Provider at a glance
- Category
- Staking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- luganodes.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 76 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Luganodes
Institutional validator operator
Staking
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 staking in the published ranking
76
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $80 commission/yr
Is Luganodes right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Slashing cover9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Rate transparency5/10 here; Chorus One scores 7
- Lock-up disclosure3/10 here; Kiln scores 8
- Voting from custody6/10 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 Luganodes cost you?
$80 commission/yr
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
- Commission on rewards
- 5%
How safe is Luganodes?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Luganodes
Compare all 4- 1Kiln3 points above · stronger on lock-up disclosure (8 against 3)79
- 3Chorus One3 points below · stronger on voting from custody (9 against 6)73
- 4Figment4 points below · stronger on lock-up disclosure (6 against 3)72
For your setup
Find out if Luganodes fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Luganodes 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 this rank
Why Luganodes ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (19.6 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
349+9.793.09#1/7Loading evidence…
223+2.116.08#7/7Loading evidence…
245+3.846.07#5/7Loading evidence…
206+3.846.09#3/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Kiln, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 74–78 and stays #2
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 Luganodes’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.
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Kiln+380#2 → #1
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes Kiln+380#2 → #1
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Kiln+380#2 → #1
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? 9 → 7 on its ladder · Chorus One passes it−272#2 → #4
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? 3 → 0 on its ladder · Chorus One passes it−372#2 → #4
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? 5 → 2 on its ladder · Chorus One passes it−371#2 → #4
Smallest climb: “How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?” 3 → 6 passes Kiln, #1.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? — 5/10 against a category best of 7/10
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Read the Terms of Service before you read anything else, because it contradicts three things the marketing says. (1) The company you would contract with is not the Swiss one on the homepage: https://luganodes.com/terms-of-service opens "These Terms of Service for Boldfit Tech Solutions Ltd. ("Terms") regulate the services provided by Luganodes, a private limited company based in Cayman Islands ("Luganodes")", while https://luganodes.com/faq/ lists "Headquarters Switzerland (Lugano Plan ₿)" and /network/ethereum calls the operation "Swiss-operated"; the Terms then pick Swiss law (8.1, "These Terms are regulated by and construed in line with Swiss substantive law") and assign jurisdiction to "the regular courts of Luganodes" (8.2), which is not a court — Luganodes is the counterparty's own trading name, not a place. (2) The insurance that makes this the strongest indemnity disclosure in the category is nowhere in the contract. The words Chainproof and insurance appear zero times in the Terms; section 4 expressly excludes "slashing penalties" from Luganodes' responsibility, and section 5 caps total liability at "the portion of Service Fees received by Luganodes" from your delegation. The insurer is real and licensed — Chainproof Digital Asset Insurance Ltd appears on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own regulated-entities register as sector Insurance, Class IIGB — but Chainproof describes its slashing product as "First-party indemnification for validators and institutional stakers", publishes no limit ("meaningful policy limits", "All policies are bespoke"), and does not name Luganodes anywhere on its site. So get the policy number, the limit, and written confirmation that YOU are the beneficiary rather than the validator. (3) Section 6 states the Service Fee "is also available on the Luganodes website" — it is not, for any network except TRON, Sui and, on a Hyperliquid page new since August, Hyperliquid ("3.00%" on 2026-09-28). Ask for your commission per network and your Ethereum exit-queue expectation in the contract; neither is published.
Competitive position
Where Luganodes 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#2 / 714.7 of 30 · best 15.9
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 Luganodes leads
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?#1 / 7
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?#3 / 7
Where it trails
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?#7 / 7
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?#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.
Kiln#1 of 7 · score 79 · 3.0 points ahead
Luganodes leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?9 vs 6
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
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 · 3.0 points behind
Luganodes leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?9 vs 3
Chorus One leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?5 vs 3
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?7 vs 5
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?9 vs 6
Largest single reason Luganodes is ahead: published criteria (+3.4 display points).Scenario cost: Chorus One has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Figment#4 of 7 · score 72 · 4.0 points behind
Luganodes leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?9 vs 5
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?6 vs 5
Figment leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?6 vs 3
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Luganodes is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Figment has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 76 · gap 3.0Why Kiln ranks above Luganodes
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 3.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisKilnGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.715.9−3.1, 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 criterionThisKilnPoints
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · w3496+3.26, better
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · w2238−3.52, worse
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · w2456−0.77, worse
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · w2067−0.64, worse
Net7679−3.0
Your scenario
What Luganodes costs on your 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%
Commission on rewards · published rate5%
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.
$80
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 #2 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 9 · 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 3 · 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 5 · 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 6 · 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 (Luganodes 6/10): 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 (Luganodes 9/10): 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 (Luganodes 3/10): 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
- Luganodes' TRON network page (https://
luganodes .com /network /tron /, fetched 28 September 2026) answers "What APR can I earn staking TRX with Luganodes?" with: "Luganodes returns 95% of staking rewards to voters at a 5% commission, currently a 3.21% APR. TRON yield comes from block production and voting rewards rather than a fixed rate, so it moves with network conditions. Among institutional TRON staking providers, Luganodes sits at the top of the cohort on both reward share and yield. Last updated: June 2026." The same page's header block reads "5% Flat Commission" and "~3.2% APR". That is the TRON Super Representative rate only. Luganodes prints a rate for just two other networks (Sui on its network directory, Hyperliquid on its new Hyperliquid page); its Ethereum and staking-product pages print no fee, and its Terms say the Service Fee is recorded on-chain and "also available on the Luganodes website".Luganodes — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDLuganodes — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Solana, Tron, Sui, Hyperliquid, Aptos, Avail, Avalanche, Babylon, Canton, Cardano, Chainlink, Chiliz, Concordium, Covalent, EigenLayer, Energy Web, Espresso, Ether.fi, Flare, Grass, IOTA, Kava, Kelp DAO, LayerZero, Lumera, Monad, NEAR, Plasma, Polkadot, Polygon, Renzo, SSV, SatLayer, Somnia, Stable, Starknet, Story Protocol, Tempo, Treehouse Labs, Vana, WalletConnect, Walrus, Zama, Zilliqa, dYdX
- 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 Luganodes: 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 76, #2 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:luganodes:2026.10.18:03cb591b310e
Are you Luganodes? 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.