Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Launchpads
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- legion.cc
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 73 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Legion
Reputation-scored token sale platform
Token Launchpads
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 9 token launchpads in the published ranking
73
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Legion right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Allocation rules and named exclusions7/10; the category best is 8
- Upfront sale and unlock terms9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published launch track record1/10 here; Binance Launchpool scores 4
- Published cost to participate4/10 here; Fjord Foundry scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: United States, United Kingdom.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best token launchpad shows where it lands for you.
What will Legion cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Legion?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
- On the registersMiCA: authorised, Legion Malta Limited (MT, since 2026-06-23). Read 3 November 2026. Open the register
Alternatives to Legion
Compare all 4- 3Fjord Foundry3 points above · stronger on cost to participate (9 against 4)76
- 5Binance Launchpool1 point below · stronger on published track record (4 against 1)72
- 6CoinList3 points below · stronger on published track record (2 against 1)70
For your setup
Find out if Legion fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Legion 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 launchpadNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Legion ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.0 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
351+1.122.05#6/9Loading evidence…
257+5.606.08#2/9Loading evidence…
204+2.565.09#6/9Loading evidence…
209+5.766.09#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Fjord Foundry, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 70–75 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 Legion’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 launch track record 1 → 3 on its ladder · passes Fjord Foundry+277#4 → #3
Allocation rules and named exclusions 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Fjord Foundry+377#4 → #3
Published cost to participate 4 → 8 on its ladder · passes Fjord Foundry+478#4 → #3
Published launch track record 1 → 0 on its ladder · Binance Launchpool passes it−170#4 → #5
Allocation rules and named exclusions 7 → 6 on its ladder · Binance Launchpool passes it−171#4 → #5
Published cost to participate 4 → 3 on its ladder · Binance Launchpool passes it−172#4 → #5
Smallest climb: published launch track record 1 → 3 passes Fjord Foundry, #3.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Allocation rules and named exclusions — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Upfront sale and unlock terms — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published launch track record — 1/10 against a category best of 5/10
- Published cost to participate — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The sale-level disclosure is the best in the category and the platform-level track record is the worst: the ATH ROI figure Legion advertises on its own front page reads +0% on all six sale cards, one card shows a sale that took $10,000 against a $500,000 target while displaying +10% oversubscription, and the two Giza cards report different committed funds.
Competitive position
Where Legion 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#4 / 911.3 of 30 · best 13.3
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 Legion leads
- Allocation rules and named exclusions#2 / 9
- Upfront sale and unlock terms#1 / 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.
Binance Launchpool#5 of 9 · score 72 · 1.0 point behind
Legion leads on
- Allocation rules and named exclusions7 vs 3
- Upfront sale and unlock terms9 vs 5
Binance Launchpool leads on
- Published launch track record4 vs 1
- Published cost to participate7 vs 4
Largest single reason Legion is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Binance Launchpool has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fjord Foundry#3 of 9 · score 76 · 3.0 points ahead
Legion leads on
- Upfront sale and unlock terms9 vs 7
Fjord Foundry leads on
- Published cost to participate9 vs 4
Largest single reason Fjord Foundry is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Fjord Foundry has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CoinList#6 of 9 · score 70 · 3.0 points behind
Legion leads on
- Allocation rules and named exclusions7 vs 6
- Published cost to participate4 vs 2
- Upfront sale and unlock terms9 vs 8
CoinList leads on
- Published launch track record2 vs 1
Largest single reason Legion is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: CoinList has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
78 vs 73 · gap 5.0Why DAO Maker ranks above Legion
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 5.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisDAO MakerGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.313.3−5.2, 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 criterionThisDAO MakerPoints
Published launch track record · w3515−4.48, worse
Allocation rules and named exclusions · w2574+2.40, better
Published cost to participate · w2048−2.56, worse
Upfront sale and unlock terms · w2096+1.92, better
Net7378−5.0
Your scenario
Legion 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 27 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 27 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 27 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published launch track recordstrength 1 · weight 35Report an error—27 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.Allocation rules and named exclusionsstrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—27 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.Published cost to participatestrength 4 · weight 20Report an error—27 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.Upfront sale and unlock termsstrength 9 · weight 20Report an error—27 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
- Regulatory failure (Legion 7/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Allocation rules and named exclusions · 25%
- Exit failure (Legion 9/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Upfront sale and unlock terms · 20%
- Information failure (Legion 1/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Published launch track record · 35%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Execution 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: Published cost to participate (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "Raise Valuation: $130,000,000", "Raise Target: $4,000,000", "Raise Hardcap: $6,500,000", "Minimum Allocation: $100", "Maximum Allocation: $250,000" and "Allocation limits are enforced per investor" — Solstice Finance public sale overview (Legion Help Center, dated "December 19, 2025"), fetched 27 September 2026; the same page states "50% of tokens unlock at TGE" and "Remaining 50% vest linearly over 3 months". That sale ran in December 2025. Legion's next sale, Jumper ($JUMP), opens 29 September 2026 according to its own help article, which publishes a raise target, hard cap and vesting schedule but, as of 27 September 2026, no token price or valuation. No platform fee, participation fee or issuer fee appears on any Legion page read on 27 September 2026, including the Launchpad Service Terms PDF; the only cost named to a buyer is network gas.Legion — official pricing page ↗ · 27 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDLegion — official pricing page ↗ · 27 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
- United States, United Kingdom
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Legion's eligibility article says exclusions "typically include" the United States ("unless you are a US accredited investor"), the United Kingdom, OFAC-sanctioned regions and named regions of Ukraine, and that "The specific exclusion list may vary depending on the sale". Its two most recent sales, Squid and Jumper, also excluded residents of the United Arab Emirates (read 27 September 2026). Eligibility is by country of residence, not citizenship.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Legion: 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
- 27 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 73, #4 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 launchpads:legion:2026.10.18:ab1ed3de96c2
Are you Legion? 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.