Provider at a glance
- Category
- Structured Products
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- app.ithacaprotocol.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 69 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Ithaca Protocol
Auction-matched structured options
Structured Products
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 7 structured products in the published ranking
69
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Ithaca Protocol right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Counterparty backing the payoff8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Payoff defined in a readable contract7/10 here; the category best is 9
- Fee embedded in the quote7/10 here; Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB) scores 8
- Settlement and early exit terms5/10 here; Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB) scores 8
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 structured product shows where it lands for you.
What will Ithaca Protocol cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Ithaca Protocol?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Ithaca Protocol
Compare all 4- 2Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB)1 point above · stronger on settlement and exit (8 against 5)70
- 4Aevo PERPS+2 points below · stronger on settlement and exit (7 against 5)67
- 5Tranchess Turbo and Stable11 points below · stronger on settlement and exit (6 against 5)58
For your setup
Find out if Ithaca 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 Ithaca 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 structured productNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Ithaca Protocol ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (22.1 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
307+6.727.09#2/7Loading evidence…
288+7.176.09#2/7Loading evidence…
247+5.387.010#3/7Loading evidence…
185+2.886.08#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB), #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 67–71 and ranks #2–#4
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 Ithaca 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.
Payoff defined in a readable contract 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB)+171#3 → #2
Counterparty backing the payoff 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB)+171#3 → #2
Fee embedded in the quote 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB)+170#3 → #2
Settlement and early exit terms 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB)+271#3 → #2
Payoff defined in a readable contract 7 → 6 on its ladder · Aevo PERPS+ passes it−167#3 → #4
Counterparty backing the payoff 8 → 7 on its ladder · Aevo PERPS+ passes it−167#3 → #4
Fee embedded in the quote 7 → 6 on its ladder · Aevo PERPS+ passes it−167#3 → #4
Smallest climb: payoff defined in a readable contract 7 → 8 passes Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB), #2.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Counterparty backing the payoff — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Payoff defined in a readable contract — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Fee embedded in the quote — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Settlement and early exit terms — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- The design is the best documented in the category and the venue appears dormant. The app the docs point to has been repurposed — https://app.ithacaprotocol.io/ is now titled "AI Trading Agents | Systematic Crypto Trading | Ithaca Protocol" with an og:description about "AI trading agents" and no mention of the barrier or twin-win Stories the documentation still describes, while https://ithacaprotocol.io/ still carries the old title "Ithaca Non-Custodial, Composable Option Protocol". At Arbitrum block 492159083 on 2026-08-07 FundLock 0x4a20d341315b8ead4e5ebecc65d95080a47a7316 held 0 native USDC (0xaf88d065e77c8cC2239327C5EDb3A432268e5831), 0 USDC.e and 2021284119006577467 wei of WETH, i.e. 2.021284119006577467 WETH — that is the entire collateral pool. DefiLlama's protocol registry (api.llama.fi/protocols) lists Ithaca Protocol at $13,548.86 on the same date.
Competitive position
Where Ithaca 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#3 / 716.6 of 30 · best 21.7
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 Ithaca Protocol leads
- Payoff defined in a readable contract#2 / 7
- Counterparty backing the payoff#2 / 7
- Fee embedded in the quote#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Settlement and early exit terms#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.
Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB)#2 of 7 · score 70 · 1.0 point ahead
Ithaca Protocol leads on
- Counterparty backing the payoff8 vs 6
Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB) leads on
- Fee embedded in the quote8 vs 7
- Settlement and early exit terms8 vs 5
Largest single reason Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB) is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Aevo PERPS+#4 of 7 · score 67 · 2.0 points behind
Ithaca Protocol leads on
- Counterparty backing the payoff8 vs 6
Aevo PERPS+ leads on
- Settlement and early exit terms7 vs 5
Largest single reason Ithaca Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Aevo PERPS+ has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Tranchess Turbo and Stable#5 of 7 · score 58 · 11.0 points behind
Ithaca Protocol leads on
- Counterparty backing the payoff8 vs 4
- Fee embedded in the quote7 vs 4
Tranchess Turbo and Stable leads on
- Settlement and early exit terms6 vs 5
Largest single reason Ithaca Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+10.4 display points).Scenario cost: Tranchess Turbo and Stable has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 69 · gap 13.0Why SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) ranks above Ithaca Protocol
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 13.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSOFA.org (Earn and Surge)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.621.7−13.3, 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 criterionThisSOFA.org (Earn and Surge)Points
Payoff defined in a readable contract · w3079−1.92, worse
Counterparty backing the payoff · w2889−0.90, worse
Fee embedded in the quote · w24710−2.30, worse
Settlement and early exit terms · w1858−1.73, worse
Net6982−13.0
Your scenario
Ithaca 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 #2 to #4 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
Payoff defined in a readable contractstrength 7 · weight 30Report 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.Counterparty backing the payoffstrength 8 · weight 28Report 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 embedded in the quotestrength 7 · 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.Settlement and early exit termsstrength 5 · 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
- Insolvency failure (Ithaca Protocol 8/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Counterparty backing the payoff · 28%
- Exit failure (Ithaca Protocol 5/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Settlement and early exit terms · 18%
- Information failure (Ithaca Protocol 7/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Payoff defined in a readable contract · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Custody failure, Regulatory 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 embedded in the quote (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Fees page (docs.ithacaprotocol.io/docs/ecosystem/fees.md), fetched 28 September 2026, unchanged since 2026-08-07: "Forward fee: 0.01% of notional", "Option fee: 0.04% of notional" and "Digital Option fee: 1% of notional". Multi-leg conditional orders get "Discount parameter 1 (d1): 80%" and "Discount parameter 2 (d2): 5%", and "Fees are capped at 12.5% of option premia and 25% of digital option premia." The notional "is based on the median strike offered by the protocol at relevant expiry". The rates are applied in the off-chain auction and cannot be confirmed onchain: the verified source of the Ledger implementation contains no fee logic. On 28 September 2026 the app the docs link to (app.ithacaprotocol.io) opened on an AI trading-agents product, and no structured-product order screen could be read.Ithaca Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDIthaca Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Arbitrum
- 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 Ithaca 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.
9 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 69, #3 of 7. 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 structured_products:ithaca_protocol:2026.10.18:38f659af760f
Are you Ithaca 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.