Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Launch Platforms
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- clanker.world
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Clanker
Token factory on Base
Token Launch Platforms
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 9 token launch platforms in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Clanker right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Creator control surface and published ranges8/10; the category best is 9
- Graduation and LP disposition9/10, the category best
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure6/10 here; Bags 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 token launch platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Clanker cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Clanker?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Clanker
Compare all 4- 1Raydium LaunchLabLevel on score · stronger on protocol fee floor and disclosure (7 against 6)81
- 3Bags1 point below · stronger on protocol fee floor and disclosure (8 against 6)80
- 4Jupiter Studio2 points below · stronger on protocol fee floor and disclosure (8 against 6)79
For your setup
Find out if Clanker fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Clanker 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 Clanker ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (25.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
306+5.767.08#8/9Loading evidence…
308+7.688.09#3/9Loading evidence…
259+7.207.09#1/9Loading evidence…
159+4.324.09#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Raydium LaunchLab, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–81 and ranks #1–#3
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 Clanker’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 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Raydium LaunchLab+181#2 → #1
Creator control surface and published ranges 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Raydium LaunchLab+181#2 → #1
Graduation and LP disposition 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Raydium LaunchLab+181#2 → #1
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Raydium LaunchLab+181#2 → #1
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 6 → 5 on its ladder · Bags passes it−179#2 → #3
Creator control surface and published ranges 8 → 7 on its ladder · Bags passes it−179#2 → #3
Graduation and LP disposition 9 → 8 on its ladder · Bags passes it−179#2 → #3
Smallest climb: unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 6 → 7 passes Raydium LaunchLab, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Creator control surface and published ranges — 8/10, category best 9/10
- Graduation and LP disposition — 9/10, the category best
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Your fee split is set once and is permanent. The docs state it plainly but only inside the contract reference, not on the deploy form: "The total number of reward basis points must equal 10,000. The reward BPS distribution is not changeable post-token deployment and a maximum of 7 reward recipients are allowed per deployment." You can later change WHO receives a slot (the rewardAdmin can call updateRewardRecipient and updateFeePreference) but never the PROPORTIONS — a co-founder's 30% is fixed for the life of the token, and there are only 7 slots ever, one of which a Droid consumes if you attach one. The same one-shot rule applies to a static fee: "These fees are not changeable post deployment." Second discovery: the published documentation trails the shipped product. The docs describe a WETH pair and a "10 ETH" starting market cap; the live deploy form defaults to a USDC pair at "22000 USDC mcap", offers Robinhood tokenized-stock pairs, and the Droids pages reference "Clanker v4 and v5" while the contract reference documents only v3.1 and v4 — there is no v5 fee or LP page to read. The docs repo was last pushed 2026-07-10 and had no newer push on 2026-09-30. And one live page is outright stale: general/unclaimed-rewards-balance.md still instructs you to look up "app.uniswap.org/positions/v3/base/" and says "40% of the `Uncollected fees` is the current unclaimed rewards balance", contradicting the current v4 pages that put creators at 80% (Farcaster bot) or 100% (clanker.world default). And the fee you were quoted is not the fee the first buyers pay: the MEV module lets the opening LP fee start at 80% and descend (Clanker's own recommended configuration is "80% and descend to 5% over 30 seconds"), with "the LP's fee plus Clanker's additional 20% fee" on top — roughly 96% of trade value in the first seconds, advertised on the deploy form only as a "15s sniper tax". If you launch from a Farcaster cast rather than the web form you also keep 80% of LP fees rather than 100%, and no page says who takes the other 20%.
Competitive position
Where Clanker 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#2 / 918.7 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 Clanker leads
- Creator control surface and published ranges#3 / 9
- Graduation and LP disposition#1 / 9
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers#1 / 9
Where it trails
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure#8 / 9
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.
Raydium LaunchLab#1 of 9 · score 81 · same score
Clanker leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition9 vs 8
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers9 vs 7
Raydium LaunchLab leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure7 vs 6
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
Largest single reason Raydium LaunchLab is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: Raydium LaunchLab has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Bags#3 of 9 · score 80 · 1.0 point behind
Clanker leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition9 vs 8
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers9 vs 6
Bags leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8 vs 6
Largest single reason Clanker is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Bags has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Jupiter Studio#4 of 9 · score 79 · 2.0 points behind
Clanker leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition9 vs 7
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers9 vs 4
Jupiter Studio leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8 vs 6
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
Largest single reason Clanker is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Jupiter Studio has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 81 · gap 0.0Why Raydium LaunchLab ranks above Clanker
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 0.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRaydium LaunchLabGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.718.8−0.3, 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 · w3067−0.96, worse
Creator control surface and published ranges · w3089−0.96, worse
Graduation and LP disposition · w2598+0.80, better
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · w1597+0.96, better
Net81810
Your scenario
Clanker 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 #3 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 6 · 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 9 · 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 9 · 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% (Clanker 8/10)Scored by Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · 15% (Clanker 9/10)
- Custody failure (Clanker 9/10): 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
- From https://
clanker .gitbook .io /documentation /general /creator-rewards-and-fees (HTTP 200, fetched 30 September 2026; page last updated 1 July 2026, unchanged since the August read): "The Clanker fee is fixed at 20% of LP fees that are collected at the pool level in addition to creator LP fees." Table, columns Creator | Protocol | Total Swap Fee: "1%" / "0.2%" / "1.2%", "2%" / "0.4%" / "2.4%", "3%" / "0.6%" / "3.6%". The fee is additive: the trader pays 1.2% on a 1% pool and the creator keeps the full 1%. Read on-chain on 30 September 2026 by eth_call to Base mainnet (block 51967486): PROTOCOL_FEE_NUMERATOR() returns 200000 (20% over a 1,000,000 denominator) on ClankerHookDynamicFeeV2 0xd60D6B218116cFd801E28F78d011a203D2b068Cc, ClankerHookStaticFeeV2 0xb429d62f8f3bFFb98CdB9569533eA23bF0Ba28CC and ClankerHookStaticFee 0xDd5EeaFf7BD481AD55Db083062b13a3cdf0A68CC; MAX_LP_FEE() returns 100000 (10%) and MAX_MEV_LP_FEE() 800000 (80%) on both V2 hooks. Not on this page but published elsewhere by the vendor: the sniper window (references/core-contracts/v4/clankerhookv2 and mev-modules/clankermevdescendingfees) lets an MEV module set the LP fee up to 80% for up to 2 minutes, with the additive 20% on top, so roughly 96% of a trade can be taken in the opening seconds; the live form at https:// www .clanker .world /deploy (HTTP 200) shows it as a 15-second sniper tax on a 1% static fee. Farcaster-bot launches pay the creator 80% of LP fees (general/token-deployments/farcaster-bot-deployments), a further 20% haircut whose recipient no current page names. Presales: 0% Clanker cut on raised funds (references/core-contracts/v4/extensions/clankerpresaleethtocreator). No creation fee is published on any surface read on 30 September 2026; the vendor docs repository github.com/clanker-devco/DOCS has had no push since 10 July 2026.Clanker — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDClanker — 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 Clanker: 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 81, #2 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:clanker:2026.10.18:f28b4b445d40
Are you Clanker? 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.