Provider at a glance
- Category
- Privacy Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- privacypools.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 66 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Privacy Pools (0xbow)
Shielded pool with vetted deposits
Privacy Tools
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 8 privacy tools in the published ranking
66
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Privacy Pools (0xbow) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Audit currency and admin keys5/10; the category best is 6
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability6/10 here; Tornado Cash scores 7
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy5/10 here; the category best is 8
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage4/10 here; Tornado Cash scores 10
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 privacy tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Privacy Pools (0xbow) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Privacy Pools (0xbow)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Privacy Pools (0xbow)
Compare all 4- 2Tornado Cash8 points above · stronger on pt anonymity set (10 against 4)74
- 4Umbra5 points below · stronger on pt security custody (6 against 5)61
- 5Penumbra7 points below · stronger on pt crypto setup (7 against 6)59
For your setup
Find out if Privacy Pools (0xbow) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Privacy Pools (0xbow) 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 privacy toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Privacy Pools (0xbow) 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 (16.2 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
306+5.766.08#4/8Loading evidence…
255+4.003.08#2/8Loading evidence…
254+3.203.510#3/8Loading evidence…
205+3.205.06#4/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−8behind Tornado Cash, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 64–68 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 Privacy Pools (0xbow)’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.
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes Tornado Cash+574#3 → #2
Live anonymity set and measurable usage 4 → 9 on its ladder · passes Tornado Cash+574#3 → #2
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability 6 → 3 on its ladder · Umbra passes it−360#3 → #4
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy 5 → 1 on its ladder · Umbra passes it−459#3 → #4
Live anonymity set and measurable usage 4 → 0 on its ladder · Umbra passes it−459#3 → #4
Smallest climb: compliance signal without collapsing privacy 5 → 10 passes Tornado Cash, #2.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Audit currency and admin keys — 5/10, category best 6/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Privacy here is conditional and revocable. A 2-of-4 multisig can change the ASP root with no delay, and the operator can remove an already-accepted deposit from the whitelist at any time, meaning funds you shielded in good faith can be made un-withdrawable-privately after the fact with no appeal path; what remains is a public ragequit withdrawal to the original deposit address. The terms at docs.privacypools.com/toc name 0xbow as the operator, the 0.5% Vetting Fee and 0xbow's discretion to remove any wallet address from the Proof of Association at any time; the per-asset fee schedule is published on L2BEAT. The terms also set a contract-enforced minimum deposit, for example 0.1 ETH for the ETH Pool on Ethereum mainnet, which 0xbow may update at its discretion.
- L2BEAT states Phase 1 was 'built on the 80th contribution to Perpetual Powers of Tau' — not 80 participants. Phase 2 is correct and more precise than stated: 514 contributions to the Withdraw circuit and 513 to the Ragequit circuit, concluded March 2025, reproducible with finalized zKeys published.
Competitive position
Where Privacy Pools (0xbow) 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 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#3 / 812.1 of 30 · best 17.6
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Privacy Pools (0xbow) leads
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy#2 / 8
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage#3 / 8
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.
Umbra#4 of 8 · score 61 · 5.0 points behind
Privacy Pools (0xbow) leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability6 vs 5
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy5 vs 3
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage4 vs 3
Umbra leads on
- Audit currency and admin keys6 vs 5
Largest single reason Privacy Pools (0xbow) is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Umbra has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Penumbra#5 of 8 · score 59 · 7.0 points behind
Privacy Pools (0xbow) leads on
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy5 vs 3
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage4 vs 1
- Audit currency and admin keys5 vs 4
Penumbra leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability7 vs 6
Largest single reason Privacy Pools (0xbow) is ahead: published criteria (+7.0 display points).Scenario cost: Penumbra has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Tornado Cash#2 of 8 · score 74 · 8.0 points ahead
Privacy Pools (0xbow) leads on
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy5 vs 2
Tornado Cash leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability7 vs 6
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage10 vs 4
- Audit currency and admin keys6 vs 5
Largest single reason Tornado Cash is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: Tornado Cash has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 66 · gap 14.0Why Railgun ranks above Privacy Pools (0xbow)
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 14.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRailgunGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.117.6−14.3, 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 criterionThisRailgunPoints
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · w3068−1.92, worse
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · w2558−2.40, worse
Live anonymity set and measurable usage · w2547−2.40, worse
Audit currency and admin keys · w2056−0.64, worse
Net6680−14.0
Your scenario
Privacy Pools (0xbow) 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 15 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 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 15 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 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiabilitystrength 6 · weight 30Report an error—15 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.Compliance signal without collapsing privacystrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—15 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.Live anonymity set and measurable usagestrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—15 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.Audit currency and admin keysstrength 5 · weight 20Report an error—15 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
- Contract failure (Privacy Pools (0xbow) 5/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit currency and admin keys · 20%
- Verification failure (Privacy Pools (0xbow) 6/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · 30%
- Regulatory failure (Privacy Pools (0xbow) 5/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · 25%
- Information failure (Privacy Pools (0xbow) 4/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Live anonymity set and measurable usage · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Execution 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
- Vetting fees range from 0-0.5% on deposits; relayer fees capped at 5-10% per asset depending on token type.Privacy Pools (0xbow) — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDPrivacy Pools (0xbow) — official pricing page ↗ · 15 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
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- The privacypools.com interface is closed to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria and the Russian-occupied Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and to sanctioned persons; 0xbow may extend the list at its discretion and forbids VPN circumvention. Each deposit address is screened by 0xbow before it can be withdrawn privately.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Privacy Pools (0xbow): 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
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 66, #3 of 8. 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 privacy_tools:privacy_pools_0xbow:2026.10.18:33d51dce1302
Are you Privacy Pools (0xbow)? 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.