ChainChoice verdict

Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)

Data Availability LayersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#1 overall across 7 scored data availability layers. 11 points ahead of #2 Ethereum L1 Calldata. Scored 82 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 Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) 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 (28.0 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

9+8.643.09#1/7Third party

9+8.645.010#2/7Primary

8+6.405.08#1/7Primary

9+4.324.010#2/7Third party

Hairline = pool best · tick = pool median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero

Margin+11over Ethereum L1 Calldata, #2

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 81–82 and stays #1

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 Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)’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.

Verifiable published cost per MB 9 → 2 on its ladder · Ethereum L1 Calldata passes it−778#1 → #3

What actually secures the data 9 → 2 on its ladder · Ethereum L1 Calldata passes it−778#1 → #3

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable 8 → 0 on its ladder · Ethereum L1 Calldata passes it−879#1 → #2

Strengths

Where it leads

4 from the score data

Record says best for

Verifiable published cost per MB — 9/10
What actually secures the data — 9/10
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime — 9/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

1 from the score data

Record watch-outs

'As safe as Ethereum' is true for the attestation and false for the archive: consensus clients are only required to serve blob sidecars for 4096 epochs, about 18 days. After that the data is gone from the protocol and you need your own archive or a third-party blob indexer. Also, the price you see is a spot price on a volatile fee market — the $0.0145/MiB measured here is the median of blocks 25,982,517-25,983,541 on 15 September 2026 (5,748,814 wei per blob gas, ETH at $2,402.28); within that window block 25,983,538 reached $0.163/MiB, and the later blocks 25,983,956-25,984,979 had a median of $0.0321/MiB.

Competitive position

Where Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) 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 · pool best

Published criteria#1 / 721.0 of 30 · pool best

Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · pool best

Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · pool best

Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · pool best

Where Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) leads

Verifiable published cost per MB#1 / 7
What actually secures the data#2 / 7
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable#1 / 7
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime#2 / 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.

Browse all 7

Ethereum L1 Calldata#2 of 7 · score 71 · 11.0 points behind

Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB9 vs 3
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable8 vs 6

Ethereum L1 Calldata leads on

What actually secures the data10 vs 9
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime10 vs 9

Largest single reason Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) is ahead: published criteria (+11.4 display points).Scenario cost: Ethereum L1 Calldata has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Celestia#3 of 7 · score 70 · 12.0 points behind

Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB9 vs 8
What actually secures the data9 vs 6
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable8 vs 6

Celestia leads onNo scored criterion

Largest single reason Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) is ahead: published criteria (+12.5 display points).Scenario cost: Celestia has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Avail DA#4 of 7 · score 51 · 31.0 points behind

Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB9 vs 2
What actually secures the data9 vs 5
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable8 vs 5

Avail DA leads onNo scored criterion

Largest single reason Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) is ahead: published criteria (+30.9 display points).Scenario cost: Avail DA has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against #2

Why Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) ranks above Ethereum L1 Calldata

82 vs 71 · gap 11.0

DimensionThisEthereum L1 CalldataGap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight21.016.6+11.4

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisEthereum L1 CalldataPoints

Verifiable published cost per MB · w3093+5.76

What actually secures the data · w30910−0.96

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable · w2586+1.60

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime · w15910−0.48

Net8271+11.0

For your setup

Find out if Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) 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 data availability layerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.

Your scenario

Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) 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

Usage per month · your input10

Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 Sept 2026.

your cost/yr

Pricing not verified

Under the default inputs · USD

Category medianNot priced0 of 7 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.

7 of 7 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.

Evidence

Evidence read 5 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 stabilityHoldsone point moves 1.9 display points

Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored

Freshness13 days agonewest read 15 Sept 2026 · current

Primary-source share50%2 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 5 Aug 2026.

CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt

Verifiable published cost per MBstrength 9 · weight 30Report an errorethereum-rpc.publicnode.com%20(eth_config)Third-party page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

What actually secures the datastrength 9 · weight 30Report an erroreips.ethereum.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievablestrength 8 · weight 25Report an erroreips.ethereum.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptimestrength 9 · weight 15Report an errorraw.githubusercontent.comThird-party page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

* category-wide reading date; the cell carries none of its own.

Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores

Pricing: EIP-4844 (Final, fetched 2026-09-15): GAS_PER_BLOB 2**17 (131,072); MIN_BASE_FEE_PER_BLOB_GAS 1; the blob base fee rule 'is intended to approximate the formula base_fee_per_blob_gas = MIN_BASE_FEE_PER_BLOB_GAS * e**(excess_blob_gas / BLOB_BASE_FEE_UPDATE_FRACTION)'. Live mainnet, 2026-09-15: eth_config (ethereum-rpc.publicnode.com) current blobSchedule {"target":14,"max":21,"baseFeeUpdateFraction":11684671}. Block 25,983,538 (14:43:59 UTC) had excessBlobGas 0xc866345 = 210,133,829, which fake_exponential(1, 210,133,829, 11,684,671) turns into 64,599,554 wei per blob gas; Blobscan's API reports the same blobGasPrice for that block. eth_feeHistory (eth.drpc.org) over blocks 25,982,517-25,983,541 gives a blob base fee of min 2,681,061 / median 5,748,814 / max 64,599,554 wei; it first exceeded 20,000,000 wei at block 25,983,244. DERIVED at ETH $2,402.28 (CoinGecko 2026-09-15): at the median, 131,072 x 5,748,814 wei = $0.00181 per 128 KiB blob = $0.0145/MiB raw, $0.0149/MiB on the 126,976 usable bytes. At block 25,983,538 it is $0.0203 per blob = $0.163/MiB raw, 11x the window median. Fees stayed elevated later that day: blocks 25,983,956-25,984,979 have a median of 12,748,326 wei ($0.0321/MiB raw) and a max of 355,396,641 wei. This is a spot price on a fee market, not a fixed rate.Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) — official documentation ↗ · 15 Sept 2026
Prices published in: USDEthereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) — official documentation ↗ · 15 Sept 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.

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

5 Aug 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.09.15Score 82, #1 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
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.
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.
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 5 Aug 2026
Last recalculated: At page build from the published inputs — the same run every visitor sees.
Published run: runWizardEngine(data_availability, defaults) · no visitor answers
Receipt id: data_availability:ethereum_blobs_da:2026.09.15:04ce91759ce4

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.

How data availability layers are weighted Changelog

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.