Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Launch Platforms
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- heaven.xyz
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 78 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Heaven
Solana launchpad with its own AMM
Token Launch Platforms
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 9 token launch platforms in the published ranking
78
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Heaven right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8/10, the category best
- Creator control surface and published ranges8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Graduation and LP disposition7/10 here; Clanker scores 9
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers5/10 here; Clanker 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 token launch platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Heaven cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Heaven?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Heaven
Compare all 4- 2Clanker3 points above · stronger on post deploy rug surface (9 against 5)81
- 3Bags2 points above · stronger on graduation and LP disposition (8 against 7)80
- 4Jupiter Studio1 point above · stronger on creator control surface (9 against 8)79
For your setup
Find out if Heaven fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Heaven 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 Heaven 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 (23.4 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
308+7.687.08#1/9Loading evidence…
308+7.688.09#3/9Loading evidence…
257+5.607.09#4/9Loading evidence…
155+2.404.09#4/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Jupiter Studio, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 76–79 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 Heaven’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 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Jupiter Studio+179#5 → #4
Creator control surface and published ranges 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Jupiter Studio+179#5 → #4
Graduation and LP disposition 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Jupiter Studio+179#5 → #4
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Jupiter Studio+179#5 → #4
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 5 on its ladder · four.meme passes it−372#5 → #6
Creator control surface and published ranges 8 → 5 on its ladder · four.meme passes it−372#5 → #6
Graduation and LP disposition 7 → 4 on its ladder · four.meme passes it−373#5 → #6
Smallest climb: unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 9 passes Jupiter Studio, #4.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure — 8/10, the category best
- Creator control surface and published ranges — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Graduation and LP disposition — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- On 2026-09-30 Heaven's pools still traded but launches looked stalled: the admin key that must co-sign each standard launch last signed one on 2026-09-01, and its launch API (tx.api.heaven.xyz) served a certificate that expired 2026-09-07. Treat launching here as unavailable until it is read again.
- Heaven's docs sell the launch as unconditional — permissionless.md: "Every token launch on Heaven is free and takes under five seconds. We do not monitor or restrict launches." Two things bite after you deploy. First, the launch is not permissionless at the transaction level. The reason is visible on-chain — the allow_create_pool flag rests at 0 in both the Community and Creator protocol configs (1 on the v3 Pro Pool config), only a protocol_admin signer can flip it, and the transaction carries TWO inline instructions to do so: verification decoded the 12-instruction transaction and found ix[9] update_allow_create_pool(version=1, allow_create_pool=1) signed by HKZCA4EJ…, ix[10] create_standard_liquidity_pool, ix[11] update_allow_create_pool(version=1, allow_create_pool=0). The gate is opened and re-closed around every single launch, atomically, by Heaven's key — the first draft described one instruction; there are two. You cannot launch a standard Heaven token without Heaven's key co-signing. Second, if you self-categorise as a "Creator" coin to earn the 1% creator fee instead of 0.1%, that money is escrowed rather than paid: permissioned.md says "the 1% creator fee is held back for the creator by Heaven's contract, but they are not able to access it" until human admins review your project past $100k volume, and a "Blocked" ruling routes "100% of the collected creator fees" to $LIGHT buybacks permanently (on-chain: "2: Blocked - Cannot be claimed by creator"). And the escrow has a second exit worse than "Blocked": permissioned.md publishes that a self-declared Creator ruled Community loses 90% — "90% of the initial fees that were collected are go back into the god flywheel… The remaining 10% of fees (a 0.1% tax) is then claimable by the deployer." Separately, Heaven's v2 protocol config still holds Token-2022 transfer-fee AND withheld-fee authority over launched mints (withheldAmount 144,292.55 LIGHT), the AMM program is upgradeable by a single non-multisig wallet, and the deployed program carries a dormant, undocumented rehypothecation path that lets a Heaven admin borrow the pooled SOL sitting behind your pool into Marinade and a Kamino lending market.
Competitive position
Where Heaven 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#5 / 917.5 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 Heaven leads
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure#1 / 9
- Creator control surface and published ranges#3 / 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.
Jupiter Studio#4 of 9 · score 79 · 1.0 point ahead
Heaven leads on
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers5 vs 4
Jupiter Studio leads on
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
Largest single reason Jupiter Studio is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Jupiter Studio has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Bags#3 of 9 · score 80 · 2.0 points ahead
Heaven leads onNo scored criterion
Bags leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition8 vs 7
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers6 vs 5
Largest single reason Bags is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Bags has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Clanker#2 of 9 · score 81 · 3.0 points ahead
Heaven leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8 vs 6
Clanker leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition9 vs 7
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers9 vs 5
Largest single reason Clanker is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: Clanker has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 78 · gap 3.0Why Raydium LaunchLab ranks above Heaven
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 3.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRaydium LaunchLabGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.518.8−3.4, 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
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure · w3087+0.96, better
Creator control surface and published ranges · w3089−0.96, worse
Graduation and LP disposition · w2578−0.80, worse
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · w1557−0.96, worse
Net7881−3.0
Your scenario
Heaven 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 #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 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosurestrength 8 · 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 8 · 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 7 · 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 5 · 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% (Heaven 8/10)Scored by Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · 15% (Heaven 5/10)
- Custody failure (Heaven 7/10): 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
- From https://
docs .heaven .xyz /fees .md (curl HTTP 200, 1,534 bytes, fetched 30 September 2026; every fee row is textually identical to the 27 August 2026 read of 1,774 bytes). Protocol fees: "Create a coin | Free"; below a $100k market cap "1% protocol fee"; a community coin above $100k "0.25% protocol fee"; a creator coin above $100k "0.5% protocol fee". Creator fees: 'Creator fee for a "community" coin | 0.1%' and 'Creator fee for a "creator" coin | 1%'. Same page: "Heaven doesn't have any LP fees for primary pool providers." The $LIGHT transfer-fee paragraph is still in the future tense ("This will be disabled at the end of epoch 838 (Sunday, August 24th).") although that epoch ended on 25 August 2025. Re-derived on-chain on 30 September 2026 (getAccountInfo, slot 451790000) against the three ProtocolConfig accounts in sdk/contract/addresses.md: v1 Community 42mepa9xLCtuerAEnnDY43KLRN5dgkrkKvoCT6nDZsyj create_pool_fee 0, protocol brackets of 1% (buy/sell value 100) up to a 99,999 market-cap bound then 0.25% (25), creator 0.1% (10); v2 Creator KpXrCt3pjJYFind2kgk7nQ3dS6bqjC2Ze3zzE5MQ78v 1% then 0.5% (100, then 50), creator 1% (100); v3 Pro Pool HtYH4a2q1PXPErgNxVPTmoTKbE2Y7cpSQVDAEbQqgKCm a flat 0.3% (30), which sdk/contract/accounts.md also states for any market cap. Bracket values are basis points over 10,000. The creator-fee protocol-cut brackets still decode to zero on all three. The published rates match the chain to the basis point, as in August.Heaven — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDHeaven — 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 Heaven: 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 78, #5 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:heaven_xyz:2026.10.18:f28b4b445d40
Are you Heaven? 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.