Provider at a glance
- Category
- Fixed-Rate Yield
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- loopscale.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 72 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Loopscale
Fixed-rate credit order book on Solana
Fixed-Rate Yield
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 fixed-rate yield in the published ranking
72
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Loopscale right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9/10; the category best is 10
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What happens at maturity7/10 here; Exponent Yield Exchange scores 8
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it3/10 here; TermMax scores 6
- The price of leaving early6/10 here; Exponent Yield Exchange 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 fixed-rate yield protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will Loopscale cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Loopscale?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Loopscale
Compare all 4- 4Exponent Yield Exchange3 points above · stronger on early exit cost (8 against 6)75
- 6Spectra V21 point below · stronger on early exit cost (7 against 6)71
- 7TermMax2 points below · stronger on rate lock integrity (6 against 3)70
For your setup
Find out if Loopscale fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Loopscale 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 fixed-rate yield protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Loopscale 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 (19.5 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
327+7.178.010#5/7Loading evidence…
263+2.504.06#5/7Loading evidence…
246+4.617.09#5/7Loading evidence…
189+5.188.010#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Exponent Yield Exchange, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 70–74 and ranks #5–#6
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 Loopscale’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.
What happens at maturity 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Exponent Yield Exchange+276#5 → #3
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Exponent Yield Exchange+377#5 → #3
The price of leaving early 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Exponent Yield Exchange+377#5 → #3
What happens at maturity 7 → 6 on its ladder · Spectra V2 passes it−170#5 → #6
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it 3 → 1 on its ladder · Spectra V2 passes it−269#5 → #7
The price of leaving early 6 → 4 on its ladder · Spectra V2 passes it−269#5 → #7
Smallest climb: what happens at maturity 7 → 9 passes Exponent Yield Exchange, #4.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses — 9/10, category best 10/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What happens at maturity — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it — 3/10 against a category best of 6/10
- The price of leaving early — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Loopscale grew year on year to August but not since: DefiLlama's Solana series shows $44,440,348 on 2025-08-12 against $84,251,795 at 19:32 UTC on 2026-08-12 (+89.6% YoY) while Pendle fell 86%, and DefiLlama read $82,810,599 on 2026-09-28 (-1.7%), while Exactly Protocol's TVL doubled over the same weeks. But it peaked at $107,836,579 on 2026-01-29 and was 21.9% below that on 2026-08-12, and the protocol's own Q1 2026 recap (blog.loopscale.com/posts/q12026recap, dated May 2, 2026) claims "141M total deposits, 66M lending deposits" — a different accounting base to DefiLlama's, which could not be reconciled. Three structural cautions. First, the term book is thin, and much thinner than in August: on 2026-09-28 the public quote API returned 4 offers totalling 9,400.80 USDC against SOL collateral for the 1-day, 1-week and 1-month terms and a single 1,038.61 USDC offer at 3 months, against $1,018,515.75 at 1 day and $7,204.80 at 3 months on 2026-08-12 (permissioned vault strategies are hidden from that read). A loan that reaches its term rolls by default into a new 1-day fixed-rate term — "This process can repeat indefinitely" — which is closer to a variable rate reset daily than to a term instrument. Second, the mass-market product is a curated vault, not a term position: sold as "fixed-rate lending yield" (protocol-concepts/loopscale-vaults) but the depositor's rate is a curator-repriceable blend, and the curator's cut is bounded only at "configurable up to 100% of total interest generated". Third, and in Loopscale's favour, the loss-allocation and governance documentation is published: a named bad-debt waterfall, a 3/5 Squads multisig with its address printed, and an explicit rule that outstanding loans keep their original LTV, rate and oracle until rollover. That rule binds curators, not the code: the same 3/5 multisig can upgrade the Solana program that holds every open loan with no published timelock, and redeployed it on 2026-08-18 with loans open. Judge Loopscale as a fixed-term venue for someone who will place their own limit orders, not as a place to buy a locked 3-month rate at size.
Competitive position
Where Loopscale 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#5 / 714.6 of 30 · best 17.6
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 Loopscale leads
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses#2 / 7
Where it trails
- What happens at maturity#5 / 7
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it#5 / 7
- The price of leaving early#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.
Spectra V2#6 of 7 · score 71 · 1.0 point behind
Loopscale leads on
- What happens at maturity7 vs 6
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9 vs 8
Spectra V2 leads on
- The price of leaving early7 vs 6
Largest single reason Loopscale is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Spectra V2 has no verified pricing for this scenario.
TermMax#7 of 7 · score 70 · 2.0 points behind
Loopscale leads on
- What happens at maturity7 vs 6
- The price of leaving early6 vs 2
TermMax leads on
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it6 vs 3
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses10 vs 9
Largest single reason Loopscale is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: TermMax has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Exponent Yield Exchange#4 of 7 · score 75 · 3.0 points ahead
Loopscale leads on
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9 vs 6
Exponent Yield Exchange leads on
- What happens at maturity8 vs 7
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it4 vs 3
- The price of leaving early8 vs 6
Largest single reason Exponent Yield Exchange is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: Exponent Yield Exchange has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 72 · gap 8.0Why Exactly Protocol ranks above Loopscale
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 8.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisExactly ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.617.6−7.8, 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 criterionThisExactly ProtocolPoints
What happens at maturity · w3279−2.05, worse
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it · w2634−0.83, worse
The price of leaving early · w2469−2.30, worse
Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses · w1897+1.15, better
Net7280−8.0
Your scenario
Loopscale 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 #5 to #6 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
What happens at maturitystrength 7 · weight 32Report 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.Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change itstrength 3 · weight 26Report 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.The price of leaving earlystrength 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.Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy missesstrength 9 · 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
- Control failure (Loopscale 3/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it · 26%
- Insolvency failure (Loopscale 9/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses · 18%
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by What happens at maturity · 32% (Loopscale 7/10)Scored by The price of leaving early · 24% (Loopscale 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Loopscale publishes fee TYPES and one quantified ceiling, but no protocol-wide rate card. From docs.loopscale.com/partners/curators/curation, re-fetched 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200): "Origination Fee: A fixed, one-time fee proportional to principal size, applied only on new loan originations (not refinances)." and "Interest Fee: A variable share of accrued interest, configurable up to 100% of total interest generated." The same page bounds the idle buffer at "typically 2.5–7.5% of deposits". The depositor-facing Vaults page (docs.loopscale.com/protocol-concepts/loopscale-vaults, same date) says "Curators may further define the Vault's yield curve with fees charged to borrowers or suppliers and earned by the curator." and its Fees table lists "Origination Fees" ("One-time borrow fees defined as a percentage of principal") and "Interest Fees" ("Deposit fees defined as a percentage of interest earned"); it adds that "Other settings, such as APYs and origination fees, can be updated immediately." The vault exit fee stays unquantified: "If liquidity is low, you may choose between withdrawing immediately with a small fee or joining a withdrawal queue to exit once capital becomes available" (now on docs.loopscale.com/using-loopscale/lend/lend; the older using-loopscale/earn path returns 404). The liquidation fee is worked by example on using-loopscale/borrow/health-and-liquidations: "For example, if a loan has an 80% liquidation threshold and is liquidated at 80.5%, the fee charged would be 0.5%." No token to price it against: "No token or airdrop has been announced." (resources/faq). DefiLlama's fees API on 28 September 2026 returned total30d 288083 and total24h 9905 (USD) of fees against 0 revenue on every window, with its own note "No revenue from Loopscale Vaults" — DefiLlama's methodology, not Loopscale's statement.Loopscale — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDLoopscale — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Solana
- 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 Loopscale: 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 72, #5 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 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 fixed_rate_yield:loopscale:2026.10.18:a04e0c0443cf
Are you Loopscale? 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.