Provider at a glance
- Category
- Incentive Distribution
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.layer3.xyz
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 57 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Layer3
No-code campaign builder with onchain escrow
Incentive Distribution
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 9 incentive distribution in the published ranking
57
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Layer3 right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?2/10 here; Hedgey scores 6
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?5/10 here; Hedgey scores 8
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?6/10 here; Galxe Quest / Business+ scores 7
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?6/10 here; Hedgey scores 7
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 incentive distribution platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Layer3 cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Layer3?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Layer3
Compare all 4- 5Hedgey12 points above · stronger on recomputable allocation (6 against 2)69
- 6Galxe Quest / Business+2 points above · stronger on incident and operator record (7 against 6)59
- 8Zealy6 points below · weaker on recomputable allocation (1 against 2)51
For your setup
Find out if Layer3 fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Layer3 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 incentive distribution platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Layer3 ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (14.5 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
302+1.926.09#6/9Loading evidence…
285+4.487.010#7/9Loading evidence…
226+4.226.08#4/9Loading evidence…
206+3.847.08#6/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Galxe Quest / Business+, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 56–59 and ranks #6–#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 Layer3’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 someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Galxe Quest / Business++159#7 → #6
Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Galxe Quest / Business++159#7 → #6
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Galxe Quest / Business++260#7 → #6
What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Galxe Quest / Business++260#7 → #6
Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? 5 → 1 on its ladder · Zealy passes it−451#7 → #8
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? 6 → 1 on its ladder · Zealy passes it−551#7 → #8
What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? 6 → 0 on its ladder · Zealy passes it−650#7 → #8
Smallest climb: “If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?” 2 → 3 passes Galxe Quest / Business+, #6.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Layer3's cut is a rake deducted from each recipient's reward — not a line item added to your invoice — and Layer3 sets the rate itself, per mint, in the EIP-712 payload its signer signs. The escrow contract accepts any rakeBps up to MAX_BPS = 10_000, i.e. 100%, and Layer3 publishes no rate on any page that could be read on 2026-09-28: not on a pricing page (layer3.xyz/pricing now 301s to app.layer3.xyz/pricing, which answered HTTP 403 behind a bot-verification wall, so any rate there is unverified), not in the Token Reward Configuration guide, not in Creator Rewards. So a budget-holder who funds 42,000 DEGEN for 1,000 participants — Layer3's own worked example — cannot establish from any published source how much of it reaches participants. Compounding it: recovering whatever is left is not the buyer's decision. Factory.sol will only release unclaimed funds once 'quest is inactive', and unpublishQuest is onlyRole(SIGNER_ROLE) — Layer3's. The same DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE can withdraw your escrow to an address of its choosing. All three facts are disclosed, honestly and in source, in a repository only the Foundation site links; none of them appear anywhere on the Builder documentation the buyer is actually sold.
Competitive position
Where Layer3 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#7 / 910.8 of 30 · best 19.9
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 Layer3 leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?#7 / 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.
Galxe Quest / Business+#6 of 9 · score 59 · 2.0 points ahead
Layer3 leads onNo scored criterion
Galxe Quest / Business+ leads on
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?7 vs 6
Largest single reason Galxe Quest / Business+ is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Galxe Quest / Business+ has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Zealy#8 of 9 · score 51 · 6.0 points behind
Layer3 leads on
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?2 vs 1
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?5 vs 4
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?6 vs 5
Zealy leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Layer3 is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Zealy has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Hedgey#5 of 9 · score 69 · 12.0 points ahead
Layer3 leads on
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?6 vs 4
Hedgey leads on
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?6 vs 2
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?8 vs 5
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?7 vs 6
Largest single reason Hedgey is ahead: published criteria (+11.4 display points).Scenario cost: Hedgey has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 57 · gap 24.0Why Merkl (Angle Labs) ranks above Layer3
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 24.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisMerkl (Angle Labs)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.819.9−23.7, 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 criterionThisMerkl (Angle Labs)Points
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? · w3029−6.72, worse
Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? · w2858−2.69, worse
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? · w2268−1.41, worse
What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? · w2068−1.28, worse
Net5781−24.0
Your scenario
Layer3 is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. 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
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 October 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 17 August 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 #6 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 17 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?strength 2 · weight 30Report an error—17 August 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.Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?strength 5 · weight 28Report an error—17 August 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.What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?strength 6 · weight 22Report an error—17 August 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.What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?strength 6 · weight 20Report an error—17 August 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 (Layer3 6/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? · 22%
- Custody failure (Layer3 5/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? · 28%
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? · 30% (Layer3 2/10)Scored by What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? · 20% (Layer3 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- NO CURRENCY FIGURE IS PUBLISHED ON ANY LAYER3 PAGE THAT COULD BE READ ON 28 September 2026. Changed since 2026-08-17: https://
layer3 .xyz /pricing now answers "HTTP/2 301" with "location: https:// app .layer3 .xyz /pricing" (on 17 August 2026 it 307-redirected to '/'), and app.layer3.xyz/pricing returned HTTP 403 (Cloudflare 'Performing security verification') to curl, WebFetch and a headless-Chrome render — so whether that route now shows a price is UNVERIFIED, not absent. The only readable cost of admission to the Builder is a token lock of unstated size, from https:// layer3xyz .gitbook .io /layer 3-updated-docs /builder /getting-started /getting-started--unlock-your-community-space .md (fetched 28 September 2026): "To unlock your Community Space and start submitting Activations for review, you will need to stake the L3 token on Ethereum Mainnet for at least 12 months." with "Ethereum Token Contract: 0x88909D489678dD17aA6D9609F89B0419Bf78FD9a"; the getting-access page adds "Lock L3 to be able to submit activations for review". Neither page states how much L3. Gas, from the token-reward-configuration guide on layer3xyz.gitbook.io (28 September 2026; the docs.layer3.xyz copy now returns 403): "You do not need to spend any gas distributing token rewards through Layer3", "Layer3 covers the gas for escrow contract deployment and initialization", "Users pay gas for claiming their token rewards". The vendor's take is an unpublished rake coded in https:// raw .githubusercontent .com /layer3xyz /cubes /main /src /escrow /Escrow .sol (28 September 2026): "uint256 rake = (amount * rakeBps) / MAX_BPS;" and "_safeTransferERC20(token, to, amount - rake);" against "uint16 constant MAX_BPS = 10_000;" — the rate is a per-withdrawal parameter with no figure on any Layer3 page. Users also pay a CUBE fee shared with the creator: "CUBE fees are paid in ETH, USDC, L3 (or SOL on Solana)", "This fee is split between you (the Activation creator) and the Layer3 protocol.", "All Activation builders start at 0% fee-share." (core-concepts--creator-rewards.md, 28 September 2026) — again with no fee amount stated.Layer3 — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026 - Prices published in
- USDLayer3 — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, linea, bnb, unichain, ink, soneium, bob, superposition, berachain, superseed, mantle, flare, sonic, scroll, celo, etherlink, polygon-zkevm, mode, zora, metis, blast, gnosis, fuse, avalanche, xlayer, zetachain, taiko, immutable, cyber, redstone, fraxtal, lisk, zksync-era, zero, zkcandy, plume, hyperevm, mezo, solana
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- STANDARD OFAC/SANCTIONS REPRESENTATION, NOT A REGIONAL FOOTPRINT — plus one discretionary reservation and an offshore-operation disclosure. From https://
layer3 .xyz /terms-of-service (read 17 August 2026): 'In addition, the Site and Services are not available to individuals or entities in countries that are subject to U.S. government sanctions or embargoes imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or similar regulations. This includes, without limitation, individuals residing in, and entities incorporated or registered in, countries on the OFAC list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.' — an eligibility rule applying everywhere, not a market restriction. Two further clauses are NOT sanctions language but are still not a named-market restriction: 'The Site is operated from facilities outside of the United States. The Site may not be available or appropriate for use in certain jurisdictions as determined by us.' and 'The Site or the services made available through the Site may not be available to all users, and we reserve the right to assess or reassess at any time your eligibility to use all or part of our Site.' — an open-ended discretionary reservation with no country list. Governing law is offshore: 'This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Cayman Islands. Any and all disputes ... shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce.' No jurisdiction is named as blocked, so supportedRegions is global.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Layer3: 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
- 17 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 57, #7 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
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 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 incentive_distribution:layer3:2026.10.18:f89bd9058d07
Are you Layer3? 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.