Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquid Lockers
- Entity
- All 3 Yearn products
- Official website
- ycrv.yearn.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 76 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Yearn yCRV
Liquid locker for veCRV from Yearn
Liquid Lockers
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 5 liquid lockers in the published ranking
76
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Yearn yCRV right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor6/10; the category best is 7
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption3/10 here; Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) scores 6
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all5/10 here; Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) scores 7
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 liquid locker shows where it lands for you.
What will Yearn yCRV cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Yearn yCRV?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Yearn yCRV
Compare all 4- 1Convex Finance (cvxCRV)3 points above · stronger on exit realisability (4 against 3)79
- 2Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)1 point above · stronger on exit realisability (6 against 3)77
- 4Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker)1 point below · stronger on base protocol unwind (7 against 5)75
For your setup
Find out if Yearn yCRV fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Yearn yCRV 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 liquid lockerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Yearn yCRV 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 (16.5 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
353+3.363.06#3/5Loading evidence…
256+4.806.07#2/5Loading evidence…
205+3.205.07#3/5Loading evidence…
208+5.126.08#1/5Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted), #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 73–78 and ranks #2–#4
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 Yearn yCRV’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.
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)+178#3 → #2
Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)+177#3 → #2
What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)+278#3 → #2
Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)+278#3 → #2
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption 3 → 2 on its ladder · Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) passes it−173#3 → #4
Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor 6 → 5 on its ladder · Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) passes it−174#3 → #4
What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all 5 → 4 on its ladder · Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) passes it−174#3 → #4
Smallest climb: the exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption 3 → 4 passes Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted), #2.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor — 6/10, category best 7/10
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption — 3/10 against a category best of 6/10
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all — 5/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- The single most consequential fact is one Yearn does not put on its product page: at any size a real seller would use, yCRV cannot be exited near its NAV. At block 26,074,948 on 2026-09-28 a $100,000-equivalent sale realises 55.35% below the CRV it represents, and the only pool that can absorb it holds 407,419 CRV (about $133,443) against 7,686,926 yCRV — so that one trade takes 136,322 CRV, a third of the pool's entire CRV side. The 2023-12-11 disclosure explains part of why: Yearn's own protocol-owned liquidity in that pool was accidentally sold for a 1,416,975 usd realised loss, and depth has not recovered. Second, the vote and the money are separated by design and Yearn says so — the depositor surrenders a permanent Curve governance position and receives no vote in return, with gauge weights set by an automated optimiser, Curve DAO votes cast solely by the 6-of-9, and the yCRV FAQ (docs.yearn.fi/getting-started/products/ylockers/ycrv/ycrv-faq) stating there is "no current plan" to change that. Third, holding yCRV without staking it earns literally nothing, and the 12.70% of admin fees attributable to unstaked yCRV on 2026-09-28 is routed to a Yearn treasury vault — visible only by reading recipients() on the splitter. Against that, the control surface scores 8/10, level with Convex at the top of this category: a non-upgradeable token whose owner(), minter(), governance() and admin() all revert, governance handed to a 6-of-9 Safe within an hour of deployment, no bridged deployment on any L2, and a fee split readable from a deployed getter rather than a blog post. The 6-of-9 Safe does carry three enabled modules and a guard: one module is source-verified as a MetaLeX BORG "sudoImplant" (Yearn lists "YIP-87: Convert ychad.eth into a BORG"), one answers NAME() "Allowance Module", and the third module and the guard are not source-verified. One correction to the received view: Yearn is no longer a single-base-protocol locker — yYB (7.14m supply on 2026-09-28, wrapping Yield Basis's veYB) is live alongside yCRV, so a Curve failure is survivable at the franchise level even though it would still be catastrophic for this receipt.
Competitive position
Where Yearn yCRV 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 / 514.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#3 / 512.4 of 30 · best 13.7
Friction#1 / 52.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 53.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 58.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Yearn yCRV leads
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor#2 / 5
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself#1 / 5
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.
Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)#2 of 5 · score 77 · 1.0 point ahead
Yearn yCRV leads on
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor6 vs 5
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all5 vs 4
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself8 vs 6
Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) leads on
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption6 vs 3
Largest single reason Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker)#4 of 5 · score 75 · 1.0 point behind
Yearn yCRV leads on
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself8 vs 4
Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) leads on
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor7 vs 6
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all7 vs 5
Largest single reason Yearn yCRV is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Convex Finance (cvxCRV)#1 of 5 · score 79 · 3.0 points ahead
Yearn yCRV leads onNo scored criterion
Convex Finance (cvxCRV) leads on
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption4 vs 3
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all6 vs 5
Largest single reason Convex Finance (cvxCRV) is ahead: published criteria (+3.4 display points).Scenario cost: Convex Finance (cvxCRV) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 76 · gap 3.0Why Convex Finance (cvxCRV) ranks above Yearn yCRV
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 3.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisConvex Finance (cvxCRV)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.413.7−3.4, 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 criterionThisConvex Finance (cvxCRV)Points
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption · w3534−1.12, worse
What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all · w2056−0.64, worse
Net7679−3.0
Your scenario
Yearn yCRV 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 5 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
5 of 5 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 #2 to #4 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
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemptionstrength 3 · weight 35Report 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 controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositorstrength 6 · weight 25Report 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.What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at allstrength 5 · weight 20Report 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.Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itselfstrength 8 · weight 20Report 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
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all · 20% (Yearn yCRV 5/10)Scored by Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself · 20% (Yearn yCRV 8/10)
- Control failure (Yearn yCRV 6/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor · 25%
- Exit failure (Yearn yCRV 3/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption · 35%
Not assessed by this ranking: Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Re-fetched 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200). docs.yearn.fi/getting-started/products/ylockers/overview: "Every yLocker charges a 10% performance fee on the total revenue it receives each week." The same page states what reaches stakers: "100% of their share of protocol fees" and "90% of their share of gauge votes will be used to earn vote-maximized vote incentives" with "(the other 10% votes to support yLocker token liquidity)". docs.yearn.fi/getting-started/products/ylockers/ycrv/ycrv-faq (same date): "When you stake yCRV, a 10% performance fee is applied. Yield accumulates in the receiver contract throughout the week. The yield is distributed once per week, at which point 10% is sent to the Yearn treasury." No deposit or mint fee: docs.yearn.fi/getting-started/products/ylockers/ycrv/overview (same date) says CRV converts "by minting yCRV at a 1:1 rate". On-chain (eth_call, Ethereum block 26,074,948, 2026-09-28T09:06:35Z): Receiver 0x642a16A7885d7a8b9353E2a4B68834f31389dC2c performanceFee() = 1000 against a 10_000 denominator (10%), unchanged; YCRVSplitter 0x05Fc8174050f0A41dEB7e562187911d45cd5e401 getSplits() = admin fees 873035778588806986 to stakers / 0 treasury / 126964221411193014 remainder and vote incentives 782343245357381038 / 90597486157912982 / 127059268484705980 (1e18 = 100%). Worked example, labelled: net to yCRV stakers after the 10% fee = 0.9 x 87.30% = 78.57% of admin fees and 0.9 x 78.23% = 70.41% of vote incentives (August: 77.22% and 68.90%); the split floats with the staked share of supply.Yearn yCRV — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDYearn yCRV — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: Yearn, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Yearn yCRV: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 76, #3 of 5. 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 liquid_lockers:yearn_ycrv:2026.10.18:fb4d2ae4efaf
Are you Yearn yCRV? 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.