Luganodes scores 4 points above Figment, led by slashing cover and voting from custody. Figment ranks #4 and Luganodes #2 of 7 published staking. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
FIFigment72
vs
Luganodes76
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #2 of 7
Luganodes scores 4 points above Figment, led by slashing cover and voting from custody.
FIFigment #4 of 772
Luganodes #2 of 776
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termLuganodes leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Figment on 2. The terms sum to the gap.
TermLuganodesFigmentWeightPoints
Slashing cover9/105/108.2+8.5for Luganodes+4.4 of 32
Rate transparency5/106/105.8−1.5for Figment−0.8 of 32
Lock-up disclosure3/106/105.3−4.1for Figment−2.1 of 32
Voting from custody6/105/104.8+1.2for Luganodes+0.6 of 32
Net of the terms+4.1
Reproduced gap+4.2
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7672+4.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
LuganodesScore 76Institutional non-custodial validator operator on 40+ networks that is the only member of this pool to name a licensed insurer for slashing — confirmed on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own register — and state the client pays nothing for it, while publishing a commission figure for just three of those networks (TRON, Sui and Hyperliquid on 2026-09-28), no exit-queue figure for Ethereum at all, and a contract that caps its own liability at the fees it collected.Strength: Slashing indemnity — 9/10Watch-out: Read the Terms of Service before you read anything else, because it contradicts three things the marketing says. (1) The company you would contract with is not the Swiss one on the homepage: https://luganodes.com/terms-of-service opens "These Terms of Service for Boldfit Tech Solutions Ltd. ("Terms") regulate the services provided by Luganodes, a private limited company based in Cayman Islands ("Luganodes")", while https://luganodes.com/faq/ lists "Headquarters Switzerland (Lugano Plan ₿)" and /network/ethereum calls the operation "Swiss-operated"; the Terms then pick Swiss law (8.1, "These Terms are regulated by and construed in line with Swiss substantive law") and assign jurisdiction to "the regular courts of Luganodes" (8.2), which is not a court — Luganodes is the counterparty's own trading name, not a place. (2) The insurance that makes this the strongest indemnity disclosure in the category is nowhere in the contract. The words Chainproof and insurance appear zero times in the Terms; section 4 expressly excludes "slashing penalties" from Luganodes' responsibility, and section 5 caps total liability at "the portion of Service Fees received by Luganodes" from your delegation. The insurer is real and licensed — Chainproof Digital Asset Insurance Ltd appears on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own regulated-entities register as sector Insurance, Class IIGB — but Chainproof describes its slashing product as "First-party indemnification for validators and institutional stakers", publishes no limit ("meaningful policy limits", "All policies are bespoke"), and does not name Luganodes anywhere on its site. So get the policy number, the limit, and written confirmation that YOU are the beneficiary rather than the validator. (3) Section 6 states the Service Fee "is also available on the Luganodes website" — it is not, for any network except TRON, Sui and, on a Hyperliquid page new since August, Hyperliquid ("3.00%" on 2026-09-28). Ask for your commission per network and your Ethereum exit-queue expectation in the contract; neither is published.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.
FactFigmentLuganodes
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."Luganodes' TRON network page (https://luganodes.com/network/tron/, fetched 28 September 2026) answers "What APR can I earn staking TRX with Luganodes?" with: "Luganodes returns 95% of staking rewards to voters at a 5% commission, currently a 3.21% APR. TRON yield comes from block production and voting rewards rather than a fixed rate, so it moves with network conditions. Among institutional TRON staking providers, Luganodes sits at the top of the cohort on both reward share and yield. Last updated: June 2026." The same page's header block reads "5% Flat Commission" and "~3.2% APR". That is the TRON Super Representative rate only. Luganodes prints a rate for just two other networks (Sui on its network directory, Hyperliquid on its new Hyperliquid page); its Ethereum and staking-product pages print no fee, and its Terms say the Service Fee is recorded on-chain and "also available on the Luganodes website".
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
FI
Figment
72#4 of 7
Pick it when
Pick Figment if rate transparency matters most — it scores 6/10 to Luganodes's 5/10 there (weight 24).
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.
Luganodes
76#2 of 7
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Luganodes if slashing cover matters most — it scores 9/10 to Figment's 5/10 there (weight 34).
Strength
Slashing indemnity — 9/10
Tradeoff
Read the Terms of Service before you read anything else, because it contradicts three things the marketing says. (1) The company you would contract with is not the Swiss one on the homepage: https://luganodes.com/terms-of-service opens "These Terms of Service for Boldfit Tech Solutions Ltd. ("Terms") regulate the services provided by Luganodes, a private limited company based in Cayman Islands ("Luganodes")", while https://luganodes.com/faq/ lists "Headquarters Switzerland (Lugano Plan ₿)" and /network/ethereum calls the operation "Swiss-operated"; the Terms then pick Swiss law (8.1, "These Terms are regulated by and construed in line with Swiss substantive law") and assign jurisdiction to "the regular courts of Luganodes" (8.2), which is not a court — Luganodes is the counterparty's own trading name, not a place. (2) The insurance that makes this the strongest indemnity disclosure in the category is nowhere in the contract. The words Chainproof and insurance appear zero times in the Terms; section 4 expressly excludes "slashing penalties" from Luganodes' responsibility, and section 5 caps total liability at "the portion of Service Fees received by Luganodes" from your delegation. The insurer is real and licensed — Chainproof Digital Asset Insurance Ltd appears on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own regulated-entities register as sector Insurance, Class IIGB — but Chainproof describes its slashing product as "First-party indemnification for validators and institutional stakers", publishes no limit ("meaningful policy limits", "All policies are bespoke"), and does not name Luganodes anywhere on its site. So get the policy number, the limit, and written confirmation that YOU are the beneficiary rather than the validator. (3) Section 6 states the Service Fee "is also available on the Luganodes website" — it is not, for any network except TRON, Sui and, on a Hyperliquid page new since August, Hyperliquid ("3.00%" on 2026-09-28). Ask for your commission per network and your Ethereum exit-queue expectation in the contract; neither is published.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
FIFigment
Choose Figment if rate transparency matters most
Rate transparency: 6/10 against 5/10 for Luganodes (weight 24)
Lock-up disclosure: 6/10 against 3/10 for Luganodes (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.
LuganodesLeads
Choose Luganodes if slashing cover matters most
Slashing cover: 9/10 against 5/10 for Figment (weight 34)
Voting from custody: 6/10 against 5/10 for Figment (weight 20)
LuganodesScore 76Institutional non-custodial validator operator on 40+ networks that is the only member of this pool to name a licensed insurer for slashing — confirmed on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own register — and state the client pays nothing for it, while publishing a commission figure for just three of those networks (TRON, Sui and Hyperliquid on 2026-09-28), no exit-queue figure for Ethereum at all, and a contract that caps its own liability at the fees it collected.Strength: Slashing indemnity — 9/10Watch-out: Read the Terms of Service before you read anything else, because it contradicts three things the marketing says. (1) The company you would contract with is not the Swiss one on the homepage: https://luganodes.com/terms-of-service opens "These Terms of Service for Boldfit Tech Solutions Ltd. ("Terms") regulate the services provided by Luganodes, a private limited company based in Cayman Islands ("Luganodes")", while https://luganodes.com/faq/ lists "Headquarters Switzerland (Lugano Plan ₿)" and /network/ethereum calls the operation "Swiss-operated"; the Terms then pick Swiss law (8.1, "These Terms are regulated by and construed in line with Swiss substantive law") and assign jurisdiction to "the regular courts of Luganodes" (8.2), which is not a court — Luganodes is the counterparty's own trading name, not a place. (2) The insurance that makes this the strongest indemnity disclosure in the category is nowhere in the contract. The words Chainproof and insurance appear zero times in the Terms; section 4 expressly excludes "slashing penalties" from Luganodes' responsibility, and section 5 caps total liability at "the portion of Service Fees received by Luganodes" from your delegation. The insurer is real and licensed — Chainproof Digital Asset Insurance Ltd appears on the Bermuda Monetary Authority's own regulated-entities register as sector Insurance, Class IIGB — but Chainproof describes its slashing product as "First-party indemnification for validators and institutional stakers", publishes no limit ("meaningful policy limits", "All policies are bespoke"), and does not name Luganodes anywhere on its site. So get the policy number, the limit, and written confirmation that YOU are the beneficiary rather than the validator. (3) Section 6 states the Service Fee "is also available on the Luganodes website" — it is not, for any network except TRON, Sui and, on a Hyperliquid page new since August, Hyperliquid ("3.00%" on 2026-09-28). Ask for your commission per network and your Ethereum exit-queue expectation in the contract; neither is published.
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 4 of 10weight 8.2 of 86Luganodes leads
Figment5/10 out of 10
Luganodes9/10 out of 10
Lock-up disclosure
by 3 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Figment leads
Figment6/10 out of 10
Luganodes3/10 out of 10
Rate transparency
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Figment leads
Figment6/10 out of 10
Luganodes5/10 out of 10
Voting from custody
by 1 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Luganodes leads
Figment5/10 out of 10
Luganodes6/10 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
Figment14/20Luganodes14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Figment13.1/30Luganodes14.7/30
Luganodes leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Figment2.7/10Luganodes2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Figment3.2/8Luganodes3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Figment8.3/18Luganodes8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Luganodes unless the term Figment leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Figment if rate transparency matters most — it scores 6/10 to Luganodes's 5/10 there (weight 24).
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, Luganodes 6/10)
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, Luganodes 9/10)
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, Luganodes 3/10)
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
Luganodes scores 4 points above Figment, led by slashing cover and voting from custody. Published scores, out of 100: Figment 72 (rank 4 of 7 staking), Luganodes 76 (rank 2 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
