Provider at a glance
- Category
- Yield Aggregators
- Official website
- convexfinance.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Convex Finance
Boosted Curve LP staking
Yield Aggregators
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 yield aggregators in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Convex Finance right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Inherited dependency surface9/10, the category best
- Loss record own and inherited8/10, the category best
- Total take-rate and whether it is published9/10, the category best
- Strategy change control6/10, the category best
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 Convex Finance cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Convex Finance?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Convex Finance
Compare all 4- 2Concentrator (AladdinDAO)24 points below · weaker on dependency surface (4 against 9)57
- 3Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)24 points below · weaker on dependency surface (4 against 9)57$320
- 4CIAN Yield Layer24 points below · weaker on dependency surface (3 against 9)57$128
For your setup
Find out if Convex Finance fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Convex Finance 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 it leads
Why Convex Finance ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (25.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on every criterion.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
309+8.644.09#1/7Loading evidence…
308+7.684.08#1/7Loading evidence…
209+5.766.09#1/7Loading evidence…
206+3.844.06#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+24over Concentrator (AladdinDAO), #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 81 and stays #1
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
The ranking was run again with each of Convex Finance’s criterion scores changed on its own, as far as each ladder goes in both directions. None of those changes moves its rank.
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Inherited dependency surface — 9/10, the category best
- Loss record own and inherited — 8/10, the category best
- Total take-rate and whether it is published — 9/10, the category best
- Strategy change control — 6/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- TVL was $455.2M on 5 Aug 2026 against a peak of $21.17B on 5 Jan 2022 — a 97.9% drawdown. You are buying concentrated, undiversified exposure to Curve's continued existence, from a protocol whose own docs still describe an integration (Prisma) that died two years ago.
- No Prisma page exists in the Convex documentation. The complete docs index at docs.convexfinance.com/llms.txt lists Convex for Curve.fi, Convex for Frax Finance and Convex for FX Protocol — there is no Prisma entry. Direct fetches of /general-information/convex-for-prisma-finance.md and /convex-for-prisma-finance/understanding-cvxprisma.md both return 'Page Not Found — The URL does not exist. This page may have been moved, renamed, or deleted.' The stale-documentation criticism is false; the integration was removed. (The underlying Prisma exploit — $11.6M, 28 Mar 2024, MigrateTroveZap flashloan entry point — is separately confirmed.) Read again 15 September 2026: the Tokenomics section of docs.convexfinance.com/llms-full.txt still lists 'cvxPrisma (Tokenized vePrisma)', so a Prisma entry does remain in the documentation corpus.
- This quote appears nowhere in the current Convex documentation. Convex has migrated off Snapshot to on-chain voting: 'Convex governance has moved to a dedicated on-chain voting platform for vlCVX holders... Previously, many Convex voting flows were handled through Snapshot. The new voting system introduces on-chain Convex voting contracts.' Deployed contracts are enumerated with mainnet addresses (ConvexCore, ConvexDaoVoting, CurveVoteExecutor, CurveGaugeExecutor, etc.) at github.com/convex-eth/voting. The 'advisory, not binding' characterisation is obsolete and understates current governance. Separately, docs state 'Convex Finance multisig does NOT have direct access to user deposits' and 'Admin controls do not have access to user funds or other dangerous calls and thus time-lock delays are not required.' Read again 15 September 2026: the older 'Voting and Gauge Weights' page, still listed in llms.txt, does still read 'Convex Finance multi-sig is still required to sign to establish outcomes of all CVX Snapshot votes, for both governance and Curve gauge weight votes.' The newer Governance and Voting page describes the on-chain voting contracts; the score rests on neither.
Competitive position
Where Convex Finance 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#1 / 719.4 of 30 · pool best
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 Convex Finance leads
- Inherited dependency surface#1 / 7
- Loss record own and inherited#1 / 7
- Total take-rate and whether it is published#1 / 7
- Strategy change control#1 / 7
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.
Concentrator (AladdinDAO)#2 of 7 · score 57 · 24.0 points behind
Convex Finance leads on
- Inherited dependency surface9 vs 4
- Loss record own and inherited8 vs 5
- Total take-rate and whether it is published9 vs 6
Concentrator (AladdinDAO) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Convex Finance is ahead: published criteria (+23.7 display points).Scenario cost: Concentrator (AladdinDAO) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)#3 of 7 · score 57 · 24.0 points behind
Convex Finance leads on
- Inherited dependency surface9 vs 4
- Loss record own and inherited8 vs 3
- Total take-rate and whether it is published9 vs 7
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Convex Finance is ahead: published criteria (+23.7 display points).Scenario cost: Convex Finance has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CIAN Yield Layer#4 of 7 · score 57 · 24.0 points behind
Convex Finance leads on
- Inherited dependency surface9 vs 3
- Loss record own and inherited8 vs 5
- Total take-rate and whether it is published9 vs 7
CIAN Yield Layer leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Convex Finance is ahead: published criteria (+24.2 display points).Scenario cost: Convex Finance has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
81 vs 57 · gap 24.0Why Convex Finance ranks above Concentrator (AladdinDAO)
DimensionThisConcentrator (AladdinDAO)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight19.410.3+23.7, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisConcentrator (AladdinDAO)Points
Inherited dependency surface · w3094+4.80, better
Loss record own and inherited · w3085+2.88, better
Total take-rate and whether it is published · w2096+1.92, better
Strategy change control · w2062+2.56, better
Net8157+24.0
Your scenario
Convex Finance 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 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.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$1523 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest priced$128 · CIAN Yield LayerDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with CIAN Yield Layer
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.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 across every one-point re-run
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 9 · 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 8 · 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 9 · 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 6 · 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% (Convex Finance 9/10)Scored by Loss record own and inherited · 30% (Convex Finance 8/10)
- Control failure (Convex Finance 6/10): 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
- Curve LP deposits: 17% total fee on CRV revenue — 10% to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), 4.5% to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), 2% to treasury (paid as CRV), 0.5% to the harvest caller (paid as CRV). "Fees are taken only from CRV revenue; no fees are taken from tokens from incentivized Curve pools, nor from veCRV admin fees". The multisig can move each share only within hard-coded ranges (10-15%, 3-6%, 0-2%, 0.1-1.0%) under "an absolute fee ceiling of 20%". Convex's LP page states zero deposit and withdraw fees. Frax LPs pay 20% of FXS revenue; FXN-boosted LPs pay 17%.Convex Finance — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDConvex Finance — 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
- Permissionless contracts on Ethereum (with an Arbitrum deployment). Convex publishes no terms of service or geographic restriction: the rendered convexfinance.com front end links no terms page, www.convexfinance.com/terms returns 404, and the docs index (docs.convexfinance.com/llms.txt) lists no legal page (checked 15 September 2026). Bucket: global.
Legal entity on file: Convex Finance, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Convex Finance: 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 81, #1 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:convex_yieldagg:2026.10.18:fecb1dd34c9f
Are you Convex Finance? 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.