Provider at a glance
- Category
- Staking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- kiln.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Kiln
White-label staking infrastructure
Staking
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 staking in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Kiln right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Rate transparency6/10; the category best is 7
- Lock-up disclosure8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Slashing cover6/10 here; Luganodes scores 9
- Voting from custody7/10 here; Chorus One 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 crypto staking platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Kiln cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Kiln?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Kiln
Compare all 4- 2Luganodes3 points below · stronger on slashing cover (9 against 6)76$80
- 3Chorus One6 points below · stronger on voting from custody (9 against 7)73
- 4Figment7 points below · weaker on lock-up disclosure (6 against 8)72
For your setup
Find out if Kiln fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Kiln 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 crypto staking platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Kiln 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 (21.2 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
346+6.533.09#2/7Loading evidence…
228+5.636.08#1/7Loading evidence…
246+4.616.07#3/7Loading evidence…
207+4.486.09#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+3over Luganodes, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–80 and stays #1
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 Kiln’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.
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? 6 → 4 on its ladder · Luganodes passes it−278#1 → #2
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? 8 → 5 on its ladder · Luganodes passes it−378#1 → #2
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? 6 → 3 on its ladder · Luganodes passes it−378#1 → #2
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? — 6/10, category best 7/10
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Read all three parts of the September 2025 breach disclosure before you sign, and then ask for the base slashing coverage limit in writing. Kiln itself names the victim. (1) https://www.kiln.fi/post/sol-incident-swissborg---announcement, September 8, 2025: "SwissBorg and Kiln are investigating an incident that may have involved unauthorized access to a wallet used for staking operations... The incident resulted in Solana funds being improperly removed from the wallet used for staking operations." (2) https://www.kiln.fi/kiln-responds-tot-infrastructure-issue-with-validator-exit-funds-remain-protected, "PARIS, FRANCE — September 9, 2025": "Kiln today began the orderly exit of all of its Ethereum (ETH) validators", and "The exit process is expected to take between 10 and 30 days depending on the validator" — an operator-side security event that put every ETH client's principal into a multi-week forced exit, which no unbonding table warns you about. (3) The post-mortem at https://www.kiln.fi/post/re-enablement-of-kiln-services-and-security-incident-information, October 7, 2025: a threat actor compromised "a GitHub access token belonging to a Kiln infrastructure engineer", harvested cloud credentials via CI workflows, and "modified the Kiln Connect API backend controller to return a malicious transaction, which one Kiln enterprise customer signed in their custody solution, causing a loss of funds." The malicious transaction "changed the withdrawal authority of the Solana stakes, only if the existing withdrawal authority of the stake account provided in the POST call held stake balances above 150k SOL" — targeted at the largest clients, and the customer's own quorum approved it inside their custody instance. NOTE THE DIVERGENT ATTRIBUTION, which is the single most useful thing here: Kiln places the mitigation duty on the client — "Kiln has consistently recommended that customers decode transactions to verify their integrity before signing", and "Signing and broadcasting a transaction without decoding may result in a loss of authority over stake accounts, as occurred in this case" — while SwissBorg's own primary statement (https://swissborg.com/blog/swissborg-security-update-kiln-breach) puts it on Kiln: "the tampering of the transaction happened within Kiln's infrastructure", and states "no breach occurred within SwissBorg's infrastructure", quantifying the loss at "over 192,000 SOL". The lesson for this category is precise: non-custody protected the keys but not the client, because the attack came through the transaction the operator constructed, and it was not a slashing event — so the Chainproof base layer, whose size Kiln has never published, would not obviously have answered it. Ask for the base coverage limit, what perils it covers beyond slashing, and whether the operator or the client bears an API-origin malicious-transaction loss. Get it in the contract; Kiln's own institutional docs tell you to, saying "For more details and Kiln's coverage please read our T&Cs or the Order Form you have signed with Kiln."
Competitive position
Where Kiln 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 / 715.9 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 Kiln leads
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?#2 / 7
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?#1 / 7
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?#3 / 7
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?#2 / 7
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.
Luganodes#2 of 7 · score 76 · 3.0 points behind
Kiln leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?8 vs 3
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?6 vs 5
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?7 vs 6
Luganodes leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?9 vs 6
Largest single reason Kiln is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: Kiln has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Chorus One#3 of 7 · score 73 · 6.0 points behind
Kiln leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?6 vs 3
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?8 vs 5
Chorus One leads on
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?7 vs 6
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?9 vs 7
Largest single reason Kiln is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Chorus One has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Figment#4 of 7 · score 72 · 7.0 points behind
Kiln leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?6 vs 5
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?8 vs 6
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?7 vs 5
Figment leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Kiln is ahead: published criteria (+7.3 display points).Scenario cost: Figment has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
79 vs 76 · gap 3.0Why Kiln ranks above Luganodes
DimensionThisLuganodesGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.914.7+3.1, 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 criterionThisLuganodesPoints
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · w3469−3.26, worse
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · w2283+3.52, better
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · w2465+0.77, better
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · w2076+0.64, better
Net7976+3.0
Your scenario
Kiln 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 median and cheapestNot statedOnly 1 of 7 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
6 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 across every one-point re-run
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
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?strength 6 · weight 34Report 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 long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?strength 8 · weight 22Report 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.Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?strength 6 · 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.Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?strength 7 · 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
- Control failure (Kiln 7/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · 20%
- Insolvency failure (Kiln 6/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · 34%
- Exit failure (Kiln 8/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · 22%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Information 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: Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Kiln validator docs page "Solana (SOL)" (https://
docs .kiln .fi /v1 /kiln-products /validators /protocols /solana-sol, fetched 28 September 2026), Mainnet table with columns Name | Commission | MEV commission | Address: Kiln1 — "5%" commission, "100% (offchain rebates & compounding)" MEV commission, vote account DdCNGDpP7qMgoAy6paFzhhak2EeyCZcgjH7ak5u5v28m; Kiln2 — "7%" commission, "7%" MEV commission, vote account HCvnhbT3Sn5RsueDisWzzn5FkW8tAqoQK1dr7cvAVzin. The same page adds: "Each validator commission rate is public and the same for all funds on a given validator. The validator takes its commission automatically when rewards are generated. Your staking rewards are distributed net of the validator commission." These are Solana validator rates only. Of the 26 validator protocol pages Kiln documents, only this page and the NEAR page print a commission figure, https:// www .kiln .fi /pricing returns 404, and no institutional contract rate is published.Kiln — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDKiln — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos Hub, Polygon, Cardano, Celestia, Sui, Tezos, Near, Injective, Avalanche, Aptos, Algorand, Babylon, Bitcoin, Canton, Core, Cronos, dYdX, Fetch.ai, Flare, Hyperliquid (delegated to partner IMC's validators), IOTA, Lombard, Monad, Osmosis, Sei, TON (labelled "Gram (prev. Toncoin)" on Kiln's own homepage), Tron, XDC
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- https://
www .kiln .fi /blocked-countries (page is self-dated "February 2024") states, re-fetched and character-exact on 2026-08-16: "Please note that residents of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk region of Ukraine, Cuba, Syria, Iran, and Sudan, along with any other jurisdiction where accessing this interface is prohibited by law, are not permitted to use this service." That is a sanctions exclusion list, not a positive licensing perimeter — Kiln publishes no jurisdictional authorisation anywhere, and none is asserted here.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Kiln: 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 79, #1 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 11 October 2026
2026.10.9No live feed or market rate moves a score- fixed Lending and borrowing: the borrow rate leaves the fee term, which now scores every protocol alike, so the category ranks on its four published criteria. Venus, first on those criteria, moves from #7 to #1; Spark stays #2; Morpho moves from #1 to #3 and Compound from #8 to #6.
- fixed Exchanges: the fee term reads each exchange's taker fee from the catalog instead of a table dated 1 April. Kraken (0.80 %) moves from #6 to #9 and Gemini (1.20 %) from #10 to #11; Coinbase, Luno, Bitvavo and VALR each move up one place, and Bybit stays #1.
- removed Staking: a yield no longer stands in for a staking provider's missing commission. No published score moves.
- added /methodology/live-data publishes which numbers may move a score; on every build a test fills each live feed with extreme values and fails if a single score moves.
- 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 staking:kiln:2026.10.18:03cb591b310e
Are you Kiln? 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.