Provider at a glance
- Category
- Onchain Attestations
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- ver.ax
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Verax Attestation Registry
Shared attestation registry
Onchain Attestations
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 7 onchain attestations in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Verax Attestation Registry right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Issuer permissioning and identity9/10, the category best
- Verifiable chain deployments8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Revocation and expiry semantics8/10 here; Sign Protocol scores 10
- Cost per attestation7/10 here; Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) 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 attestation layer shows where it lands for you.
What will Verax Attestation Registry cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Verax Attestation Registry?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Verax Attestation Registry
Compare all 4- 1Sign Protocol2 points above · stronger on revocation and expiry (10 against 8)81
- 2Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)1 point above · stronger on issuance cost (9 against 7)80
- 4Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)8 points below · weaker on issuer accountability (7 against 9)71
For your setup
Find out if Verax Attestation Registry fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Verax Attestation Registry 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 attestation layerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Verax Attestation Registry 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 (25.9 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
328+8.197.010#3/7Loading evidence…
269+7.497.09#1/7Loading evidence…
248+6.148.09#3/7Loading evidence…
187+4.037.09#4/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS), #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 77–81 and ranks #1–#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 Verax Attestation Registry’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.
Revocation and expiry semantics 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)+181#3 → #1
Issuer permissioning and identity 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)+181#3 → #2
Verifiable chain deployments 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)+181#3 → #2
Cost per attestation 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)+180#3 → #2
Revocation and expiry semantics 8 → 4 on its ladder · Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) passes it−471#3 → #4
Issuer permissioning and identity 9 → 4 on its ladder · Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) passes it−571#3 → #4
Verifiable chain deployments 8 → 2 on its ladder · Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) passes it−670#3 → #4
Smallest climb: revocation and expiry semantics 8 → 9 passes Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS), #2.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Issuer permissioning and identity — 9/10, the category best
- Verifiable chain deployments — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Revocation and expiry semantics — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Cost per attestation — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The mainnet issuer allowlist is controlled by the registry owner via setIssuer/removeIssuer, both onlyOwner. That is what makes Verax's issuer identity trustworthy and also means a buyer's ability to issue at all sits behind a Consensys-held admin key — and because the revocable flag is set once at Portal registration, an issuer who registers a non-revocable Portal can never withdraw a claim it later discovers was false. Note also that attesting through someone else's Portal can cost more than gas: FeeModuleV2 lets the portal creator "enforce a fee on attestations".
Competitive position
Where Verax Attestation Registry 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#3 / 719.4 of 30 · best 20.1
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 Verax Attestation Registry leads
- Revocation and expiry semantics#3 / 7
- Issuer permissioning and identity#1 / 7
- Verifiable chain deployments#3 / 7
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.
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)#2 of 7 · score 80 · 1.0 point ahead
Verax Attestation Registry leads on
- Issuer permissioning and identity9 vs 6
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) leads on
- Revocation and expiry semantics9 vs 8
- Verifiable chain deployments9 vs 8
- Cost per attestation9 vs 7
Largest single reason Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Sign Protocol#1 of 7 · score 81 · 2.0 points ahead
Verax Attestation Registry leads on
- Issuer permissioning and identity9 vs 6
Sign Protocol leads on
- Revocation and expiry semantics10 vs 8
- Verifiable chain deployments9 vs 8
- Cost per attestation8 vs 7
Largest single reason Sign Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+1.8 display points).Scenario cost: Sign Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)#4 of 7 · score 71 · 8.0 points behind
Verax Attestation Registry leads on
- Revocation and expiry semantics8 vs 7
- Issuer permissioning and identity9 vs 7
- Verifiable chain deployments8 vs 7
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Verax Attestation Registry is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 79 · gap 2.0Why Sign Protocol ranks above Verax Attestation Registry
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 2.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSign ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight19.420.1−1.8, 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 criterionThisSign ProtocolPoints
Revocation and expiry semantics · w32810−2.05, worse
Issuer permissioning and identity · w2696+2.50, better
Verifiable chain deployments · w2489−0.77, worse
Cost per attestation · w1878−0.58, worse
Net7981−2.0
Your scenario
Verax Attestation Registry 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 27 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 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 27 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 #1 to #3 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 27 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Revocation and expiry semanticsstrength 8 · weight 32Report an error—27 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.Issuer permissioning and identitystrength 9 · weight 26Report an error—27 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.Verifiable chain deploymentsstrength 8 · weight 24Report an error—27 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.Cost per attestationstrength 7 · weight 18Report an error—27 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: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Revocation and expiry semantics · 32% (Verax Attestation Registry 8/10)Scored by Verifiable chain deployments · 24% (Verax Attestation Registry 8/10)
- Information failure (Verax Attestation Registry 9/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Issuer permissioning and identity · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Liveness 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: Cost per attestation (18%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No protocol fee is published in the README or the issuer documentation; the README's only price-bearing line is its licence badge, "[](./LICENSE)", so the registry itself costs nothing and the issuer pays gas plus a one-time Portal deployment. The only occurrences of the word fee in the README are the eight per-network standard-library entries beginning "FeeModule:" — an OPTIONAL module whose source header (contracts/src/stdlib/FeeModuleV2.sol) reads "This module can be used by portal creators to enforce a fee on attestations.", so attesting through a Portal you do not control can cost more than gas. (Verax README, raw.githubusercontent.com/Consensys/linea-attestation-registry/dev/README.md, fetched 27 September 2026)Verax Attestation Registry — official pricing page ↗ · 27 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDVerax Attestation Registry — official pricing page ↗ · 27 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
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Verax Attestation Registry: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 27 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 79, #3 of 7. 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
2026.10.6A 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.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt attestations:verax:2026.10.18:5d212504ae08
Are you Verax Attestation Registry? 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.