Ratings · Measured, not sponsored
Crypto Ratings
Every number on these pages is either something we measured ourselves or something a company published and we cited. Nothing here is for sale, and there is not one affiliate link on this website.
Last measurement run · How we rate · How this is funded
What the measurements found
what a trading terminal charges over the exchange it routes into — Axiom 1.9287% against Aerodrome’s 0.0506%
Trading tools →of stETH is genuinely sellable: $113m of depth against $17.2bn outstanding
Liquid staking →of Euler’s $197m hack came back — the only nine-figure DeFi recovery in full
Lending →is what Foundation collected in fees over thirty days. OpenSea collected $2.8m
NFT marketplaces →What we would use in each category
The top of each ranking, with the score it earned. A high score means it did well against that category’s published weights — not that it suits you. Every company page carries a “who this is not for” section for exactly that reason.
Every category
Exchanges and trading
Staking, lending and yield
DeFi and stablecoins
Crypto ratings FAQ
How does ChainWatch Daily rate crypto services?
+
Each category publishes its criteria and their weights, and the weights always sum to 100. A criterion only exists if we can actually verify it — where we cannot, we delete the criterion rather than score it on impressions or leave it as an unscored placeholder that quietly dilutes everything else. Numbers we measured ourselves are labelled measured; numbers a company published about itself are labelled published; and we never blend the two.
Are these ratings paid, sponsored, or affiliate-funded?
+
No. There are no affiliate links anywhere on this site, no paid placements, and no sponsored positions — nothing here is for sale. That is not a disclaimer, it is the reason the section exists: every other crypto rating on the internet is funded by commissions from the companies it ranks, and it is distorted in the same predictable direction. Because we earn nothing, we can say things they cannot — including that a free open-source tool beats the paid market leader, or that an entire category is not worth buying.
What do you measure that other comparison sites do not?
+
Numbers that require somebody to actually do the work. The realised fee rate at each decentralised exchange, computed as thirty days of protocol fees over thirty days of volume — which disagrees with every published fee tier. What a trading terminal skims on top of the exchange it routes into, which runs to nearly forty times the exchange’s own rate. How much of a liquid staking token could genuinely be sold before the price breaks. And after every incident, whether the depositors were actually made whole — not just how large the headline loss was.
How often are these ratings updated?
+
Each category page carries the date its figures were measured, and every individual number carries its own date and provenance — measured by us, published by the company, computed from stated inputs, or sourced to a primary document. Where something changed since the last run, the category’s changelog says what changed and why. A rating with one page-level “updated recently” stamp and no per-figure dates is telling you nothing.
Which crypto exchange or wallet is best?
+
It depends on what you are protecting against, and each rating says so explicitly — every company page carries a “who this is not for” section. If you want the short version: for exchanges, the ranking is led by custody evidence rather than by low fees, because a fee difference costs you dollars and a custody failure costs you everything. Kraken tops that table; Sparrow tops software wallets; the Coldcard Q tops hardware.