Provider at a glance
- Category
- Perp House Vaults
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.ostium.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 70 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Ostium OLP
Liquidity vault for Ostium
Perp House Vaults
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 9 perp house vaults in the published ranking
70
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Ostium OLP right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7/10; the category best is 8
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?8/10; the category best is 9
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?5/10 here; Avantis avUSDC scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Canada, Australia. Restricted: United States, United Kingdom, Philippines, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark….
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best perp house vault shows where it lands for you.
What will Ostium OLP cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Ostium OLP?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Ostium OLP
Compare all 4- 2Avantis avUSDC4 points above · stronger on loss waterfall and exit price (9 against 5)74
- 4Velocity Insurance Fund4 points below · weaker on verifiable loss of record (5 against 7)66
- 5gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC)5 points below · stronger on loss waterfall and exit price (6 against 5)65
For your setup
Find out if Ostium OLP fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Ostium OLP 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 perp house vaultNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Ostium OLP ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (22.3 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+7.176.08#2/9Loading evidence…
288+7.177.09#3/9Loading evidence…
245+3.845.09#5/9Loading evidence…
168+4.106.09#3/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Avantis avUSDC, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 67–72 and stays #3
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 Ostium OLP’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 much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Avantis avUSDC+376#3 → #2
Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Avantis avUSDC+476#3 → #2
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? 7 → 5 on its ladder · Velocity Insurance Fund passes it−266#3 → #4
When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? 8 → 5 on its ladder · Velocity Insurance Fund passes it−364#3 → #5
Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? 5 → 2 on its ladder · Velocity Insurance Fund passes it−365#3 → #5
Smallest climb: “How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?” 7 → 10 passes Avantis avUSDC, #2.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? — 7/10, category best 8/10
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? — 8/10, category best 9/10
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You are being sold a CLO senior tranche whose equity tranche the seller will not size — and when you size it yourself from their own keyless subgraph, it was $100,019 against $34.25M of your money on 2026-07-14, or 0.292% credit support, having been 4.458% the day before; on 2026-09-25, after the write-down, it was $15,893 against about $8.48M, or about 0.19%. Every protective sentence in the docs ('the buffer absorbs them first, in full', 'the last pool of money to take a loss') is conditioned on a number that swings by an order of magnitude, is never published, and is replenished offchain by Jump Trading on terms you cannot inspect. Worse for anyone reading the tranche language as exploit protection: how-ostium-works.md quietly carves the security case out of the waterfall — 'a security event affecting onchain funds is borne first by onchain capital, including OLP' — and that scenario has now happened: the July 2026 vault drain reached OLP as a 69.2% write-down of its price at the 12 September 2026 settlement, about $23.66M, while the buffer stood aside, so the subordination you were sold ran backwards and you were the FIRST loss, not the last.
Competitive position
Where Ostium OLP 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#3 / 912.0 of 20 · best 14.0
Published criteria#3 / 916.7 of 30 · best 19.1
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 Ostium OLP leads
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?#2 / 9
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?#3 / 9
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?#3 / 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.
Avantis avUSDC#2 of 9 · score 74 · 4.0 points ahead
Ostium OLP leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7 vs 6
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?8 vs 7
Avantis avUSDC leads on
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?9 vs 8
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?9 vs 5
Largest single reason Avantis avUSDC is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: Avantis avUSDC has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Velocity Insurance Fund#4 of 9 · score 66 · 4.0 points behind
Ostium OLP leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7 vs 5
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?5 vs 3
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?8 vs 6
Velocity Insurance Fund leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Ostium OLP is ahead: published criteria (+9.1 display points).Scenario cost: Velocity Insurance Fund has no verified pricing for this scenario.
gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC)#5 of 9 · score 65 · 5.0 points behind
Ostium OLP leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7 vs 6
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?8 vs 7
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?8 vs 6
gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) leads on
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Ostium OLP is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 70 · gap 11.0Why GMX GM / GLV pools ranks above Ostium OLP
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 11.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGMX GM / GLV poolsGap share
Availability · 23% weight12.014.0−5.2, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight16.719.1−6.2, 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 criterionThisGMX GM / GLV poolsPoints
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? · w3278−1.02, worse
When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? · w2889−0.90, worse
Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? · w2456−0.77, worse
Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? · w1689−0.51, worse
Net7081−11.0
Your scenario
Ostium OLP 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 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 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 #3 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
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?strength 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.When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?strength 8 · weight 28Report 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 eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?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.Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?strength 8 · weight 16Report 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 (Ostium OLP 8/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? · 28%
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? · 32% (Ostium OLP 7/10)Scored by Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? · 24% (Ostium OLP 5/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Oracle failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit 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: Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? (16%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- From https://
docs .ostium .com /traders /reference /fees .md, fetched 2026-09-28: "Opening fees split between two destinations: 30% flows to OLP holders at each daily settlement, and the remainder funds protocol operations and development. The OLP allocation is a tunable protocol parameter." The fee it is a share of is itemised on the same page as "Opening fee | Position entry | 3–10 bps (varies by asset)". No deposit, withdrawal, management or performance fee is charged to the OLP holder; the withdrawal page (https:// docs .ostium .com /vault /getting-started /withdraw .md, same day) says "Your request can be canceled at any time before settlement with no penalty." The exit price is not the request-date price: "Once the settlement delay elapses, your OLP is burned and converted to USDC at the OLP price at settlement."Ostium OLP — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDOstium OLP — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Arbitrum
- Markets served
- asia, latam, africa, mena, ca, au
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- United States, United Kingdom, Philippines, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- BOTH kinds of language are present and they are separate clauses — this is a genuine MARKET RESTRICTION, not merely the standard sanctions representation. (1) MARKET RESTRICTION, read character-exact on https://
docs .ostium .com /legal /terms-of-use .md: '*Restricted Jurisdictions.* You acknowledge and agree that you are not permitted to access, use or trade using any of the Services if you are residing in, a citizen of, organized in or located in the following jurisdictions (collectively, the "Restricted Jurisdictions"): a jurisdiction or territory that is the subject of comprehensive country-wide, territory-wide, or regional economic sanctions by the United States, including but not limited to Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and the Crimea, Dontesk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine; the United States, the United Kingdom; the European Union; and the Philippines.' (The 'Dontesk' misspelling is Ostium's, quoted as printed.) The same document's all-caps preamble repeats it: 'USE OF THE APP OR BOT FOR TRADING IS NOT PERMITTED BY PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO RESIDE IN, ARE LOCATED IN, ARE INCORPORATED IN, HAVE A REGISTERED OFFICE IN, OR HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE PHILIPPINES, OR ANY OTHER RESTRICTED TERRITORY AS DEFINED BELOW (ANY SUCH PERSON OR ENTITY FROM THESE JURISDICTIONS, A "RESTRICTED PERSON").' followed by 'THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS'. The US, UK and the entire EU are excluded on ordinary market grounds, not sanctions grounds — hence 'us' and 'europe' are NOT in supportedRegions and 'global' is wrong. (2) SEPARATELY, the ordinary OFAC/sanctions representation every crypto ToS carries, in its own clause: '*Sanctions.* You represent and warrant that you are not, and for the duration of time you use the Services will not be, (i) the subject of economic or trade sanctions administered or enforced by any governmental authority... (iii) included on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons maintained by the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)...'. That clause is an eligibility rule applying everywhere and is not a regional footprint. ONE UNRESOLVED NUANCE, flagged rather than smoothed over: the all-caps preamble restricts 'USE OF THE APP OR BOT FOR TRADING', whereas the Restricted Jurisdictions clause restricts 'access, use or trade using any of the Services'. The Terms of Use never once uses the words 'OLP', 'liquidity provider' or 'vault' (zero occurrences across all 51,856 bytes), so whether a US/UK/EU person is barred from DEPOSITING as opposed to TRADING is not squarely answered by the only document that should answer it.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Ostium OLP: 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.
12 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 70, #3 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 perp_house_vaults:ostium_olp:2026.10.18:cb4c5a285099
Are you Ostium OLP? 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.