Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Launch Platforms
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- flaunch.gg
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 67 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Flaunch
Uniswap v4 token launch venue on Base
Token Launch Platforms
#9 Overall
Ranked #9 of 9 token launch platforms in the published ranking
67
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Flaunch right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure7/10; the category best is 8
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Creator control surface and published ranges5/10 here; four.meme scores 8
- Graduation and LP disposition6/10 here; Boop scores 7
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers3/10 here; four.meme scores 4
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 token launch platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Flaunch cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Flaunch?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Flaunch
Compare all 4- 6four.meme6 points above · stronger on creator control surface (8 against 5)73
- 7pump.fun4 points above · stronger on protocol fee floor and disclosure (8 against 7)71
- 8BoopLevel on score · stronger on graduation and LP disposition (7 against 6)67
For your setup
Find out if Flaunch fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Flaunch 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 token launch platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Flaunch ranks #9
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.8 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
307+6.727.08#5/9Loading evidence…
305+4.808.09#8/9Loading evidence…
256+4.807.09#7/9Loading evidence…
153+1.444.09#9/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Boop, #8
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 65–69 and ranks #8–#9
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 Flaunch’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.
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Boop+169#9 → #8
Creator control surface and published ranges 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Boop+169#9 → #8
Graduation and LP disposition 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Boop+168#9 → #8
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Boop+168#9 → #8
Smallest climb: unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 7 → 8 passes Boop, #8.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Creator control surface and published ranges — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Graduation and LP disposition — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The FAQ a buyer reads before deploying says the protocol takes nothing and that FLAY governance "can choose to turn on" a fee switch. On the PositionManager that actually receives new launches it is already on, at its ceiling. Reading getPoolFeeDistribution against a live V1.3 pool (memecoin 0xe954cb67134fc344a58a5e98ca362c1566edf7ad, poolId 0x619dd26a01a3aeb5e725599044b8a1559ec3da115a45c67cb3579c9bdf2edacc) on 2026-08-27 returns swapFee=100 (1.00%), referrer=1000 (10.00%), protocol=1000 (10.00%), active=true, against MAX_PROTOCOL_ALLOCATION()=1000. Verification adds that this is the GLOBAL default on that manager, not a per-pool setting: the same call against a zero poolId and against a random poolId returns the identical distribution, and FeeDistributor exposes setFeeDistribution(FeeDistribution) onlyOwner to rewrite it for every pool at once. The older manager 0x51Bba15255406Cfe7099a42183302640ba7dAFDC returns referrer=500, protocol=0, so the take was switched on for the current version only and no page records it — though note the V1_0/V1_1/V1_2 addresses printed in the docs are not traceable to any published Flaunch source, since the vendor's own registry page is empty, and only one older manager could be located and read. Two further undocumented powers sit with the contract owner (V1.3 owner() = 0xb8a70b4d1547bf6193bd67a73f4f98ea9fd0a973): Flaunch.setMemecoinMetadata(address,string,string) onlyOwner renames a launched token's name and symbol, and FeeDistributor.setPoolFeeDistribution(PoolId,FeeDistribution) onlyOwner rewrites one already-live pool's fee split, with _validateFeeDistribution capping swapFee only at ONE_HUNDRED_PERCENT (100_00). Separately, the fixed-price fair launch that is Flaunch's headline mechanic is switched off: the API page (updated 29 days before the 2026-08-27 read) says "Currently paused. Sniper protection depends on fair launch, and both are temporarily disabled", while the feature and FAQ pages still describe a 30-minute fair launch as live.
Competitive position
Where Flaunch 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 · constant here
Published criteria#9 / 913.3 of 30 · best 18.8
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Flaunch leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Creator control surface and published ranges#8 / 9
- Graduation and LP disposition#7 / 9
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers#9 / 9
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.
Boop#8 of 9 · score 67 · same score
Flaunch leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure7 vs 6
Boop leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition7 vs 6
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers4 vs 3
Largest single reason Boop is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Boop has no verified pricing for this scenario.
pump.fun#7 of 9 · score 71 · 4.0 points ahead
Flaunch leads onNo scored criterion
pump.fun leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8 vs 7
- Creator control surface and published ranges6 vs 5
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers4 vs 3
Largest single reason pump.fun is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: pump.fun has no verified pricing for this scenario.
four.meme#6 of 9 · score 73 · 6.0 points ahead
Flaunch leads onNo scored criterion
four.meme leads on
- Creator control surface and published ranges8 vs 5
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers4 vs 3
Largest single reason four.meme is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: four.meme has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 67 · gap 14.0Why Raydium LaunchLab ranks above Flaunch
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 14.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRaydium LaunchLabGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.318.8−14.3, 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 criterionThisRaydium LaunchLabPoints
Creator control surface and published ranges · w3059−3.84, worse
Graduation and LP disposition · w2568−1.60, worse
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · w1537−1.92, worse
Net6781−14.0
Your scenario
Flaunch is not priced for this scenario
Trading 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 30 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 9 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
9 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 30 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 #8 to #9 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 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosurestrength 7 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Creator control surface and published rangesstrength 5 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Graduation and LP dispositionstrength 6 · weight 25Report an error—30 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.Post-deploy rug surface and admin powersstrength 3 · weight 15Report an error—30 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: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Creator control surface and published ranges · 30% (Flaunch 5/10)Scored by Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · 15% (Flaunch 3/10)
- Custody failure (Flaunch 6/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Graduation and LP disposition · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, 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: Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure (30%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No consolidated fee page exists: docs.flaunch.gg/fees, /protocol/fees, /pricing and flaunch.gg/fees all return 404 (re-checked 30 September 2026). From https://
docs .flaunch .gg /protocol /frequently-asked-questions (HTTP 200, fetched 30 September 2026, page dated 17 March 2026): "1% on both buys and sells." and "No. The team does not take any of the trading fees. FLAY governance can choose to turn on a fee switch that can take a maximum of 10% of the fees." Elsewhere, unchanged since August: the fee-switch page (docs.flaunch.gg/community/governance/protocol-fee-switch) splits the 1% swap fee across protocol, creator and BidWall with the protocol share ranging 0% to 10%; the SDK guide (docs.flaunch.gg/guides/flaunching-a-coin) states a flaunching fee of 0.1% of the market cap set; the Flaunchy bot page (docs.flaunch.gg/community/flaunchy) states free launches with the creator taking 80% of trading fees and Flaunchy 20%. On-chain, contradicting the FAQ: on the live V1.3 PositionManager 0x588C683EcC450F8b2aAdb13D7f63792b840425DC on Base (block 51967575), getPoolFeeDistribution returns swapFee 100, referrer 1000, protocol 1000 for both a zero and a random poolId, i.e. a 10% protocol share of the 1% fee as the global default, equal to MAX_PROTOCOL_ALLOCATION() = 1000. Flaunching fee read via getFlaunchingFee at block 51967581 (the call takes the market cap in USDC units): 10,000 USDC market cap = 0 ETH; 10,001 USDC = 0.003726734801114573 ETH; 75,000 USDC = 0.027947716236735625 ETH. Structure unchanged: free at or below a 10,000 USDC market cap, then 0.1% of the full market cap charged in ETH at the oracle price at the moment of the call, so the ETH figures move with the ETH price (August read 0.003983772071603489 ETH at 10,001 USDC).Flaunch — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDFlaunch — official pricing page ↗ · 30 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
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Flaunch: 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
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 67, #9 of 9. 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 token_launch_platforms:flaunch:2026.10.18:f28b4b445d40
Are you Flaunch? 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.