Provider at a glance
- Category
- Private Credit
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- clearpool.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 66 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Clearpool
Whitelisted stablecoin lending vaults
Private Credit
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 private credit in the published ranking
66
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Clearpool right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital4/10 here; Huma Finance scores 6
- Depositor's legal claim4/10 here; Goldfinch scores 5
- Redemption terms and gating4/10 here; Pareto scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: China.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best private credit protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will Clearpool cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Clearpool?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Clearpool
Compare all 4- 3Pareto3 points above · stronger on redemption terms and gating (8 against 4)69
- 5Huma FinanceLevel on score · stronger on underwriter identity and skin (6 against 4)66
- 6Goldfinch5 points below · stronger on loss history disclosure (5 against 4)61
For your setup
Find out if Clearpool fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Clearpool 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 private credit protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Clearpool 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 (12.8 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
304+3.843.05#2/7Loading evidence…
254+3.205.08#5/7Loading evidence…
254+3.204.09#4/7Loading evidence…
204+2.565.08#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Pareto, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 64–68 and ranks #4–#5
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 Clearpool’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.
Published default and loss history 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Pareto+269#4 → #3
Named underwriter and first-loss capital 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Pareto+269#4 → #3
Depositor's legal claim 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Pareto+269#4 → #3
Redemption terms and gating 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes Pareto+369#4 → #3
Published default and loss history 4 → 3 on its ladder · Huma Finance passes it−164#4 → #5
Named underwriter and first-loss capital 4 → 3 on its ladder · Huma Finance passes it−164#4 → #5
Depositor's legal claim 4 → 3 on its ladder · Huma Finance passes it−164#4 → #5
Smallest climb: published default and loss history 4 → 6 passes Pareto, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Depositor's legal claim — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Redemption terms and gating — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Check which Clearpool product you are buying, because the two have opposite risk profiles and only one publishes a rate. The ~4% APY belongs to the T-Pool, a fully reserved T-bill product with no lock-up and no credit risk; the Fintech Vaults and Credit Vaults that carry the private-credit exposure publish neither an APY nor any redemption terms. The size difference is the tell: on 2026-08-07 DefiLlama carried Clearpool TPOOL at $17,612,657 and Clearpool Lending, the uncollateralised credit product, at $255,837 — 1.4% of the $17,868,494 total. Treat the public site as unmaintained rather than informative: on 2026-08-07 it served HTTP 200 under the raw title "Clearpool — Homepage preview", carried an embedded developer note about swapping REPLACE-WITH-YOUR-VIDEO.mp4, and displayed a price ticker whose hardcoded fallback values read "$67,450.32" for BTC and "$3,218.74" for ETH.
Competitive position
Where Clearpool 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 / 79.6 of 30 · best 14.3
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 76.9 of 18 · constant here
Where Clearpool leads
- Published default and loss history#2 / 7
Where it trails
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital#5 / 7
- Redemption terms and gating#5 / 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.
Huma Finance#5 of 7 · score 66 · same score
Clearpool leads on
- Published default and loss history4 vs 3
- Depositor's legal claim4 vs 3
Huma Finance leads on
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital6 vs 4
Largest single reason Clearpool is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: Huma Finance has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Pareto#3 of 7 · score 69 · 3.0 points ahead
Clearpool leads on
- Published default and loss history4 vs 2
Pareto leads on
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital5 vs 4
- Redemption terms and gating8 vs 4
Largest single reason Pareto is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Pareto has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Goldfinch#6 of 7 · score 61 · 5.0 points behind
Clearpool leads on
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital4 vs 2
- Redemption terms and gating4 vs 0
Goldfinch leads on
- Published default and loss history5 vs 4
- Depositor's legal claim5 vs 4
Largest single reason Clearpool is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: Goldfinch has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
78 vs 66 · gap 12.0Why Kasu Finance ranks above Clearpool
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 12.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisKasu FinanceGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight9.614.3−12.2, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here6.96.9same
Published criterionThisKasu FinancePoints
Named underwriter and first-loss capital · w2548−3.20, worse
Depositor's legal claim · w2547−2.40, worse
Redemption terms and gating · w2045−0.64, worse
Net6678−12.0
Your scenario
Clearpool is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. 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 balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 27 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 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 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 27 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 #4 to #5 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 27 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published default and loss historystrength 4 · weight 30Report an error—27 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.Named underwriter and first-loss capitalstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—27 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.Depositor's legal claimstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—27 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.Redemption terms and gatingstrength 4 · weight 20Report an error—27 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
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Published default and loss history · 30% (Clearpool 4/10)Scored by Named underwriter and first-loss capital · 25% (Clearpool 4/10)Scored by Depositor's legal claim · 25% (Clearpool 4/10)
- Exit failure (Clearpool 4/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Redemption terms and gating · 20%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- The only published rate is for the fully reserved USDX Treasury Pool, quoted on its docs page (docs.clearpool.finance/clearpool/products/usdx-treasury-pool-t-pool.md, fetched 27 September 2026) as "~4% APY in USDX + bonus FLR rewards" with "Stake or withdraw anytime". That product holds USDX backed by short-term U.S. Treasury bills; it is not private credit. No rate is published in the docs for the credit products: Dynamic pool rates follow a utilization curve set through governance, Prime pools carry a fixed rate agreed per pool, and Credit Vault (RLOC) pricing is set per facility, with the live figures only in the app. Changed since 2026-08-07: the Fintech Vaults page the August note referred to no longer exists (its URL now serves GitBook's "Page Not Found"); the docs now present Dynamic, Prime and RLOC Credit Vaults as the lending products. The homepage (clearpool.finance) was rebuilt around a coming-soon XRP Ledger product and shows origination, TVL and interest-paid totals with no date or source; see the row notes.Clearpool — official pricing page ↗ · 27 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDClearpool — official pricing page ↗ · 27 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Polygon zkEVM, Ethereum, Flare, Polygon, Mantle, Optimism
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- China
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- "Nationals and residents of the following countries are restricted from using the Clearpool app:" — Belarus, Cuba, the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, North Korea (DPRK), the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Nicaragua, the People's Republic of China, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Syria (Clearpool docs, Restricted Countries page, fetched 27 September 2026).
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Clearpool: 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
- 27 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 66, #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
2026.10.7Forty-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 private_credit:clearpool:2026.10.18:dcb38a0554a5
Are you Clearpool? 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.