Provider at a glance
- Category
- Intent Networks
- Entity
- All 4 deBridge products
- Official website
- dln.trade
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 64 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)
Cross-chain order book
Intent Networks
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 intent networks in the published ranking
64
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Network fee disclosure8/10, the category best
- Solver admission9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Bid set visibility3/10 here; NEAR Intents scores 6
- Fallback when nobody fills4/10 here; Across Protocol scores 9
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 intent network shows where it lands for you.
What will deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)
Compare all 4- 2UniswapX4 points above · stronger on nofill fallback (8 against 4)68
- 3Across Protocol3 points above · stronger on nofill fallback (9 against 4)67
- 4NEAR Intents1 point above · stronger on bid visibility (6 against 3)65
For your setup
Find out if deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) 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 intent networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.7 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
343+3.264.010#5/7Loading evidence…
209+5.767.09#1/7Loading evidence…
228+5.638.08#1/7Loading evidence…
244+3.076.09#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind NEAR Intents, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 62–66 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 deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)’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.
Bid set visibility 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes NEAR Intents+166#5 → #4
Solver admission 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes NEAR Intents+165#5 → #4
Network fee disclosure 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes NEAR Intents+165#5 → #4
Fallback when nobody fills 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes NEAR Intents+166#5 → #4
Smallest climb: bid set visibility 3 → 4 passes NEAR Intents, #4.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Network fee disclosure — 8/10, the category best
- Solver admission — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Bid set visibility — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Fallback when nobody fills — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The flat fee is dominant on small orders. docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fee-structure describes it as "a fixed amount in the source‑chain native token paid to deBridge validators for processing the eventual unlock message" and, read on 2026-09-28, names DlnSource.globalFixedNativeFee() as where the current value is stored, with a worked example at 0.001 ETH. The per-chain numbers live on the fees table and in the contract: 0.001 ETH on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Linea, Robinhood and MegaETH, confirmed by globalFixedNativeFee() returning 1000000000000000 wei. Normalised on 2026-08-08 at an ETH spot of $1,919.82 (api.coinbase.com/v2/prices/ETH-USD/spot), a $200 Ethereum-origin transfer pays 200 × 0.0004 = $0.08 variable plus 0.001 × 1919.82 = $1.92 flat, i.e. $2.00 all-in, of which the flat component is 0.96% of the order and 24 times the 4 bps the documentation leads with.
Competitive position
Where deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) 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#5 / 713.3 of 30 · best 19.8
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 deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) leads
- Solver admission#1 / 7
- Network fee disclosure#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Bid set visibility#5 / 7
- Fallback when nobody fills#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.
NEAR Intents#4 of 7 · score 65 · 1.0 point ahead
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) leads on
- Solver admission9 vs 2
NEAR Intents leads on
- Bid set visibility6 vs 3
- Fallback when nobody fills6 vs 4
Largest single reason NEAR Intents is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: NEAR Intents has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Across Protocol#3 of 7 · score 67 · 3.0 points ahead
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) leads on
- Solver admission9 vs 7
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 5
Across Protocol leads on
- Bid set visibility4 vs 3
- Fallback when nobody fills9 vs 4
Largest single reason Across Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Across Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
UniswapX#2 of 7 · score 68 · 4.0 points ahead
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) leads on
- Solver admission9 vs 8
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 6
UniswapX leads on
- Bid set visibility4 vs 3
- Fallback when nobody fills8 vs 4
Largest single reason UniswapX is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: UniswapX has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 64 · gap 17.0Why CoW Protocol ranks above deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)
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 17.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCoW ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.319.8−16.9, 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 criterionThisCoW ProtocolPoints
Bid set visibility · w34310−7.62, worse
Solver admission · w2097+1.28, better
Fallback when nobody fills · w2447−2.30, worse
Net6481−17.0
Your scenario
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) is not priced for this scenario
Transfer 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 28 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 28 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Bid set visibilitystrength 3 · weight 34Report an error—28 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.Solver admissionstrength 9 · weight 20Report an error—28 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.Network fee disclosurestrength 8 · weight 22Report an error—28 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.Fallback when nobody fillsstrength 4 · weight 24Report an error—28 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
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Bid set visibility · 34% (deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) 3/10)Scored by Solver admission · 20% (deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) 9/10)Scored by Fallback when nobody fills · 24% (deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) 4/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory 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: Network fee disclosure (22%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fees-supported-chains.md, fetched 2026-09-28: "A variable fee of 4bps is paid in the input token", plus a flat fee "paid in the native gas token of the chain where the order is created", tabulated per chain: 0.001 ETH on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Linea, Robinhood and MegaETH; 0.015 SOL on Solana; 0.005 BNB on BNB Chain; 0.5 MATIC on Polygon; 0.05 AVAX on Avalanche; 4 TRX on TRON; 15 CRO on Cronos; 0.01 IP on Story; 0.05 WHYPE on HyperEVM; 0.09 INJ on Injective; 2 MON on Monad; and 1 USDC on Arc, a row added since 8 August 2026. The page states "The fee is fully refunded in case an order is cancelled." and warns "Protocol fees can be changed." On 28 September 2026 the Ethereum DlnSource contract returned 4 for globalTransferFeeBps() and 0.001 ETH for globalFixedNativeFee(), matching the table.deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDdeBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Optimism, BNB Chain, Polygon, Base, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Linea, Solana, TRON, Cronos, HyperEVM, Injective, Monad, Story, MegaETH, Robinhood, Arc
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: deBridge, placed in 4 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN): 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.
8 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 64, #5 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 intents:debridge_dln:2026.10.18:dc470144c3be
Are you deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)? 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.