Provider at a glance
- Category
- Incentive Distribution
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- zealy.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 51 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Zealy
Quest and leaderboard platform
Incentive Distribution
#8 Overall
Ranked #8 of 9 incentive distribution in the published ranking
51
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Zealy right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?1/10 here; Galxe Quest / Business+ scores 2
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?4/10 here; Absinthe Labs scores 6
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?5/10 here; Galxe Quest / Business+ scores 7
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?5/10 here; Galxe Quest / Business+ scores 6
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 incentive distribution platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Zealy cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Zealy?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Zealy
Compare all 4- 6Galxe Quest / Business+8 points above · stronger on incident and operator record (7 against 5)59
- 7Layer36 points above · stronger on recomputable allocation (2 against 1)57
- 9Absinthe Labs10 points below · stronger on budget control after publication (6 against 4)41
For your setup
Find out if Zealy fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Zealy 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 incentive distribution platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Zealy ranks #8
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (11.3 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
301+0.966.09#9/9Loading evidence…
284+3.587.010#9/9Loading evidence…
225+3.526.08#6/9Loading evidence…
205+3.207.08#9/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind Layer3, #7
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 49–53 and stays #8
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 Zealy’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.
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? 1 → 5 on its ladder · passes Layer3+459#8 → #7
Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? 4 → 8 on its ladder · passes Layer3+458#8 → #7
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes Layer3+558#8 → #7
Smallest climb: “If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?” 1 → 5 passes Layer3, #7.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Zealy will hold your reward money and never tells you how to get it back. You top the USDC balance up by card through Stripe, and the docs explain in detail how it locks at quest creation and how it unlocks back to your *available balance* — but no page anywhere states a right to withdraw that available balance to your own treasury, names a contract, names a role, or names a chain; the subscription terms meanwhile say flatly 'We do not provide refunds', and the terms of use disclaim continuity: 'Freyja Labs offers no guarantee of continuity of its Services.' The corollary annoyance for anyone distributing an actual token: Zealy computes the winner list and then hands it back to you — 'It's the community's responsibility to distribute any other types of rewards' — so you are paying $149–$359/month for a leaderboard whose arithmetic no third party can re-derive, and doing the payout yourself anyway.
Competitive position
Where Zealy 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 · constant here
Published criteria#8 / 98.4 of 30 · best 19.9
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 Zealy leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?#9 / 9
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?#9 / 9
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?#9 / 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.
Layer3#7 of 9 · score 57 · 6.0 points ahead
Zealy leads onNo scored criterion
Layer3 leads on
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?2 vs 1
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?5 vs 4
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Layer3 is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Layer3 has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Galxe Quest / Business+#6 of 9 · score 59 · 8.0 points ahead
Zealy leads onNo scored criterion
Galxe Quest / Business+ leads on
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?2 vs 1
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?5 vs 4
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?7 vs 5
Largest single reason Galxe Quest / Business+ is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: Galxe Quest / Business+ has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Absinthe Labs#9 of 9 · score 41 · 10.0 points behind
Zealy leads on
- What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?5 vs 2
Absinthe Labs leads on
- If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?2 vs 1
- Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?6 vs 4
- What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Zealy is ahead: published criteria (+21.8 display points).Scenario cost: Absinthe Labs has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 51 · gap 30.0Why Merkl (Angle Labs) ranks above Zealy
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 30.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisMerkl (Angle Labs)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.419.9−29.9, 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 criterionThisMerkl (Angle Labs)Points
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? · w3019−7.68, worse
Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? · w2848−3.58, worse
What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? · w2258−2.11, worse
What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? · w2058−1.92, worse
Net5181−30.0
Your scenario
Zealy 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 28 October 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 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 17 August 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 #8 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 17 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it?strength 1 · weight 30Report an error—17 August 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 is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me?strength 4 · weight 28Report an error—17 August 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 has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today?strength 5 · weight 22Report an error—17 August 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 exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person?strength 5 · weight 20Report an error—17 August 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 (Zealy 5/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by What has already gone wrong on this machinery, and who is actually running it today? · 22%
- Custody failure (Zealy 4/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Who is holding my budget, who can still change the list, and what comes back to me? · 28%
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by If someone disputes their number, can anyone outside the vendor recompute it? · 30% (Zealy 1/10)Scored by What exactly stops a farm from eating this budget, and what happens when it flags the wrong person? · 20% (Zealy 5/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness 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
- From https://
zealy .io /pricing (fetched 28 September 2026, HTTP 200): "Free $0 Free forever" | "Standard From $149 per month, billed annually" | "Plus From $359 per month, billed annually" | "Enterprise & Agencies Custom Billed annually"; same page: "Prices shown are per month billed annually. Standard is also sold for six months at $199 per month, and Plus at $549 monthly or $439 per month for six months. Prices exclude VAT and other applicable sales taxes." Usage is metered on top: "Included claim credits" "1,000 per month" / "10,000 per month" / "50,000 per month" / "Unlimited"; "Additional claim credits" "— Not included" / "$15 per 1,000" / "$12 per 1,000" / "— Not included". NEW since 2026-08-17: the Free plan is capped at "Up to 100 community members, including admins (from October 1, 2026)", and exports are tiered "Up to 100 members" / "Up to 1,000 members" / "Up to 10,000 members" / "Unlimited". Rewards themselves are separate: "Rewards you choose to give your community are separate and paid by you." No take rate on distributed value is published on the pricing page or in https:// zealy .io /docs /start-guide /billing-and-plans (fetched 28 September 2026), which states "We do not provide refunds".Zealy — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026 - Prices published in
- USDZealy — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Optimism, Arbitrum, Polygon, Base, Solana, Binance Smart Chain (BNB), Linea, Avalanche, Fantom, Cronos, Palm, Gnosis, Chiliz, Moonbeam, Polygon zkEVM, zkSync, TON
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- No market restriction and no sanctions clause found. The Terms of Use (https://
zealy .notion .site /TERMS-OF-USE-OF-ZEALY-eee 431138558434 eae3d40 f7560bdd 41, read 17 August 2026) name no prohibited jurisdiction, no OFAC/sanctions representation and no residency requirement; the only 'restricted' language is about credentials — 'access to the service is restricted to Users who connect either through their discord login and password or by their wallet connect login and password'. So this is neither a regional footprint nor the standard OFAC eligibility rule: it is an absence of either. The only geography attaching to the product is the operator's: Freyja Labs, Orléans, France, French intellectual-property law cited. Read to its end on 17 August 2026, across the complete Terms of Use the strings 'sanction', 'OFAC', 'embargo', 'prohibited jurisdiction' and 'resident' each occur ZERO times. The end of the document supplies the governing-law clause: 'These ToU are governed by French law.' with disputes 'subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the French courts'. So: French law, French courts, and no sanctions or residency screening of any kind in the contract.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Zealy: 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
- 17 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 51, #8 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 incentive_distribution:zealy:2026.10.18:f89bd9058d07
Are you Zealy? 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.