Figment vs Chorus One Chorus One leads by 1 point.
Chorus One scores 1 point above Figment, led by rate transparency and voting from custody. Figment ranks #4 and Chorus One #3 of 7 published staking. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
FIFigment72
vs
Chorus One73
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #3 of 7
Chorus One scores 1 point above Figment, led by rate transparency and voting from custody.
FIFigment #4 of 772
Chorus One #3 of 773
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termChorus One leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Figment on 2. The terms sum to the gap.
TermChorus OneFigmentWeightPoints
Slashing cover3/105/108.2−4.2for Figment−2.2 of 32
Rate transparency7/106/105.8+1.5for Chorus One+0.8 of 32
Lock-up disclosure5/106/105.3−1.4for Figment−0.7 of 32
Voting from custody9/105/104.8+5.0for Chorus One+2.6 of 32
Net of the terms+0.9
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+0.8
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7372+1.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Chorus One's lead rests on lighter criteria: Figment is ahead on slashing cover, which carries more weight (34) than any criterion Chorus One leads on (24).
Chorus OneScore 73Institutional validator operator now trading as Bitwise Onchain Solutions, running non-custodial delegated staking across 30+ proof-of-stake networks, with a named Ledger Enterprise custody integration and a genuinely public per-network commission feed - but a March 2026 contract that disclaims slashing loss entirely, and two different legal entities named on its own site as the staking provider.Strength: Governance under custody — 9/10Watch-out: Read the Terms of Service before the marketing, and check which entity you are actually signing with. https://chorus.one/terms-of-service, updated March 18, 2026, defines Slashing and then says in 1.3 that 'Bitwise is not responsible in any way for any failure by any supported blockchain Network to transfer Rewards (including any risks of "Slashing")', caps all liability at fees paid in the preceding six months (or $10,000 if none), and contains 'insurance', 'indemnif' and 'coverage' exactly zero times - while live product pages advertise a '$250k/quarter self-insurance pool' whose only explanatory article now 301-redirects to the homepage. If slashing indemnity is why you are shortlisting this operator, that base cover exists only in marketing copy, the institutional layer is explicitly 'upgradeable' (i.e. purchased), no insurer or reinsurer is ever named, and the signed contract allocates the loss to you. Second-order, and the sharper point: the counterparty is ambiguous on the operator's own domain. The Terms of Service name 'Chorus One AG, a Swiss company ... doing business as Bitwise Onchain Solutions', governed by Swiss law with binding arbitration and a class-action waiver - but the disclosure block on https://chorus.one/crypto-research states 'Staking is provided by Attestant Ltd. Doing business as "Bitwise Onchain Solutions" ("BOS")'. Two different legal entities trade under the same name on the same site, and nothing public tells a buyer which one will be on their contract or which law governs it. Establish the contracting entity in writing before diligence goes further.FigmentScore 72Institutional non-custodial validator operator publishing a 25-network catalog table (2026-09-28 count) with per-network unbonding and 28 named custody integrations, whose only public price is an Ethereum self-serve app fee stated as "10% of total rewards" in an answer that first scopes it to execution-layer rewards, while the institutional contract rate, and the size of its slashing coverage, are both set behind "Meet With Us".Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 6/10Watch-out: The number you would actually pay is not on this site, and the one number that is on it does not say what it is charged on. Figment's only stated fee is the Ethereum self-serve app's, on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ : you "only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards", and then "Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." — so the page does not say whether the 10% is taken on execution-layer or on total rewards. The second, conflicting rate (30% of execution layer rewards) that https://www.figment.io/staking/protocols/ethereum/ printed in August was gone from that page on 2026-09-28. The 10% describes the ETH self-serve app, not an institutional rate, and the institutional pages print no fee at all. Do not mistake the "Avg. Public Node Fee" column on the protocols catalog for Figment's price — it is undefined on the page, and its Ethereum cell, "Varies" in August, read "10%" on 2026-09-28, matching the app fee without saying it is one, so treat it as an undefined benchmark, not a quote. The coverage that reads like indemnity is unquantified the same way: the only insurer Figment names, Nexus Mutual, is an opt-in purchase limited to Ethereum double-sign; the "multi-tiered coverage, including insurance and Figment's balance sheet" on the solutions pages carries no limit and no basis; and the one thing Figment says it "contractually commit[s]" to is slashing ALERTING, not reimbursement. Before committing, make the contract state (a) your actual commission and its base per network, and (b) the coverage limit in figures and who underwrites it — because on the public record neither exists.
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactFigmentChorus One
PricingSnapshotFigment app FAQ "How much does it cost to stake through the Figment app?" on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ (fetched 28 September 2026): "You keep all of the consensus layer rewards earned by your validator when staking through the Figment app and only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards. This fee is collected on-chain automatically through a smart contract. Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." That is the Ethereum self-serve app rate; the sentence scopes the fee to execution-layer rewards and then states it as a share of total rewards, and the page does not say which reading governs. It is not an institutional contract rate: the custodian and asset-manager solution pages print no fee and route to "Meet With Us", and the Staking Terms of Use (Last Updated August 21st, 2026) say only that service fees "are publicly available on the relevant block explorer for each Supported Blockchain and are subject to change at any time for any reason."Chorus One's OPUS / ETH Staking Vault page (https://chorus.one/stake-ethereum-opus, fetched 28 September 2026) answers "What is the fee for staking on the ETH Staking Vault?" with "The ETH Staking Vault Pool offers highly competitive staking fees at just 5%." and repeats it as "Low fees, high rewards – our 5% commissions are among the market's lowest." That rate belongs to the ETH Staking Vault pool, not to an institutional contract: https://chorus.one/institutional-staking prints no percentage and routes to "Contact us". The Terms of Service (UPDATED 18 March 2026) set the base — a flat Service Fee "as a percentage of the Rewards earned" at the rate most recently posted on the Site — so the rate is charged on rewards, not principal.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
FI
Figment
72#4 of 7
Pick it when
Pick Figment if slashing cover matters most — it scores 5/10 to Chorus One's 3/10 there (weight 34).
Strength
Unbonding disclosure — 6/10
Tradeoff
The number you would actually pay is not on this site, and the one number that is on it does not say what it is charged on. Figment's only stated fee is the Ethereum self-serve app's, on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ : you "only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards", and then "Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." — so the page does not say whether the 10% is taken on execution-layer or on total rewards. The second, conflicting rate (30% of execution layer rewards) that https://www.figment.io/staking/protocols/ethereum/ printed in August was gone from that page on 2026-09-28. The 10% describes the ETH self-serve app, not an institutional rate, and the institutional pages print no fee at all. Do not mistake the "Avg. Public Node Fee" column on the protocols catalog for Figment's price — it is undefined on the page, and its Ethereum cell, "Varies" in August, read "10%" on 2026-09-28, matching the app fee without saying it is one, so treat it as an undefined benchmark, not a quote. The coverage that reads like indemnity is unquantified the same way: the only insurer Figment names, Nexus Mutual, is an opt-in purchase limited to Ethereum double-sign; the "multi-tiered coverage, including insurance and Figment's balance sheet" on the solutions pages carries no limit and no basis; and the one thing Figment says it "contractually commit[s]" to is slashing ALERTING, not reimbursement. Before committing, make the contract state (a) your actual commission and its base per network, and (b) the coverage limit in figures and who underwrites it — because on the public record neither exists.
Chorus One
73#3 of 7
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Chorus One if rate transparency matters most — it scores 7/10 to Figment's 6/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Governance under custody — 9/10
Tradeoff
Read the Terms of Service before the marketing, and check which entity you are actually signing with. https://chorus.one/terms-of-service, updated March 18, 2026, defines Slashing and then says in 1.3 that 'Bitwise is not responsible in any way for any failure by any supported blockchain Network to transfer Rewards (including any risks of "Slashing")', caps all liability at fees paid in the preceding six months (or $10,000 if none), and contains 'insurance', 'indemnif' and 'coverage' exactly zero times - while live product pages advertise a '$250k/quarter self-insurance pool' whose only explanatory article now 301-redirects to the homepage. If slashing indemnity is why you are shortlisting this operator, that base cover exists only in marketing copy, the institutional layer is explicitly 'upgradeable' (i.e. purchased), no insurer or reinsurer is ever named, and the signed contract allocates the loss to you. Second-order, and the sharper point: the counterparty is ambiguous on the operator's own domain. The Terms of Service name 'Chorus One AG, a Swiss company ... doing business as Bitwise Onchain Solutions', governed by Swiss law with binding arbitration and a class-action waiver - but the disclosure block on https://chorus.one/crypto-research states 'Staking is provided by Attestant Ltd. Doing business as "Bitwise Onchain Solutions" ("BOS")'. Two different legal entities trade under the same name on the same site, and nothing public tells a buyer which one will be on their contract or which law governs it. Establish the contracting entity in writing before diligence goes further.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
FIFigment
Choose Figment if slashing cover matters most
Slashing cover: 5/10 against 3/10 for Chorus One (weight 34)
Lock-up disclosure: 6/10 against 5/10 for Chorus One (weight 22)
FigmentScore 72Institutional non-custodial validator operator publishing a 25-network catalog table (2026-09-28 count) with per-network unbonding and 28 named custody integrations, whose only public price is an Ethereum self-serve app fee stated as "10% of total rewards" in an answer that first scopes it to execution-layer rewards, while the institutional contract rate, and the size of its slashing coverage, are both set behind "Meet With Us".Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 6/10Watch-out: The number you would actually pay is not on this site, and the one number that is on it does not say what it is charged on. Figment's only stated fee is the Ethereum self-serve app's, on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ : you "only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards", and then "Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." — so the page does not say whether the 10% is taken on execution-layer or on total rewards. The second, conflicting rate (30% of execution layer rewards) that https://www.figment.io/staking/protocols/ethereum/ printed in August was gone from that page on 2026-09-28. The 10% describes the ETH self-serve app, not an institutional rate, and the institutional pages print no fee at all. Do not mistake the "Avg. Public Node Fee" column on the protocols catalog for Figment's price — it is undefined on the page, and its Ethereum cell, "Varies" in August, read "10%" on 2026-09-28, matching the app fee without saying it is one, so treat it as an undefined benchmark, not a quote. The coverage that reads like indemnity is unquantified the same way: the only insurer Figment names, Nexus Mutual, is an opt-in purchase limited to Ethereum double-sign; the "multi-tiered coverage, including insurance and Figment's balance sheet" on the solutions pages carries no limit and no basis; and the one thing Figment says it "contractually commit[s]" to is slashing ALERTING, not reimbursement. Before committing, make the contract state (a) your actual commission and its base per network, and (b) the coverage limit in figures and who underwrites it — because on the public record neither exists.
Chorus OneLeads
Choose Chorus One if rate transparency matters most
Rate transparency: 7/10 against 6/10 for Figment (weight 24)
Voting from custody: 9/10 against 5/10 for Figment (weight 20)
Chorus OneScore 73Institutional validator operator now trading as Bitwise Onchain Solutions, running non-custodial delegated staking across 30+ proof-of-stake networks, with a named Ledger Enterprise custody integration and a genuinely public per-network commission feed - but a March 2026 contract that disclaims slashing loss entirely, and two different legal entities named on its own site as the staking provider.Strength: Governance under custody — 9/10Watch-out: Read the Terms of Service before the marketing, and check which entity you are actually signing with. https://chorus.one/terms-of-service, updated March 18, 2026, defines Slashing and then says in 1.3 that 'Bitwise is not responsible in any way for any failure by any supported blockchain Network to transfer Rewards (including any risks of "Slashing")', caps all liability at fees paid in the preceding six months (or $10,000 if none), and contains 'insurance', 'indemnif' and 'coverage' exactly zero times - while live product pages advertise a '$250k/quarter self-insurance pool' whose only explanatory article now 301-redirects to the homepage. If slashing indemnity is why you are shortlisting this operator, that base cover exists only in marketing copy, the institutional layer is explicitly 'upgradeable' (i.e. purchased), no insurer or reinsurer is ever named, and the signed contract allocates the loss to you. Second-order, and the sharper point: the counterparty is ambiguous on the operator's own domain. The Terms of Service name 'Chorus One AG, a Swiss company ... doing business as Bitwise Onchain Solutions', governed by Swiss law with binding arbitration and a class-action waiver - but the disclosure block on https://chorus.one/crypto-research states 'Staking is provided by Attestant Ltd. Doing business as "Bitwise Onchain Solutions" ("BOS")'. Two different legal entities trade under the same name on the same site, and nothing public tells a buyer which one will be on their contract or which law governs it. Establish the contracting entity in writing before diligence goes further.
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Slashing cover
by 2 of 10weight 8.2 of 86Figment leads
Figment5/10 out of 10
Chorus One3/10 out of 10
Lock-up disclosure
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Figment leads
Figment6/10 out of 10
Chorus One5/10 out of 10
Rate transparency
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Chorus One leads
Figment6/10 out of 10
Chorus One7/10 out of 10
Voting from custody
by 4 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Chorus One leads
Figment5/10 out of 10
Chorus One9/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
Figment14/20Chorus One14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Figment13.1/30Chorus One13.4/30
Chorus One leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Figment2.7/10Chorus One2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Figment3.2/8Chorus One3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Figment8.3/18Chorus One8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Chorus One unless the term Figment leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Figment if slashing cover matters most — it scores 5/10 to Chorus One's 3/10 there (weight 34).
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
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 Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · 20% (Figment 5/10, Chorus One 9/10)
Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.
Scored by If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · 34% (Figment 5/10, Chorus One 3/10)
Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.
Scored by How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · 22% (Figment 6/10, Chorus One 5/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Information 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: Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? (24%).
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Chorus One scores 1 point above Figment, led by rate transparency and voting from custody. Published scores, out of 100: Figment 72 (rank 4 of 7 staking), Chorus One 73 (rank 3 of 7).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
