Provider at a glance
- Category
- Fixed-Rate Yield
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- exact.ly
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Exactly Protocol
Lending market with fixed-term pools
Fixed-Rate Yield
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 fixed-rate yield in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Exactly Protocol right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What happens at maturity9/10; the category best is 10
- The price of leaving early9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it4/10 here; the category best is 6
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses7/10 here; Term Finance scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: United States.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best fixed-rate yield protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will Exactly Protocol cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Exactly Protocol?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Exactly Protocol
Compare all 4- 2Pendle1 point below · stronger on maturity handling (10 against 9)79
- 3Term Finance4 points below · stronger on fixed leg obligor (9 against 7)76
- 4Exponent Yield Exchange5 points below · weaker on maturity handling (8 against 9)75
For your setup
Find out if Exactly Protocol fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Exactly Protocol 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 fixed-rate yield protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Exactly Protocol 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 (23.5 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
329+9.228.010#2/7Loading evidence…
264+3.334.06#2/7Loading evidence…
249+6.917.09#1/7Loading evidence…
187+4.038.010#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+1over Pendle, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–81 and ranks #1–#2
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 Exactly Protocol’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.
What happens at maturity 9 → 8 on its ladder · Pendle passes it−179#1 → #2
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it 4 → 3 on its ladder · Pendle passes it−179#1 → #2
The price of leaving early 9 → 8 on its ladder · Pendle passes it−179#1 → #2
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What happens at maturity — 9/10, category best 10/10
- The price of leaving early — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it — 4/10 against a category best of 6/10
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Judge the documentation and judge the book separately, because they diverge sharply. But the fixed-rate DEPOSIT product is a rounding error inside a variable-rate lending market. Sweeping all 15 deployed Markets — Auditor.allMarkets() returns 6 on Optimism, 4 on Base and 5 on Ethereum — across 80 four-week maturities each on 2026-08-12 (OP block 155,484,248; Base 49,888,858; Ethereum 25,741,355): total fixed deposits are 175,905.14 in stablecoins (OP USDC 175,087.954149, OP USDC.e 316.066486, ETH USDC 251.121281, ETH DAI 250.000000) plus 3.886895 WETH, 1,879.965432 OP, 0.500013 wstETH and 0.00015651 WBTC — against DefiLlama TVL of $5,587,508, roughly 3%. Of the OP USDC book, 18,628.829764 (10.6%) was then already past maturity and earning nothing. On 2026-09-28 (OP block 157,509,261) the OP USDC book was 140,787.19, of which 82,164.36 was past maturity — 80,150.00 in the pool that matured 2026-09-24 and 2,004.235477 still stranded in the pool that expired 2026-05-07 — leaving 58,622.83 live, against DefiLlama TVL of $11,376,990; OP MarketUSDC had taken no fixed deposit in the 32 days since 2026-08-27. Five of the fifteen markets hold zero fixed deposits at any maturity. Most starkly, Base — where the DAO put its growth (EXAIP-26, cbXRP, 1,883,516.72 USDC of fixed borrows on 2026-09-28, up from 705,445.60 in August) — has ZERO fixed depositors: on 2026-09-28 fixedPools[m].supplied reads 0 at every maturity in all four Base markets, and across the 200,000 Base blocks to 51,914,056 (~4.6 days) MarketUSDC emitted no DepositAtMaturity event against 4,024 BorrowAtMaturity events from 392 borrowers. On Base, Exactly's fixed-rate product exists only as a borrower product, funded entirely by the variable pool. A depositor should also know Base is permissioned and mechanically different: lockedAssets(address) returns there and reverts on Optimism, proving Base runs VerifiedMarket/VerifiedAuditor with Auditor.firewall() = 0x310A2694…E01; per EXAIP-26 an allower "has the right to revoke the permissions granted to a user", after which debt is repaid without penalty and "The assets that are not used to repay the debt will be locked" — though the proposal also says "If the user is allowed to interact with the protocol again in the future, the assets will be unlocked. This decision is not final and can be revoked by the allower." What the proposal does not say is that lock() force-closes fixed deposits at the early-exit discount with zero min-output, and unlock() returns variable-pool shares, not the original term. Optimism is permissionless (its Auditor has no firewall() at all) and holds essentially the entire fixed-deposit book. Finally, EXAIP-32 (created 2026-05-16, voting closed 2026-05-22, 1,453,565 For / 8,469 Against) splits the org into a DAO-governed protocol layer and a corporate NewCo running the Exa App and Exa Card; GitHub activity is overwhelmingly on the app. The fixed-rate market is stable, audited and maintained — but it is not where this team is spending its attention.
Competitive position
Where Exactly Protocol 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 / 717.6 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 Exactly Protocol leads
- What happens at maturity#2 / 7
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it#2 / 7
- The price of leaving early#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses#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.
Pendle#2 of 7 · score 79 · 1.0 point behind
Exactly Protocol leads on
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it4 vs 3
- The price of leaving early9 vs 8
Pendle leads on
- What happens at maturity10 vs 9
Largest single reason Exactly Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Pendle has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Term Finance#3 of 7 · score 76 · 4.0 points behind
Exactly Protocol leads on
- What happens at maturity9 vs 8
- The price of leaving early9 vs 6
Term Finance leads on
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9 vs 7
Largest single reason Exactly Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Term Finance has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Exponent Yield Exchange#4 of 7 · score 75 · 5.0 points behind
Exactly Protocol leads on
- What happens at maturity9 vs 8
- The price of leaving early9 vs 8
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses7 vs 6
Exponent Yield Exchange leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Exactly Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: Exponent Yield Exchange has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
80 vs 79 · gap 1.0Why Exactly Protocol ranks above Pendle
DimensionThisPendleGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.617.2+1.0, 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 criterionThisPendlePoints
What happens at maturity · w32910−1.02, worse
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it · w2643+0.83, better
The price of leaving early · w2498+0.77, better
Net8079+1.0
Your scenario
Exactly Protocol 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 28 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 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 #1 to #2 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
What happens at maturitystrength 9 · weight 32Report 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.Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change itstrength 4 · weight 26Report 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.The price of leaving earlystrength 9 · 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.Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy missesstrength 7 · weight 18Report 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
- Control failure (Exactly Protocol 4/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it · 26%
- Insolvency failure (Exactly Protocol 7/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses · 18%
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by What happens at maturity · 32% (Exactly Protocol 9/10)Scored by The price of leaving early · 24% (Exactly Protocol 9/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract 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
- Parameters page (https://
docs .exact .ly /guides /parameters), re-fetched 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200, "Last updated 24 days ago"). The fee that lands on a fixed DEPOSITOR is section "G. Variable Rate Pool Fee" (lettered F in August): "δ = 10%", where δ "is the fraction of the fixed interest rate fees retained by the Variable Rate Pool upon leaving the Fixed Rate Pool." The Earnings Accumulator page (https:// docs .exact .ly /guides /features /earnings-accumulator, same date) names who pays it: "It's the fee charged to the fixed depositors once they supply assets to a fixed rate pool that the variable pool suppliers will retain for initially providing liquidity." Same Parameters page: "A. Reserve Factor", "η = 5%"; "B. Treasury Fee", "The treasury fee refers to the percentage of interest rate charges paid by borrowers that the protocol retains for its treasury.", rendered as 20% under "Treasury Fee on OP Mainnet" and 0% under "Treasury Fee on Ethereum Mainnet"; no Base treasury-fee rate is published. Borrower late penalty, section "L. Penalty Rate" (lettered K in August): "DailyPenaltyRate = 0.45%", "The daily penalty rate fee is charged to fixed interest rate borrowers who didn't pay their loans on time.", with the page's worked example "the penalty fees will be $4.5 (0.45%*10*$100)". Read on-chain 2026-09-28: OP MarketUSDC 0x6926B434CCe9b5b7966aE1BfEef6D0A7DCF3A8bb (block 157,509,261) returns backupFeeRate() 100000000000000000 (10%), treasuryFeeRate() 200000000000000000 (20%), reserveFactor() 50000000000000000 (5%) and penaltyRate() 52083333333 per second (0.45% a day) — the published values; Base MarketUSDC 0x61EDAcB54aA8a689013682529df8914C87692E4b (block 51,913,985) returns the same four, including a 20% treasury fee the page does not publish for Base; Ethereum MarketUSDC 0x660e2fC185a9fFE722aF253329CEaAD4C9F6F928 (block 26,077,514) returns treasuryFeeRate() 0, matching the page, but reserveFactor() 100000000000000000 (10%) against the published 5%.Exactly Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDExactly Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Optimism, Base, Ethereum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- United States
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Exactly's FAQ (docs.exact.ly/getting-started/faq, read 28 September 2026) says: "As US Persons are prohibited from accessing and using the Digital Asset Services in any way, the platform does not allow its use by, or operation in any way with, US Persons." Its Terms and Conditions of Use (docs.exact.ly/legal/terms-and-conditions-of-use, same date, clause 1.5.15) add that persons in any jurisdiction that treats the protocol's tokens as securities, or where use "is forbidden or restricted by law, are prohibited from accessing and using the Digital Asset Services." On Base the markets are permissioned: a fixed position there requires an account the Auditor's firewall allows.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Exactly Protocol: 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.
10 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 80, #1 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt fixed_rate_yield:exactly_protocol:2026.10.18:a04e0c0443cf
Are you Exactly Protocol? 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.