Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquidity Management
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- ichi.org
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 64 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
ICHI
Single-sided liquidity vaults
Liquidity Management
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 8 liquidity management in the published ranking
64
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $50 commission/yr
Is ICHI right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Fee stack read on chain8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published return versus holding2/10 here; Kamino Liquidity scores 7
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority5/10 here; Kodiak Islands scores 8
- Manager audit and exploit record5/10 here; Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) 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 liquidity manager shows where it lands for you.
What will ICHI cost you?
$50 commission/yr
- Your position
- $10k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
- Performance fee on earnings
- 10%
Level with the median of 3 priced liquidity management.
How this is calculatedHow safe is ICHI?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to ICHI
Compare all 4- 4Kamino Liquidity5 points above · stronger on return versus hold disclosure (7 against 2)69
- 6Kodiak IslandsLevel on score · stronger on rebalance control (8 against 5)64$50
- 7Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)Level on score · stronger on manager audit record (9 against 5)64
For your setup
Find out if ICHI fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where ICHI 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 liquidity managerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why ICHI 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 (14.1 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
402+2.563.59#5/8Loading evidence…
205+3.205.08#3/8Loading evidence…
208+5.123.09#2/8Loading evidence…
205+3.207.59#6/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind Kamino Liquidity, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 61–66 and ranks #5–#7
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 ICHI’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.
Published return versus holding 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Kamino Liquidity+269#5 → #4
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Kamino Liquidity+469#5 → #4
Manager audit and exploit record 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Kamino Liquidity+469#5 → #4
Published return versus holding 2 → 1 on its ladder · Kodiak Islands passes it−161#5 → #7
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority 5 → 4 on its ladder · Kodiak Islands passes it−163#5 → #7
Fee stack read on chain 8 → 7 on its ladder · Kodiak Islands passes it−163#5 → #7
Smallest climb: published return versus holding 2 → 4 passes Kamino Liquidity, #4.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Fee stack read on chain — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published return versus holding — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Manager audit and exploit record — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- ICHI's distinguishing feature is the single-sided deposit, and that is the feature a competitor names as a security hazard. Gamma's security FAQ states that "Single-sided deposits have a reputation for being unsafe. They're prone to oracle manipulation", and deposit-price manipulation is precisely what caused the two large losses in this category. Note also the collapse in scale: DefiLlama put ICHI at $6,928,188 across 27 chains on 2026-08-11, while its two pools in DefiLlama's yields index held $49,493 between them.
Competitive position
Where ICHI 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 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#5 / 810.6 of 30 · best 16.8
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where ICHI leads
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority#3 / 8
- Fee stack read on chain#2 / 8
Where it trails
- Manager audit and exploit record#6 / 8
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.
Kodiak Islands#6 of 8 · score 64 · same score
ICHI leads on
- Fee stack read on chain8 vs 2
Kodiak Islands leads on
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority8 vs 5
- Manager audit and exploit record8 vs 5
Scenario cost: Kodiak Islands is the same.
Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular)#7 of 8 · score 64 · same score
ICHI leads on
- Fee stack read on chain8 vs 2
Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) leads on
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority7 vs 5
- Manager audit and exploit record9 vs 5
Scenario cost: Arrakis (Arrakis Pro on Arrakis Modular) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Kamino Liquidity#4 of 8 · score 69 · 5.0 points ahead
ICHI leads on
- Fee stack read on chain8 vs 2
Kamino Liquidity leads on
- Published return versus holding7 vs 2
Largest single reason Kamino Liquidity is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Kamino Liquidity has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 64 · gap 16.0Why Charm Alpha Vaults ranks above ICHI
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 16.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCharm Alpha VaultsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.616.8−16.1, 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 criterionThisCharm Alpha VaultsPoints
Published return versus holding · w4029−8.96, worse
Fee stack read on chain · w2084+2.56, better
Manager audit and exploit record · w2058−1.92, worse
Net6480−16.0
Your scenario
What ICHI costs on your scenario
The manager's cut of the swap fees your position earns — not a trade fee, and not a charge on the deposit. Expected 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 position · your input$10k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Performance fee on earnings · published rate10%
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.
$50
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$503 of 8 rows priced · ICHI at the median
Cheapest priced$50 · Kodiak IslandsICHI costs the same · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Kodiak Islands
5 of 8 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 #5 to #7 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
Published return versus holdingstrength 2 · weight 40Report 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.Rebalancing policy and trigger authoritystrength 5 · weight 20Report 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.Fee stack read on chainstrength 8 · weight 20Report 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.Manager audit and exploit recordstrength 5 · weight 20Report 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
- Contract failure (ICHI 5/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Manager audit and exploit record · 20%
- Control failure (ICHI 5/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Rebalancing policy and trigger authority · 20%
- Information failure (ICHI 2/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Published return versus holding · 40%
Not assessed by this ranking: 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: Fee stack read on chain (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "By default, a 10% performance fee is applied to all vaults deployed using ICHI smart contracts. This fee is automatically taken from the swap fees generated within the vault." Re-fetched 28 September 2026 from docs.ichi.org/home/protocol-fees.md (HTTP 200); on the page "10% performance fee" is set in bold. Its worked example: of "$100 in fees", "$90" are auto-compounded back into the LP position and "$10" are routed to the ICHI protocol. The same page adds "Custom fee structures may be available for enterprise or partner deployments." The 10% was confirmed against the deployed factory on 2026-09-28: the ICHI Uniswap v3 vault factory 0xaBe5B5AC472Ead17B4B4CaC7fAF42430748ab3b3 on Base (block 51898492), the address ICHI publishes for Uniswap v3 on Base, returned baseFee() = 100000000000000000 on a 1e18 scale (worked example: 0.1 = 10%), with ammFee() = 0 and baseFeeSplit() = 0. See the fee criterion.ICHI — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDICHI — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Base, Ethereum, BNB Chain, Sonic, Flare, Hedera
- 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 ICHI: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 64, #5 of 8. 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 liquidity_management:ichi:2026.10.18:d0bc585ae0ff
Are you ICHI? 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.