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM), #3.
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
- Inherited dependency surface — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Loss record own and inherited — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Total take-rate and whether it is published — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Strategy change control — 2/10 against a category best of 6/10
Record watch-outs
- The largest protocol DefiLlama classified as a pure Yield Aggregator on 5 Aug 2026 ($245.6M) is also the one where exit is not purely contract-enforced: its own documentation describes withdrawals as batched with manual review. On that date its TVL was down 74.8% from $976.4M on 20 Feb 2025.
- This string does not exist in the CIAN documentation corpus. The only 'collateral to borrow' passages are the FBTC Yield Layer supplying FBTC to Avalon and borrowing USDa 'based on the target LTV (currently at 60%)', and a BTCB layer borrowing WBNB. The highest documented leverage multiple is '(6X) MATICX/MATIC Recursive Staking'. Read again 15 September 2026: the docs now also describe a 'PT-clisBNB Recursive Staking Strategy' that increases Pendle PT rewards, 'multiplying returns by up to 15 times', so 6X is no longer the highest documented multiple.
Competitive position
Where CIAN Yield Layer 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#4 / 710.1 of 30 · best 19.4
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 CIAN Yield Layer leads
- Loss record own and inherited#2 / 7
- Total take-rate and whether it is published#2 / 7
Where it trails
- Inherited dependency surface#6 / 7
- Strategy change control#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.
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)#3 of 7 · score 57 · same score
CIAN Yield Layer leads on
- Loss record own and inherited5 vs 3
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) leads on
- Inherited dependency surface4 vs 3
- Strategy change control4 vs 2
Largest single reason Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) is +$192 against CIAN Yield Layer.
Concentrator (AladdinDAO)#2 of 7 · score 57 · same score
CIAN Yield Layer leads on
- Total take-rate and whether it is published7 vs 6
Concentrator (AladdinDAO) leads on
- Inherited dependency surface4 vs 3
Largest single reason Concentrator (AladdinDAO) is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Concentrator (AladdinDAO) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Stake DAO#5 of 7 · score 56 · 1.0 point behind
CIAN Yield Layer leads on
- Loss record own and inherited5 vs 4
- Total take-rate and whether it is published7 vs 1
Stake DAO leads on
- Inherited dependency surface5 vs 3
- Strategy change control6 vs 2
Largest single reason CIAN Yield Layer is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Stake DAO has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 57 · gap 24.0Why Convex Finance ranks above CIAN Yield Layer
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 24.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisConvex FinanceGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.119.4−24.2, 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 criterionThisConvex FinancePoints
Inherited dependency surface · w3039−5.76, worse
Loss record own and inherited · w3058−2.88, worse
Total take-rate and whether it is published · w2079−1.28, worse
Strategy change control · w2026−2.56, worse
Net5781−24.0
Your scenario
What CIAN Yield Layer costs on your 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%
Performance fee on earnings · published rate8%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 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.
$128
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$1523 of 7 rows priced · CIAN Yield Layer −$24 vs median
Cheapest priced$128 · CIAN Yield LayerCIAN Yield Layer is the cheapest priced row for this scenario · availability not applied — set your country to filter
4 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 15 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 #2 to #6 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 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Inherited dependency surfacestrength 3 · weight 30Report an error—15 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.Loss record own and inheritedstrength 5 · weight 30Report an error—15 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.Total take-rate and whether it is publishedstrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—15 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.Strategy change controlstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—15 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: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Inherited dependency surface · 30% (CIAN Yield Layer 3/10)Scored by Loss record own and inherited · 30% (CIAN Yield Layer 5/10)
- Control failure (CIAN Yield Layer 2/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Strategy change control · 20%
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: Total take-rate and whether it is published (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "Performance Fee: CIAN charges a 8% performance fee on profits made. This fee is already calculated in the Net APY shown. Net APY = Gross APY * ( 1 - performance fee )." "Exit Fee: 0.02% of the users' NAV will be charged when exiting the vault to prevent malicious behavior." "The performance fee is charged continuously, while the exit fee is only charged once."CIAN Yield Layer — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDCIAN Yield Layer — official pricing page ↗ · 15 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
- CIAN's Terms of Use name no restricted country; CIAN may restrict access where it suspects money laundering, fraud or that the user is a sanctions target (docs.cian.app/term-of-use, checked 15 September 2026). Yield Layer withdrawals go through batched execution with manual review. Bucket: global.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with CIAN Yield Layer: 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
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 57, #4 of 7. 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 yield_aggregators:cian_yield_layer:2026.10.18:fecb1dd34c9f
Are you CIAN Yield Layer? 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.