Skip to main content
ChainChoice verdict

dYdX Chain

Appchains / L3sEntity dYdX · 3 productsCountry not set

#2 overall across 9 scored appchains / l3s. 10 points behind #1 Abstract. Scored 69 on the published 41–99 scale under methodology 2026.09.15, from the evidence read in August 2026.

Find my best
Availability not verified. Tell the explorer where you are and this verdict tests the record’s published market tags against it. An untested record is shown as not verified — never as available. Supported markets on record: Global. Set your country in the explorer
Why this rank

Why dYdX Chain 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 (14.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in the pool on 2 of 4.

4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
352+2.242.08#4/9Third party
253+2.403.05#5/9Third party
207+4.483.07#1/9Third party
208+5.122.08#1/9Third party
Hairline = pool best · tick = pool median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−10behind Abstract, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 67–71 and ranks #2–#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 dYdX Chain’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.

Security inherited from settlement layer 2 → 7 on its ladder · passes Abstract+579#2 → #1
Permissionless exit without the operator 3 → 10 on its ladder · passes Abstract+779#2 → #1
Security inherited from settlement layer 2 → 1 on its ladder · Zora Network passes it−167#2 → #3
Permissionless exit without the operator 3 → 2 on its ladder · Zora Network passes it−168#2 → #3
Operators running the chain today 7 → 6 on its ladder · Zora Network passes it−168#2 → #3

Smallest climb: security inherited from settlement layer 2 → 7 passes Abstract, #1.

Strengths

Where it leads

2 from the score data
Record says best for
  • Measured liquidity on arrival — 8/10
  • Operators running the chain today — 7/10
Tradeoffs

Where it trails

2 from the score data
Record watch-outs
  • The published fee schedule is a trading fee, not a chain fee — a buyer comparing it to a rollup's gas cost is comparing different things, and the 2.5-5.0 bps taker fee is paid to the same validators who can halt the chain. Withdrawals leave via IBC and Noble rather than an Ethereum bridge contract, which this research did not independently verify on chain.
Competitive position

Where dYdX Chain 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 · pool best
Published criteria#2 / 910.7 of 30 · best 14.5
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · pool best
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · pool best
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · pool best
Where dYdX Chain leads
  • Operators running the chain today#1 / 9
  • Measured liquidity on arrival#1 / 9
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.

Zora Network#3 of 9 · score 69 · same score
dYdX Chain leads on
  • Operators running the chain today7 vs 4
  • Measured liquidity on arrival8 vs 1
Zora Network leads on
  • Security inherited from settlement layer7 vs 2
  • Permissionless exit without the operator4 vs 3
Scenario cost: Zora Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.
ApeChain#4 of 9 · score 64 · 5.0 points behind
dYdX Chain leads on
  • Operators running the chain today7 vs 3
  • Measured liquidity on arrival8 vs 2
ApeChain leads on
  • Security inherited from settlement layer4 vs 2
  • Permissionless exit without the operator5 vs 3
Largest single reason dYdX Chain is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: ApeChain has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Abstract#1 of 9 · score 79 · 10.0 points ahead
dYdX Chain leads on
  • Operators running the chain today7 vs 4
  • Measured liquidity on arrival8 vs 6
Abstract leads on
  • Security inherited from settlement layer8 vs 2
  • Permissionless exit without the operator5 vs 3
Largest single reason Abstract is ahead: published criteria (+9.9 display points).Scenario cost: Abstract has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader

Why Abstract ranks above dYdX Chain

79 vs 69 · gap 10.0

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 10.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisAbstractGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.00
Published criteria · 35% weight10.714.5−9.9
Friction · 12% weight2.72.70
Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20
Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30
Published criterionThisAbstractPoints
Security inherited from settlement layer · w3528−6.72
Permissionless exit without the operator · w2535−1.60
Operators running the chain today · w2074+1.92
Measured liquidity on arrival · w2086+1.28
Net6979−10.0
For your setup

Find out if dYdX Chain fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where dYdX Chain 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.

  • 3–5 questions
  • No account required
  • Ranking-blind: no commercial input
  • Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best appchains / l3Nothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Your scenario

dYdX Chain is not priced for this scenario

Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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
Usage per month · your input10

Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 11 Aug 2026.

your cost/yr
Pricing not verified
Under the default inputs · USD
Category medianNot priced0 of 9 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
Cost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.

9 of 9 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.

Evidence

Evidence read 7 Aug 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
Public receiptsAvailable4 quoted with a source URL
Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
Rank stabilityCould fallone point moves 2.2 display points
Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored
Freshness52 days agonewest read 7 Aug 2026 · current
Primary-source share0%0 of 4 sourced cells
Conflicts0file and table agree
The newest evidence read on the platform is 5 Sept 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 7 Aug 2026.
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Security inherited from settlement layerstrength 2 · weight 35Report an errorl2beat.comThird-party page7 Aug 2026*CurrentVerifiedOpen the receipt
Permissionless exit without the operatorstrength 3 · weight 25Report an errorl2beat.comThird-party page7 Aug 2026CurrentVerifiedOpen the receipt
Operators running the chain todaystrength 7 · weight 20Report an errordydx-rest.publicnode.comThird-party page7 Aug 2026*CurrentVerifiedOpen the receipt
Measured liquidity on arrivalstrength 8 · weight 20Report an errorapi.llama.fiThird-party page7 Aug 2026*CurrentVerifiedOpen the receipt
* category-wide reading date; the cell carries none of its own.
Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores
Pricing
"Staking Rewards = Trading Fees + Gas Fees - Community Tax - Validator Commission" (fetched 2026-08-07) — trading fees and gas both accrue to the chain's own validators and stakers rather than to a settlement layer. The same page publishes the fee tiers by 30d trailing volume: tier 1 taker 5.0 bps and maker 1.0 bps, falling to taker 2.5 bps from tier 6 ("≥ $100M") and maker -1.1 bps at tier 7 ("≥ $200M"), with the page's own warning to "Refer to the dydx frontend fees page for the latest schedule". Normalised: on a $10,000 taker order that is $5.00 at tier 1 and $2.50 at tier 6dYdX Chain — official pricing page ↗ · 11 Aug 2026
Prices published in
USDdYdX Chain — official pricing page ↗ · 11 Aug 2026
Licences held
Not published
Compliance level
partial
Regulatory note
Not published
Supported chains
dYdX Chain
Markets served
global
Primary markets
Not published
Restricted markets
Not published
Operating limits
Not published
Availability note
Not published

Legal entity on file: dYdX, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.

History

What the record carries

Changes to published ranks and scores are recorded in a ledger, but this page does not chart that record yet, so no score line is drawn: history begins with the current verified snapshot. Below it, the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.

6 methodology entries
  1. 7 Aug 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.09.15Score 69, #2 of 9. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
  2. 16 Sept 2026
    2026.09.15
    Dimension 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.
  3. 10 Sept 2026
    2026.09.5
    The published review cadence is now one the work actually keeps · platform-wide
    • changed reviewCadenceDays 30 → 45 across all 119 category specs, and the two prose sites that quoted "the 30-day review cadence" in tokenised_bonds.
    • changed check-review-cadence-is-kept ceiling 7 → 3, negative-tested: restoring a single 30-day promise over 49-day evidence takes it to 4 and fails the build.
    • fixed Measured by regenerating rankings.json: no category changed order and no score moved, and the golden suite confirms it independently — across all 119 fixtures and 2,217 cases the only fields that differ are methodologyVersion and contentHash. A cadence is a claim about freshness, not an input to any ranking.
  4. 2 Sept 2026
    2026.09.2
    Twenty points that ordered nothing leave the total · platform-wide
    • removed profileFit removed from the weighting. The published composite is now availability 20, objectiveFit 30, frictionFit 10, trustBonus 8 and quantitative 18 — 86 points, down from 106.
    • fixed A stated priority for support raised profileFit, routing a visitor's answer into a dimension that could not move a result. It now raises frictionFit, where getting started and getting help are scored.
    • changed Measured effect: 15 of 114 categories reordered and 3 changed leader (institutional_custody, payment_gateway, business_banking). Every one of the 36 swapped pairs sits within 0.02 points of 86 of its partner — products that were numerically tied before and after.
    • changed The sensitivity analysis and the per-dimension breakdown no longer offer profileFit as a lever, since re-weighting a term that carries no weight cannot change an outcome. The breakdown still shows the number, labelled "shown, not scored".
Full methodology changelog
Methodology

How this verdict was produced

Methodology version
2026.09.15 · last platform-wide change 16 Sept 2026
Data snapshot
Evidence read 7 Aug 2026
Last recalculated
At page build from the published inputs — the same run every visitor sees.
Published run
runWizardEngine(appchains_l3s, defaults) · no visitor answers
Receipt id
appchains_l3s:dydx_chain:2026.09.15:aaa71be189e7
What changed in this methodology version?
2026.09.15 · Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Rankings, scores and Fit read no affiliate, payout, conversion or sponsorship data. This page's commercial note appears once, beside the outbound action, and is written by no component that scores.

Your decision summary

dYdX Chain: #2 of 9 overall

Leads on operators running the chain today; trails on security inherited from settlement layer. Set your country for an availability verdict. Review the evidence before deciding.

Explore appchains / l3s Find my best
Check availability for your countryVisit dYdX Chain · dydx.trade

Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure

Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.

ChainChoice
Compare onchain. A brighter future.
© 2026 ChainChoice. All rights reserved.
System statusFeeds last refreshed 9 days ago
Built from commit ba0993b · rankings.json sha256 e1eb24980abb
ChainChoice · The decision layer for crypto · Not financial adviceEducational analysis, not investment advice. Affiliate links may contribute to operations but never alter rankings.

ChainChoice provides informational content only. Nothing on this site constitutes financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Always do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.