Provider at a glance
- Category
- Perp House Vaults
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.velocity.exchange
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 66 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Velocity Insurance Fund
Staker-owned insurance fund
Perp House Vaults
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 9 perp house vaults in the published ranking
66
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Velocity Insurance Fund right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- 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
Look elsewhere if these come first
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?5/10 here; Ostium OLP scores 7
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?3/10 here; gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) scores 6
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?6/10 here; Jupiter JLP 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 perp house vault shows where it lands for you.
What will Velocity Insurance Fund cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Velocity Insurance Fund?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Velocity Insurance Fund
Compare all 4- 3Ostium OLP4 points above · stronger on verifiable loss of record (7 against 5)70
- 5gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC)1 point below · stronger on loss waterfall and exit price (6 against 3)65
- 6Jupiter JLP5 points below · stronger on loss waterfall and exit price (6 against 3)61
For your setup
Find out if Velocity Insurance Fund fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Velocity Insurance Fund 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 Velocity Insurance Fund 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 (17.7 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
325+5.126.08#7/9Loading evidence…
288+7.177.09#3/9Loading evidence…
243+2.305.09#6/9Loading evidence…
166+3.076.09#5/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Ostium OLP, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 64–68 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 Velocity Insurance Fund’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? 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Ostium OLP+270#4 → #3
Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Ostium OLP+370#4 → #3
Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Ostium OLP+470#4 → #3
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? 5 → 4 on its ladder · gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) passes it−164#4 → #5
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 → 7 on its ladder · gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) passes it−164#4 → #5
Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? 3 → 2 on its ladder · gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) passes it−164#4 → #5
Smallest climb: “How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?” 5 → 7 passes Ostium OLP, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- 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
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You are buying the most junior claim in the system and the least visible one. Nothing is subordinate to you — the bankruptcy waterfall cancels your unswept fees FIRST, drains your vault SECOND, and only then touches the AMM's fee provision and the traders. Meanwhile the income that is supposed to pay you for that is an admin-set minority share: on 2026-09-29 the fee page gave the insurance fund '15% on mainnet today' of each taker fee's remainder (11.25% of the gross fee) against 'a residual 70% to the protocol', and 'Both shares are admin-settable'. The protocol made itself the residual claimant on the upside and made you the residual claimant on the downside. And when you try to leave, the 13-day cooldown pays nothing, your payout can only be revised DOWN via min(current share value, value at request time), and a 90% utilization print freezes the door entirely. Two facts the docs do not tell you materially change the trade. First, this fund is still small and new — on 2026-09-29 its USDT fund held 181,436 USDT, and the live insurance claim caps on its five perp markets ran from $5,000 to $180,000, below the tier table's ceilings. Second, it has never paid out: quote_settled_insurance was still 0 on every perp market on 2026-09-29, and the USDT share price was about 1.0111. You are being paid a real but very small net return for standing first in line behind a backstop that has not yet been tested even once.
Competitive position
Where Velocity Insurance Fund 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 · pool best
Published criteria#6 / 913.2 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 Velocity Insurance Fund leads
- 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
Where it trails
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?#7 / 9
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.
gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC)#5 of 9 · score 65 · 1.0 point behind
Velocity Insurance Fund 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?8 vs 7
gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?6 vs 5
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?6 vs 3
Largest single reason Velocity Insurance Fund is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Ostium OLP#3 of 9 · score 70 · 4.0 points ahead
Velocity Insurance Fund leads onNo scored criterion
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
Largest single reason Ostium OLP is ahead: published criteria (+9.1 display points).Scenario cost: Ostium OLP has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Jupiter JLP#6 of 9 · score 61 · 5.0 points behind
Velocity Insurance Fund 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?8 vs 3
Jupiter JLP leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?6 vs 5
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?6 vs 3
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?9 vs 6
Largest single reason Velocity Insurance Fund is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Jupiter JLP has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 66 · gap 15.0Why GMX GM / GLV pools ranks above Velocity Insurance Fund
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 15.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGMX GM / GLV poolsGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.219.1−15.3, 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 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? · w3258−3.07, 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? · w2436−2.30, worse
Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? · w1669−1.54, worse
Net6681−15.0
Your scenario
Velocity Insurance Fund 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.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 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 5 · 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 3 · 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 6 · 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 (Velocity Insurance Fund 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% (Velocity Insurance Fund 5/10)Scored by Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? · 24% (Velocity Insurance Fund 3/10)
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 .velocity .exchange /protocol /trading /trading-fees, fetched 2026-09-29: staking carries no deposit, management or performance fee; what the Insurance Fund earns from perp trading is a share of each taker fee's remainder. The page's fee-split figure reads "Remainder 75%", "Insurance fund 11.25% 15% of the remainder", "AMM 11.25% 15% of the remainder" and "Protocol 52.5% the residual 70%", and states that this is "mainnet's live configuration, an AMM and insurance share of 15% each against a residual 70% to the protocol, not the program's compiled defaults" and that "Both shares are admin-settable". The taker fees feeding that remainder run from "6 bps (0.060%)" at the Regular tier ("under $5,000,000" of 30-day volume) to "2 bps (0.020%)" at VIP 3, less a flat maker rebate of "0.25 bps (0.0025%)". The Insurance Fund staking page (same date) adds that both income streams "accrue entirely to stakers, with no protocol cut of any kind".Velocity Insurance Fund — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDVelocity Insurance Fund — 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
- NO GEOGRAPHIC LANGUAGE OF EITHER KIND WAS FOUND — and this is a finding, not an absence of searching. There is neither a market restriction nor the standard OFAC/sanctions representation that nearly every crypto ToS carries. The reason is that the page which should carry it is blank: https://
docs .velocity .exchange /protocol /legal-and-regulations /terms-of-use (read 17 August 2026) returns HTTP 200 with the title 'Terms of Use – Velocity Protocol' and no body content whatsoever, despite https:// docs .velocity .exchange /protocol /legal-and-regulations /disclaimer instructing users to 'review the Documentation available on our Site, the Terms of Use and the Risks to make sure you understand how the Velocity Protocol works.' The disclaimer itself frames the protocol as permissionless software with no gate: 'Velocity Protocol is a decentralised peer-to-peer protocol that people can use to trade with certain perpetuals, swaps, spot assets and provide passive liquidity to earn yield from overcollateralized borrows.' and 'Although Velocity Protocol has developed much of the initial code for the protocol, the protocol does not provide, own, or control Velocity Protocol, which is run by smart contracts deployed on the Solana blockchain.' Scored 'global' because nothing published restricts it — but a buyer should read that as 'no eligibility terms exist to read', not as 'the operator has confirmed my jurisdiction is fine'. The absence of even a sanctions clause is unusual and is itself a diligence flag.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Velocity Insurance Fund: 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 66, #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 perp_house_vaults:velocity_insurance_fund:2026.10.18:cb4c5a285099
Are you Velocity Insurance Fund? 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.