Provider at a glance
- Category
- Bitcoin Mining Pools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- viabtc.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 71 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
ViaBTC
Custodial SHA-256 mining pool
Bitcoin Mining Pools
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 Bitcoin mining pools in the published ranking
71
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is ViaBTC right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Which payout scheme — and therefore who eats a bad-luck or orphaned-block run, the pool or you?9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Is the headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained?7/10 here; the category best is 9
- Who builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it?3/10 here; Luxor Mining Pool scores 5
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 Bitcoin mining pool shows where it lands for you.
What will ViaBTC cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly mining revenue
- $1k
How safe is ViaBTC?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to ViaBTC
Compare all 4- 3SpiderPool2 points below · weaker on payout custody coinbase directness (3 against 4)69
- 4F2Pool4 points below · stronger on block template control (4 against 3)67
- 5Luxor Mining Pool6 points below · stronger on block template control (5 against 3)65$300
For your setup
Find out if ViaBTC fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where ViaBTC 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 Bitcoin mining poolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why ViaBTC 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 (19.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
309+8.649.09#1/8Loading evidence…
264+3.333.04#1/8Loading evidence…
247+5.385.59#2/8Loading evidence…
203+1.924.08#6/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−9behind OCEAN, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 69–73 and ranks #2–#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 ViaBTC’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.
Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it? 4 → 10 on its ladder · passes OCEAN+681#2 → #1
Which payout scheme — and therefore who eats a bad-luck or orphaned-block run, the pool or you? 9 → 8 on its ladder · SpiderPool passes it−169#2 → #3
Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it? 4 → 3 on its ladder · SpiderPool passes it−169#2 → #3
Is the headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained? 7 → 5 on its ladder · SpiderPool passes it−268#2 → #3
Smallest climb: “Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it?” 4 → 10 passes OCEAN, #1.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Which payout scheme — and therefore who eats a bad-luck or orphaned-block run, the pool or you? — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Is the headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Who builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it? — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- On PPS+ the "+" is not insured, and the fee page says the opposite one sentence earlier. ViaBTC leads with "Since miners do not bear the risk, the pool assumes the risks of pool luck and orphaned blocks, and therefore charges a relatively higher fee" - then, two sentences later on the same page, "Transaction fees are distributed separately to miners under the PPLNS as below", and its own definition of PPLNS is that payouts "depend on whether the pool finds blocks. Earnings may fluctuate." So the pool insures the subsidy leg and the miner keeps full luck exposure on the fee leg. In an ordinary block that is invisible - the fee leg was 1.04% of block 963175 on 2026-08-19 - but it is not always ordinary: ViaBTC's own announcement records block 840,000 carrying 37.6256 BTC of transaction fees against a 3.125 BTC subsidy, i.e. 92% of the block sitting on the uninsured leg. A miner who bought "stable income" and then hits a bad-luck week during a fee spike loses most of the upside they thought they had paid 4% to be protected from. The second thing a miner would resent: ViaBTC's risk-control system can freeze an already-mined block's rewards, and has, twice - and in the block 826032 case the pool publicly offered to "refund the transaction fee to the user" who sent it, returning 4.03399387 BTC of revenue the miners had already earned to the transaction sender. Read the whole procedure before pricing that, because the same announcement sets a deadline and a default: "If the claim is not made or the verification fails within the given timeframe, ViaBTC will reallocate the entire reward to the miners." No claim was made, and ViaBTC published the release both times - 826032 distributed to miners on 2024-01-22 at ~17:30 (UTC+8), 5.8 days after the block; 840,000 distributed on 2024-04-23 at ~18:00 (UTC+8), 3.4 days after the block, with "no anomaly" found. The hold is bounded, self-announced and has twice ended in the miners' favour. It is still a hold: the hashrate was delivered and the block was found before the pool decided who would be paid.
Competitive position
Where ViaBTC 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#2 / 814.4 of 30 · best 18.0
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 ViaBTC leads
- Which payout scheme — and therefore who eats a bad-luck or orphaned-block run, the pool or you?#1 / 8
- Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it?#1 / 8
- Is the headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained?#2 / 8
Where it trails
- Who builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it?#6 / 8
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.
SpiderPool#3 of 8 · score 69 · 2.0 points behind
ViaBTC leads on
- Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it?4 vs 3
SpiderPool leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason ViaBTC is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: SpiderPool has no verified pricing for this scenario.
F2Pool#4 of 8 · score 67 · 4.0 points behind
ViaBTC leads on
- Which payout scheme — and therefore who eats a bad-luck or orphaned-block run, the pool or you?9 vs 8
- Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it?4 vs 3
- Is the headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained?7 vs 6
F2Pool leads on
- Who builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it?4 vs 3
Largest single reason ViaBTC is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: F2Pool has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Luxor Mining Pool#5 of 8 · score 65 · 6.0 points behind
ViaBTC leads on
- Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it?4 vs 2
- Is the headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained?7 vs 4
Luxor Mining Pool leads on
- Who builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it?5 vs 3
Largest single reason ViaBTC is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: ViaBTC has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 71 · gap 9.0Why OCEAN ranks above ViaBTC
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 9.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisOCEANGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.418.0−9.4, 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 criterionThisOCEANPoints
Is the headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained? · w2479−1.54, worse
Who builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it? · w2038−3.20, worse
Net7180−9.0
Your scenario
ViaBTC is not priced for this scenario
The pool fee on your mining revenue for a year. Excludes payout fees, any transaction-fee or MEV income the pool keeps, and your own hardware and power. 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
Your monthly mining revenue · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 29 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 median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 8 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
6 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 29 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 #2 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 29 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Which payout scheme — and therefore who eats a bad-luck or orphaned-block run, the pool or you?strength 9 · weight 30Report an error—29 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.Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it?strength 4 · weight 26Report an error—29 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 headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained?strength 7 · weight 24Report an error—29 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 builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it?strength 3 · weight 20Report an error—29 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
- Liveness failure (ViaBTC 3/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Who builds the block you are hashing on — and what do they leave out of it? · 20%
- Custody failure (ViaBTC 4/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Does the coinbase transaction pay you, or does the pool hold your coin until it decides to release it? · 26%
- Insolvency failure (ViaBTC 9/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Which payout scheme — and therefore who eats a bad-luck or orphaned-block run, the pool or you? · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: 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 headline fee the whole fee — or are transaction fees, accelerator revenue and MEV quietly retained? (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- FEE — https://
www .viabtc .com /en /pricing (fetched 29 September 2026), PPS+ Mode table: "Mining Earnings | Block Reward | Transaction Fees (Variable)" / "Payment Method | PPS | PPLNS" / "Fee Rate | 4% | 2%" / "Formula | Shares / Difficulty * Block Reward * (1 - Pool Fee) | Your Hashrate / Pool Hashrate * Reward * (1 - Pool Fee)" / "Rule | Pay out every hour based on the current difficulty | Distributed based on each user’s share of the pool’s total hashrate over the past 5 difficulty rounds after the block receives 6 confirmations." PPLNS Mode table: "Mining Earnings | Block Rewards + Transaction Fees (Variable)" / "Fee Rate | 2%" / "Formula | Your Hashrate / Pool Hashrate * Block Reward * (1 - Pool Fee)". SECOND POOL-OWNED SOURCE for the same rates, https:// support .viabtc .com /hc /en-us /articles /7207397084047 -How-are-profits-calculated (read 29 September 2026 through the help-centre API; edited 20 May 2026): "Fee Rate | 4% | 2%" for PPS+ and "Fee Rate | 2%" for PPLNS, with "When applying PPS+, mining yield is composed of block reward and transaction fee." PAYOUT SCHEME — fee page: "ViaBTC pool supports two payment methods: PPS+ and PPLNS. The default is PPS+. You can go to Settings to choose the method you prefer based on your risk tolerance." and "Since miners do not bear the risk, the pool assumes the risks of pool luck and orphaned blocks, and therefore charges a relatively higher fee. Transaction fees are distributed separately to miners under the PPLNS as below." and "Under PPLNS, miners’ payouts depend on whether the pool finds blocks. Earnings may fluctuate, but long-term average returns are generally higher." SOLO is no longer offered: "After careful evaluation, ViaBTC will discontinue the SOLO payment method for all coin mining pools on May 20, 2026 (UTC+8)." (https:// support .viabtc .com /hc /en-us /articles /16155896619151 -Announcement-on-the-Discontinuation-of-SOLO-Payment-Method-for-All-Coins). MINIMUM PAYOUT — NOT on the fee page; published at https:// support .viabtc .com /hc /en-us /articles /7207389319567 -What-Is-Auto-Withdrawal-How-to-Set-Up-and-Manage-It (read 29 September 2026 through the help-centre API, the HTML page answers curl with HTTP 403; edited 24 September 2026), table "The minimum payment of auto-withdrawal": "BTC | 0.001 BTC" (also "USDT | 100 USDT", "BCH | 0.001 BCH", "LTC | 0.001 LTC", "ZEC | 0.001 ZEC", "DASH | 0.001 DASH", "CKB | 100 CKB", "NMC | 0.1 NMC", "DOGE | 20 DOGE", "KAS | 50 KAS", "BELLS | 1 BELLS", "FB | 0.1 FB", "PEP | 20000 PEP", "DINGO | 20000 DINGO"), with "Once enable Auto-withdrawal, the system will automatically withdraw to the address you preset if your wallet balance is over the minimum payment, and the service is entirely free. The mining yields will be temporarily retained in your account balance if it falls short of the minimum requirements." and "When withdrawing to a ViaBTC account, the minimum payment amount does not apply (as long as the withdrawal amount is greater than 0)." Cadence: "As the time of income distribution changes, ViaBTC will automatically withdraw once a day between 10:00 and 18:00 (GMT+8)." Same article: "The payout address (on-chain addresses only) will automatically become invalid if no payment is made for 90 consecutive days." and "Large withdrawals will be sent after approval within 24 hours."ViaBTC — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDViaBTC — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- VERIFIED 19 August 2026. ViaBTC authors every template, documents Stratum V1 honestly, then SELLS INCLUSION IN IT out-of-band — the explicit 3-4 trigger — and is not merely a partner of such a service but the hub that operates one. Its own help centre, article 9704354369295, free tier: "(3) Complete: We will prioritize the submitted transactions and include them in the next block we mine." Paid tier:
- Supported chains
- bitcoin
- 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 ViaBTC: 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.
9 methodology entries
- 29 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 71, #2 of 8. 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 mining_pools:viabtc:2026.10.18:a243c616467d
Are you ViaBTC? 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.