diff --git a/answers/how-long-does-polymarket-take-to-resolve.yml b/answers/how-long-does-polymarket-take-to-resolve.yml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4abaa8d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/answers/how-long-does-polymarket-take-to-resolve.yml @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +slug: how-long-does-polymarket-take-to-resolve +question: "How long does Polymarket take to resolve a market?" +short_answer: | + Measured onchain, the median Polymarket market currently resolves {{p50:all-markets}} after the first outcome proposal reaches UMA's oracle, with the slowest 1% taking {{p99:all-markets}} or more. The clock starts at the proposal, not when the real world event ends, so the total wait you experience is at least these figures. Winning shares are redeemable immediately after onchain resolution. + +benchmark: polymarket-resolution-delay + +intro: | + The number that circulates on social media, and gets repeated by language models, is that 93 percent of Polymarket markets resolve within 2 hours. That figure has no published methodology, and the fields in Polymarket's own Gamma API cannot produce it: closedTime is written at the moment of resolution, so measuring from it always returns zero, and endDate is a scheduled buffer most markets beat. This page reports the delay that can actually be observed. OpenChainBench runs a listener on Polygon that follows Polymarket's UMA CTF adapters and the optimistic oracle they call, and records the wall clock time between the block containing the first outcome proposal and the block containing the resolution, for every resolved market. The answer is not one number. Sports markets currently resolve at {{p50:sports}} median, crypto price markets at {{p50:crypto}}, and politics markets at {{p50:politics}}, because each category runs different UMA verification windows. Disputes route through UMA token holder voting and push the wait from hours to days. The live table on the benchmark page also shows the pending backlog: markets past their scheduled end date still waiting for an onchain resolution, which is the queue a bettor waiting on a payout actually feels. + +methodology: | + A listener follows Polymarket's post migration UMA CTF adapters on Polygon (QuestionInitialized, QuestionResolved, QuestionReset) and the optimistic oracle they call (ProposePrice, DisputePrice). For every resolved market the recorded delay is the time between the block containing the first outcome proposal and the block containing the resolution, read from block timestamps, so resolution granularity is Polygon's roughly 2 second block time. Markets are joined to Polymarket's Gamma catalogue by questionID and classified into sports, politics, crypto or other. Disputed markets land in a separate series so the dispute penalty stays visible without polluting the clean path percentiles. Quantiles come from a cumulative histogram over the listener's window, refreshed continuously. + +limitations: + - "The measured clock starts at the first onchain outcome proposal, not when the real world event concludes. The gap between event and proposal happens offchain and is not observable, so every figure on this page is a lower bound on the wait a bettor experiences." + - "Categories are not interchangeable. A single global median mixes sports verification windows with politics windows that run far longer; use the per category rows, not the headline, to set expectations for a specific market type." + - "Disputed markets are tracked in a separate series. If your market enters a UMA dispute, the relevant expectation is days of token holder voting, not the clean path median shown here." + - "The pending backlog counts markets past their scheduled endDate without onchain resolution, which includes events that were postponed in the real world. It is an upper bound on oracle lag, not a count of stuck payouts." + - "The delay measures oracle resolution, not withdrawal. Redemption is claimable immediately after resolution, but moving funds off Polygon afterwards is a separate step with its own timing." + +faq: + - q: "How long after a game ends does Polymarket pay out?" + a: "Sports markets currently resolve at a median of {{p50:sports}} from the first onchain outcome proposal. Add the time between the final whistle and the moment someone proposes the outcome to UMA's oracle, which happens offchain once the result is official and is not measurable onchain. Sports is also where nearly all disputes happen (contested endings, stat corrections), and a dispute moves the wait from minutes or hours into days of UMA voting. Once the market resolves onchain, winning shares are redeemable immediately." + - q: "Do 93 percent of Polymarket markets resolve within 2 hours?" + a: "OpenChainBench could not reproduce that figure, and the public data cannot produce it: Gamma's closedTime equals the resolution timestamp by construction, and endDate is a scheduled buffer most markets beat. Measured from the first onchain proposal to resolution on Polygon, the within 2 hours share is published live on the benchmark page and has run materially below 93 percent since measurement began. Treat any resolution speed claim without a stated anchor and methodology as unfalsifiable." + - q: "How long does a disputed Polymarket market take to resolve?" + a: "Days rather than hours. A dispute on UMA's optimistic oracle resets the question and routes it to a vote of UMA token holders, replacing the normal verification window with a voting period measured in days. Disputes are rare, and the live dispute counter on the benchmark page tracks the measured rate, but when one lands on a market you hold, the clean path medians on this page no longer apply. Disputed markets are recorded in a separate series precisely so they cannot hide inside the headline number." + - q: "Which Polymarket markets resolve the fastest?" + a: "Crypto price markets, at a median of {{p50:crypto}}. Their outcomes are machine checkable against price feeds the moment the window closes, so proposals arrive promptly and short verification windows suffice. Sports sit in the middle at {{p50:sports}} and dominate resolution volume. Politics markets run the long end at {{p50:politics}}, because outcomes often wait on an authoritative source and verification windows are conservative on markets carrying the largest open interest." + +related: + - polymarket-vs-kalshi-resolution-speed + - which-prediction-market-data-api-is-the-freshest + - which-prediction-market-has-the-strictest-rate-limits + +seo_title: "How long does Polymarket take to resolve? Measured onchain" +seo_description: "Median Polymarket resolution is {{p50:all-markets}} from first outcome proposal to onchain payout, p99 {{p99:all-markets}}. Sports vs crypto vs politics, disputes and the pending backlog, measured live from Polygon." +status: live diff --git a/answers/how-much-does-it-cost-to-bridge-usdc-to-arbitrum.yml b/answers/how-much-does-it-cost-to-bridge-usdc-to-arbitrum.yml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e81f5320 --- /dev/null +++ b/answers/how-much-does-it-cost-to-bridge-usdc-to-arbitrum.yml @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +slug: how-much-does-it-cost-to-bridge-usdc-to-arbitrum +question: "How much does it cost to bridge USDC to Arbitrum?" +short_answer: | + On a $300 USDC transfer, the cheapest measured provider currently lands at {{best_p50}} of notional all in ({{best_name}}, p50 over 24h) and the most expensive at {{worst_p50}}, measured live by OpenChainBench across USDC corridors spanning Solana, Base and Arbitrum, including the Base to Arbitrum route. All in means fees plus slippage plus destination gas, the number that actually leaves your wallet. + +benchmark: bridge-fee + +intro: | + Ask a bridge's landing page what it costs to move USDC to Arbitrum and you get the advertised fee, typically something like 0.05%. Sign the transaction and the bottom line is different: destination gas, the base protocol fee and the solver spread stack on top, and at retail ticket sizes they dominate. This page answers the question with a live measurement instead of a rack rate. OpenChainBench requests a $300 USDC quote from deBridge, LI.FI, Mobula, Relay, Across and Near Intents every five minutes on the same corridor set (Solana, Base and Arbitrum, including Base to Arbitrum), and records the full bottom line as a percent of notional: quoted USD in minus quoted USD delivered. The leaderboard sorts on the 24h median so a single favourable quote cannot crown a winner. The spread between providers is routinely several fold at this trade size, because three pricing architectures cohabit: direct protocols front load a fixed fee, aggregators pay an underlying bridge plus a markup, and intent layers compress everything into a solver spread. At $300, which architecture you pick matters more than which day you bridge. + +methodology: | + Each provider is queried every five minutes from a single eu-west origin for a $300 USDC quote on the same corridor set spanning Solana, Base and Arbitrum. The recorded metric is total cost as a percent of notional: the explicit fee, the price impact and the destination gas component summed, computed as quoted USD in minus quoted USD delivered so every provider is measured on the same all in definition regardless of how it structures pricing. Quotes that fail (unsupported route, timeout, error) are excluded from the cost aggregate and counted against the success rate. The headline per provider is the average of per corridor 24h medians over the corridors it actually quotes; p90 and p99 capture the worst minutes. + +limitations: + - "The headline aggregates over the Solana, Base and Arbitrum corridors each provider quotes, so it is not a pure to-Arbitrum number. A solver with deep Arbitrum side inventory can beat its own aggregate on the Base to Arbitrum route specifically; the per corridor split lands once corridor dimensions are wired into the bench page." + - "Sampled at $300 notional. At $5,000 or $10,000 the fixed components dilute into the percentage and the leaderboard re-orders; the harness records $5 to $10,000 buckets but this page surfaces the retail size." + - "The figure is the quote cost at request time, not the realised cost after settlement. Spot can drift between quote and signing on volatile moments; intent layers re-quote at signing, aggregators pass through a slippage tolerance." + - "Arbitrum's canonical bridge is not in the leaderboard. It mints canonical USDC with no protocol fee, but you pay L1 gas on deposit and its cost has no quoted delivered amount to compare on the same definition; it is also slow in the withdrawal direction (7 day challenge window without a liquidity provider)." + - "Single measurement origin in eu-west. A provider whose solver pool sits in us-east can quote differently there." + +faq: + - q: "What is the cheapest way to bridge USDC to Arbitrum?" + a: "At $300 notional, {{best_name}} currently leads the measured cohort at {{best_p50}} all in (p50, 24h, averaged across the corridors it quotes). Intent layers usually top this table at retail sizes because they compress fee, spread and destination gas into one solver quote, while direct protocols carry a fixed fee floor that hits hardest on small trades. The leaderboard refreshes every five minutes, and the corridor level leader can differ from the aggregate, so treat this as the live starting point rather than a permanent answer." + - q: "Why is bridging a small amount of USDC so expensive in percentage terms?" + a: "Because part of the cost is fixed. Destination gas and base protocol fees cost roughly the same whether you move $300 or $10,000, so at $300 they are the dominant share of the percentage, while at $10,000 they dilute to noise. This is why published comparisons quoting $10,000 rack rates understate what retail users pay: the current measured spread at $300 runs from {{best_p50}} to {{worst_p50}} across {{count}} providers, a gap driven mostly by how much fixed cost each architecture front loads rather than by spread efficiency." + - q: "Do I need ETH on Arbitrum to receive bridged USDC?" + a: "Not with the providers measured here. The quoted delivered amount already nets out destination gas: the solver or protocol pays the Arbitrum gas to deliver your USDC and charges it inside the all in cost this page measures. That convenience is part of why the percentage exceeds the advertised fee. You will need ETH (or a gas sponsoring wallet) for your own follow up transactions on Arbitrum, so consider bridging a small ETH amount alongside or picking a provider that offers gas top up on delivery." + - q: "Is the official Arbitrum bridge cheaper than third party bridges?" + a: "Sometimes on paper, rarely at $300 in practice. The canonical bridge charges no protocol fee, but a deposit costs L1 Ethereum gas, which on its own can exceed the all in cost of the intent layers measured here at retail size, and withdrawals back to Ethereum wait out a 7 day challenge window unless a liquidity provider fronts the exit. The canonical route matters when you need canonical minting guarantees or move very large size; for a $300 transfer the measured third party routes are usually cheaper and settle in minutes." + +related: + - which-bridge-has-the-cheapest-usdc-fee + - cheapest-bridge-usdc-to-base + - which-bridge-has-the-fastest-quote-api + +seo_title: "How much does it cost to bridge USDC to Arbitrum? Live all in fees" +seo_description: "Bridging $300 of USDC costs from {{best_p50}} to {{worst_p50}} all in (p50, 24h) depending on provider. deBridge, LI.FI, Mobula, Relay, Across and Near Intents measured live by OpenChainBench." +status: live diff --git a/answers/is-solana-staking-better-than-ethereum.yml b/answers/is-solana-staking-better-than-ethereum.yml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..86ac8878 --- /dev/null +++ b/answers/is-solana-staking-better-than-ethereum.yml @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +slug: is-solana-staking-better-than-ethereum +question: "Is Solana staking better than Ethereum staking?" +short_answer: | + On raw yield, currently yes: {{name:solana}} validators pay a median net {{p50:solana}} (24h) versus {{p50:ethereum}} for a network average Ethereum solo validator, measured live by OpenChainBench. The comparison carries caveats in both directions: the Ethereum figure excludes MEV and execution tips, and the Solana median is dragged down by validators currently paying 0%. + +benchmark: validator-yield + +intro: | + The SOL versus ETH staking debate usually runs on stale numbers: a Solana APY screenshot from one dashboard against an Ethereum rate from another, each computed differently and neither dated. This page puts both chains on one measured axis. OpenChainBench polls the top 200 Solana validators by stake through the Stakewiz API every 5 minutes (total APY with Jito MEV tips folded in, multiplied by uptime) and computes Ethereum's network average consensus layer APR from the beacon spec reward formula on the live total effective balance. The two numbers are honest but not symmetrical, and the differences matter more than the headline gap. Solana yield includes MEV tips because Solana has a validator level MEV market; the Ethereum figure excludes execution tips and MEV, so a proposer running MEV-Boost earns more than shown. Solana's median includes validators currently paying zero; Ethereum's number is uniform by construction because consensus rewards are equal per 32 ETH increment. Read the gap with both corrections in mind and it remains real: Solana's protocol inflation plus MEV structurally outpays Ethereum's post merge issuance at current stake levels. + +methodology: | + Both chains are measured as net yield in basis points: gross APR multiplied by validator uptime. Solana: Stakewiz total_apy (a 30 epoch trailing estimate including Jito MEV tips) per validator, top 200 by activated stake, roughly 90% of staked SOL by value; the chain number is the median across those validators. Ethereum: one network average consensus layer APR from the spec reward formula, APR = 64 x epochs_per_year / sqrt(total effective balance in gwei), with live total stake from ultrasound.money; consensus rewards are uniform per 32 ETH increment, so the network average equals the solo validator figure. Both are APR, not compounded APY. Refreshed every 5 minutes, headline numbers are 24h medians. + +limitations: + - "The Ethereum figure excludes execution tips and MEV. A proposer running MEV-Boost realizes materially more than the consensus layer number shown here, which narrows the real gap to Solana by an amount this bench does not yet measure." + - "The Solana median includes roughly 42 validators currently at 0% APY (commission set to 100% or no leader slots this epoch). A delegator who picks a sane validator earns closer to 6.0% than the chain median." + - "Yield is not risk. Solana staking has no slashing in production history but carries validator concentration and client diversity questions; Ethereum staking locks 32 ETH per validator with an exit queue. Neither risk profile appears in a bps number." + - "Liquid staking is out of scope. Lido, Jito SOL, Rocket Pool and exchange staking products net out their own fees and trade at their own market prices; this page compares native validator yield only." + - "Rewards are denominated in SOL and ETH respectively. Relative token price performance dominates the yield difference over any holding period longer than a few months, and this bench does not measure price." + - "Both figures are APR from trailing estimates, not forward guarantees. Solana's inflation schedule decays over time and Ethereum's rate falls as more ETH is staked." + +faq: + - q: "How much more does Solana staking pay than Ethereum?" + a: "Live numbers: {{name:solana}} median net yield is {{p50:solana}} versus {{p50:ethereum}} for {{name:ethereum}} (both 24h, in basis points where 100 bps equals 1%). The gap is structural: Solana pays protocol inflation plus Jito MEV tips minus an average validator commission near 24%, while Ethereum's consensus layer rate is set by a formula that decreases as total stake grows, with roughly 40M ETH currently staked. Check the leaderboard above for the number at the moment you read this." + - q: "Why is Solana staking APY higher than Ethereum?" + a: "Three reasons. Solana's protocol inflation is currently around 5% annually and flows to stakers, while Ethereum's post merge issuance is far lower by design. Solana has a validator level MEV market (Jito tips) that adds directly to staker APR, while Ethereum's equivalent (MEV-Boost) is excluded from the consensus layer figure measured here. And Ethereum's reward formula scales with the inverse square root of total stake, so its high staking participation mechanically lowers the rate for everyone." + - q: "Does Ethereum staking yield include MEV?" + a: "Not in this benchmark. The Ethereum figure is the consensus layer APR only: attestation, proposer and sync committee rewards from the beacon spec formula. Execution layer tips and MEV-Boost income are excluded because measuring them honestly requires per relay ingestion, which is on the roadmap. In practice a solo validator running MEV-Boost earns above the number shown, with high variance because MEV income is lumpy and proposal slots are rare for a single validator. The Solana figure does include MEV, because Stakewiz folds Jito tips into its APR." + - q: "Is Solana staking riskier than Ethereum staking?" + a: "Different risks rather than strictly more. Solana has never slashed in production and delegation is liquid at epoch granularity (roughly 2 days), but validator revenue concentrates around a smaller top set and about a fifth of the tracked top 200 currently pays 0%. Ethereum requires 32 ETH per solo validator, has slashing conditions for equivocation, and exits pass through a queue, but its validator set is near 1M indices and consensus rewards are uniform. On both chains the dominant practical risk for most holders is token price, not protocol failure." + +related: + - what-is-the-highest-crypto-staking-yield + - which-l1-has-the-fastest-finality + - which-l2-has-the-fastest-block-time + +seo_title: "Is Solana staking better than Ethereum? Live yield comparison 2026" +seo_description: "Solana validators pay a median net {{p50:solana}} versus {{p50:ethereum}} for Ethereum (24h, live). What the gap includes, what it hides, and the risks on each side, measured by OpenChainBench." +status: live diff --git a/answers/is-usdc-safer-than-usdt.yml b/answers/is-usdc-safer-than-usdt.yml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..37becd08 --- /dev/null +++ b/answers/is-usdc-safer-than-usdt.yml @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +slug: is-usdc-safer-than-usdt +question: "Is USDC safer than USDT?" +short_answer: | + On measured peg stability, the live data is on this page: {{name:usdc}} currently shows {{p99:usdc}} worst case deviation (p99, 24h) versus {{p99:usdt}} for {{name:usdt}} on USD quoted venues, measured live by OpenChainBench. Peg tightness is the market's real time verdict, but safety is broader: reserve composition, redemption terms and regulatory posture differ between Circle and Tether, and none of those appear in a price feed. + +benchmark: stablecoin-peg + +intro: | + The USDC versus USDT safety debate usually argues reserves and regulation, which matter but move slowly and resolve only in a crisis. There is a second signal that updates every minute: how tightly each token actually holds $1.00 on real venues, right now. A stablecoin whose price wanders tens of basis points from peg under normal conditions is telling you something about its liquidity and redemption arbitrage that no attestation PDF will. OpenChainBench polls Binance, Coinbase, Kraken and Bitstamp REST tickers every 5 seconds, aggregates per venue prices into a per minute liquidity weighted median per USD quoted stablecoin, and surfaces the per minute worst deviation in basis points alongside the cross venue gap, time outside the 50 bps band, and a depeg event flag. This page reads that data for the two largest stables. The history is instructive in both directions: USDC broke to $0.87 in March 2023 when Silicon Valley Bank froze part of Circle's reserves, and USDT has traded at persistent small discounts during redemption stress episodes. Whichever way your prior leans, the measured peg is the part of the answer you can verify live. + +methodology: | + Per venue samples are grouped into 60 second buckets and aggregated into a liquidity weighted median per stablecoin, weighted by 24h USD volume. The primary metric is the per minute worst deviation, the MAX of the absolute distance from $1.00 across venue samples in each bucket, in basis points. The leaderboard sorts on the 24h median of that per minute worst deviation; the p99 column captures the worst 1% tail over the same window, which is the number that matters for anyone holding inventory. USDC is measured on Kraken and Bitstamp USD pairs, USDT on Coinbase, Kraken and Bitstamp. USDT quoted pairs live on a separate secondary metric so USDT's own drift cannot contaminate the USD anchored comparison. A multi venue consensus rule keeps corroborated depegs and drops isolated single venue glitches. + +limitations: + - "Peg deviation is not a reserve audit. This bench measures the market price of each token against $1.00; it says nothing about what backs the token, how fast redemptions clear, or what happens in a bank failure. Reserve risk and peg tightness usually correlate, but the correlation broke for USDC in March 2023 within hours." + - "Coverage is a subset of venues: Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp and Curve on chain. A depeg that starts on an unmeasured venue or in a specific regional market appears here only once it propagates to the measured books." + - "The 24h window smooths history. A stablecoin can post excellent numbers for months and still fail abruptly; past peg stability is evidence, not a guarantee. The depeg event flag exists precisely because tail events do not announce themselves in the median." + - "The depeg flag fires only after 5 consecutive minutes outside [$0.97, $1.03], so sub 5 minute wicks show in the per minute MAX but never trip the flag." + - "Legal and counterparty differences between Circle and Tether (jurisdiction, attestation cadence, redemption gating, banking partners) are out of scope. For a treasury decision, read this page as the live market signal and pair it with reserve diligence." + +faq: + - q: "Which is more stable right now, USDC or USDT?" + a: "The live leaderboard above holds the current answer: {{name:usdc}} at {{p99:usdc}} versus {{name:usdt}} at {{p99:usdt}} (p99 worst case deviation, 24h, on USD quoted venues). Both majors typically sit within tens of basis points of $1.00 in normal conditions, so the ranking between them can flip week to week on venue noise. The more durable signal is the tail: which token spends more time outside the 50 bps band and how wide its cross venue gap runs during stress, both surfaced on the benchmark page." + - q: "Has USDC ever depegged?" + a: "Yes. In March 2023, USDC traded as low as roughly $0.87 after Silicon Valley Bank failed while holding about $3.3B of Circle's reserves. The peg recovered within days once US regulators guaranteed SVB deposits and Circle confirmed redemption at par. The episode is the standard counterexample to reading peg history as safety: USDC's measured stability was excellent right up to the weekend it broke, because the risk lived in the reserve banking layer that no price feed can see in advance." + - q: "What happens if USDT depegs?" + a: "A sustained USDT depeg would propagate far beyond the token itself, because USDT is the quote currency for the deepest pairs on most crypto exchanges. Mechanically, this bench would surface it in stages: the cross venue gap widens first as venues disagree, the per minute worst deviation climbs, and the depeg event flag fires after 5 consecutive minutes outside the [$0.97, $1.03] band. Assets quoted in USDT would also show phantom price moves, which is why this bench measures USDT anchored pairs on a separate metric rather than mixing them into the USD anchored leaderboard." + - q: "Should I hold USDC or USDT?" + a: "This page will not pick for you, but it clarifies the trade. USDC offers same day USD redemption with US banks, monthly attestations and a US regulatory posture; its 2023 depeg came from that same US banking exposure. USDT offers the deepest liquidity in crypto and a longer track record of holding peg through stress, against a slower clearing redemption window and a longer history of reserve controversy. Many desks split inventory across both plus a non custodial option. Whatever the split, the live deviation and depeg flag on this page are the numbers to watch rather than a static safety ranking." + +related: + - which-stablecoin-is-the-most-stable + - which-crypto-oracle-is-the-most-accurate + - which-crypto-price-api-is-the-fastest + +seo_title: "Is USDC safer than USDT? Live peg data, not opinions" +seo_description: "USDC vs USDT measured live: {{p99:usdc}} vs {{p99:usdt}} worst case peg deviation (p99, 24h) on USD quoted venues. What peg data can and cannot tell you about stablecoin safety." +status: live diff --git a/answers/what-is-the-fastest-free-ethereum-rpc.yml b/answers/what-is-the-fastest-free-ethereum-rpc.yml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..600abfa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/answers/what-is-the-fastest-free-ethereum-rpc.yml @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +slug: what-is-the-fastest-free-ethereum-rpc +question: "What is the fastest free Ethereum RPC?" +short_answer: | + {{best_name}} is currently the fastest free Ethereum RPC at {{best_p50}} (eth_getBlockByNumber p50, 24h), measured by OpenChainBench every 60 seconds against 8 no-key providers from us-east, eu-west and Singapore. The ranking re-sorts continuously, and the per region leader often differs from the global one, so check the region closest to your deployment. + +benchmark: ethereum-rpc + +intro: | + Every list of free Ethereum RPC URLs ranks endpoints by reputation or by a one-off ping from the author's laptop. Neither survives contact with production: public gateways change routing, add permissioned modes, or start returning fast HTTP 200 responses that carry a JSON-RPC error instead of a block. This page is the live answer. OpenChainBench probes every free, no-key public Ethereum endpoint that sustains continuous measurement (PublicNode, dRPC, Tenderly, Nodies, Lava, MeowRPC, Flashbots, Cloudflare) with an identical eth_getBlockByNumber call every 60 seconds from three regions, and classifies every response rather than trusting the status code. Cloudflare-eth is the standing example of why classification matters: it answers in well under a second, but a growing share of its responses resolve to a JSON-RPC error body, which only shows in the success column. Latency percentiles are computed from successful calls only and always read next to the success rate, so a fast but degraded endpoint cannot top the table. Archive depth is audited separately every 5 minutes, because a fast endpoint that serves only pruned recent state answers a different question than a free archive node. + +methodology: | + One identical JSON-RPC POST (eth_getBlockByNumber with a rotating request id, non cacheable by design) every 60 seconds against each provider from us-east, eu-west and Singapore, using the same plain HTTP client for every endpoint and no API key in any request. Wall clock round trip is recorded at millisecond precision; p50, p90 and p99 come from Prometheus quantile_over_time over 24 hours, averaged across the three origins for the headline. Responses are classified ok, http_err, jsonrpc_err, stale (more than 20 blocks behind the cross provider tip) or timeout, and only ok calls enter the latency distribution. Archive depth is probed every 5 minutes with eth_getBalance at five historical depths up to 5M blocks. + +limitations: + - "Latency is conditional on success. Failed calls never enter the percentile, so an endpoint failing most requests can still post a fast p50 from its rare successes; read every latency figure next to its success column, and treat rows under 50 percent success as degraded." + - "Three probe origins only (Virginia, Amsterdam, Singapore). An endpoint that terminates well in these regions can behave differently from South America, Africa or Australia, and per region leaders already diverge between the three measured origins." + - "One method probed for the headline. eth_getBlockByNumber is representative of read latency but says nothing about eth_sendRawTransaction behavior, websocket subscriptions or batched calls under load." + - "Free public endpoints share rate limit budgets with the entire internet and carry no SLA. The bench probes at a polite cadence; a dapp hammering the same endpoint at 100 requests per second will see throttling this page cannot predict." + - "Keyed free tiers (Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode and similar) are a different market with signup friction and quotas, measured separately on the rpc-keyed-latency benchmark with the identical probe, so the two tiers stay directly comparable." + +faq: + - q: "Which Ethereum RPC URL works without an API key?" + a: "Eight endpoints sustain continuous no-key probing on Ethereum mainnet and are ranked live above: PublicNode, dRPC, Tenderly Gateway, Nodies, Lava, MeowRPC, Flashbots Protect and Cloudflare. Every one was live verified before inclusion, and providers that key-gate, region block or rate limit below the probe cadence are excluded outright rather than listed with an asterisk. Note the success column before picking: Cloudflare in particular returns fast responses whose body is increasingly a JSON-RPC error rather than a block." + - q: "Is a free Ethereum RPC good enough for production?" + a: "For read heavy paths, often yes, if you read the success rate and not just the latency. The failure modes that hurt in production are the quiet ones this bench classifies: HTTP 200 responses carrying a JSON-RPC error body, stale heads more than 20 blocks behind tip, and throttling during activity spikes. Free endpoints carry no SLA and share capacity with everyone. The common production pattern is a free endpoint as primary or fallback for reads, with a keyed tier for transaction submission, websockets and archive queries." + - q: "Does the fastest Ethereum RPC depend on where my server runs?" + a: "Strongly. The headline number on this page averages three probe origins, but per region leaders regularly diverge, and a gateway that wins from Virginia can lose from Singapore by multiples because anycast routing and node placement differ per provider. The benchmark page has region tabs that re-scope every number to a single origin; pick the origin closest to where your requests actually come from before choosing an endpoint." + - q: "Do any free Ethereum RPCs support archive queries?" + a: "A few, and the benchmark audits it directly rather than trusting documentation. Every 5 minutes each provider gets an eth_getBalance probe at five historical depths, from Geth's default pruned range up to 5M blocks (genesis era). A provider passing the 5M tier serves full historical state for free without a key; one that fails at 7,200 blocks is on a default pruned configuration and only serves roughly the last day. The per provider archive depth badges on the benchmark page show the current audit result." + +related: + - drpc-vs-publicnode-vs-1rpc + - alchemy-vs-quicknode-vs-infura-latency + - best-rpc-for-indexer + +seo_title: "What is the fastest free Ethereum RPC? Live no-key latency ranking" +seo_description: "{{best_name}} leads free Ethereum RPC at {{best_p50}} (eth_getBlockByNumber p50, 24h). 8 no-key endpoints probed every 60s from 3 regions, with success rates and archive depth audits." +status: live diff --git a/answers/what-is-the-highest-crypto-staking-yield.yml b/answers/what-is-the-highest-crypto-staking-yield.yml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..653c21ec --- /dev/null +++ b/answers/what-is-the-highest-crypto-staking-yield.yml @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +slug: what-is-the-highest-crypto-staking-yield +question: "What is the highest crypto staking yield right now?" +short_answer: | + {{best_name}} currently pays the highest staking yield at {{best_p50}} (median validator net yield, 24h) across the {{count}} chains OpenChainBench measures live: Solana, Hyperliquid and Ethereum. Net yield means gross APR multiplied by validator uptime, after commission, with MEV included where the chain has a validator level MEV market. + +benchmark: validator-yield + +intro: | + Staking yield marketing quotes "up to 7% APY" without naming the validator, the uptime assumption, or whether MEV tips are folded in. Every staker choosing between chains asks the same underlying question: what would I actually earn today, on a real validator, after commission and downtime. This page answers it with live on chain measurement rather than a marketing rate card. OpenChainBench polls each chain's canonical yield source every 5 minutes: Stakewiz for Solana (top 200 validators by stake, MEV tips already folded into the APR), the Hyperliquid validatorSummaries endpoint (all ~30 active validators, no MEV layer exists), and the beacon chain spec reward formula on Ethereum's live total effective balance (one network average consensus layer figure, MEV excluded). The headline per chain is the median net yield in basis points, where 1% APY equals 100 bps, so the number reflects where a delegator's stake would actually land, not the best case a marketing page can cherry pick. + +methodology: | + Net yield per validator is computed as gross APR multiplied by the validator's uptime fraction, in basis points. Solana gross APR comes from the Stakewiz validators API, a 30 epoch trailing estimate that already includes Jito MEV tips; Jito Kobe enriches each validator with the MEV share split for transparency. Hyperliquid uses predictedApr.day multiplied by the daily uptime fraction from the public info endpoint. Ethereum publishes one network average consensus layer APR from the beacon spec reward formula on the live total effective balance (ultrasound.money), execution tips and MEV excluded. The leaderboard number per chain is the median across tracked validators, refreshed every 5 minutes. Solana is capped to the top 200 validators by activated stake, which represent roughly 90% of staked SOL by value. + +limitations: + - "Three chains only. Cosmos, Polkadot, Avalanche, Cardano and every liquid staking product are out of scope, so the highest yield here is the highest among Solana, Hyperliquid and Ethereum, not across all of crypto." + - "The Solana median is dragged down by roughly 42 of the tracked 200 validators currently emitting 0% APY, either commission set to 100% or zero leader slots this epoch. A staker who picks a sane validator earns closer to the modal 6.0% than the chain median." + - "The Ethereum figure is consensus layer only. Execution tips and MEV are excluded, so a proposer running MEV-Boost realizes more in practice, and the number is a solo validator nominal APR, not a Lido or Coinbase product rate." + - "The bench reports APR, not APY. No compounding adjustment is applied because the upstream sources publish simple yield; a staker who restakes rewards compounds above these figures." + - "Yield is denominated in each chain's native token. A high SOL or HYPE yield can still underperform a lower ETH yield in dollar terms if the token price moves against you; price risk is not measured here." + - "Slashing is treated as negligible in v1. Solana has never slashed in production and Hyperliquid jailing is surfaced as a separate flag, but a future slashing event would not be amortized into these numbers." + +faq: + - q: "Which crypto has the highest staking rewards?" + a: "Among the chains measured live, {{best_name}} currently leads at {{best_p50}} (median validator net yield, 24h). The gap between chains is structural rather than temporary: Solana combines protocol inflation with Jito MEV tips, Hyperliquid pays staking only rewards on a deflationary token with no validator level MEV, and Ethereum's consensus layer APR moves inversely with the square root of total stake, so more stakers means a lower rate for everyone. The leaderboard refreshes every 5 minutes against fresh Prometheus samples." + - q: "Is a higher staking APY always better?" + a: "No. A headline APY says nothing about validator commission (the tracked Solana set averages roughly 24%), uptime (downtime multiplies directly into net yield), or whether the yield is simple APR or compounded APY. It also says nothing about token price risk: staking rewards are paid in the native token, and a 6% yield on a token that drops 30% in a year is a loss in dollar terms. The honest comparison is net yield on a specific validator, which is what the per validator gauges behind this leaderboard expose." + - q: "What is the difference between staking APR and APY?" + a: "APR is the simple annualized rate; APY assumes rewards are continuously restaked and compounded. A 6% APR compounded per epoch lands near 6.18% APY on Solana. This benchmark reports APR in basis points because that is what the upstream sources publish (Stakewiz total_apy is a trailing APR estimate despite its name, Hyperliquid publishes predictedApr, the Ethereum beacon formula yields a nominal rate). Marketing pages often quote APY to show the larger number; when comparing across sites, check which one you are being shown." + - q: "Can you lose money staking crypto?" + a: "Yes, through three channels. Token price: rewards are paid in the staked asset, so a falling token can wipe out the yield in dollar terms. Validator behavior: a validator with 100% commission or extended downtime pays you nothing while your stake sits locked, and roughly 42 of the top 200 tracked Solana validators are currently in exactly that state. Slashing: rare on the measured chains (Solana has never slashed in production), but consensus faults on Hyperliquid lead to jailing with zero rewards. Unstaking delays add exit risk on top: you cannot react to a price move instantly." + +related: + - is-solana-staking-better-than-ethereum + - which-l1-has-the-fastest-finality + - which-blockchain-has-cheapest-transaction-fees + +seo_title: "What is the highest crypto staking yield right now? Live validator data" +seo_description: "{{best_name}} currently pays the highest staking yield at {{best_p50}} (median validator net yield, 24h) across Solana, Hyperliquid and Ethereum, measured live on chain by OpenChainBench." +status: live diff --git a/benchmarks/bridge-fee.yml b/benchmarks/bridge-fee.yml index 23d3a2df..23cf7413 100644 --- a/benchmarks/bridge-fee.yml +++ b/benchmarks/bridge-fee.yml @@ -88,8 +88,8 @@ faq: a: "Three pricing architectures cohabit in this leaderboard. Direct protocols (deBridge) charge a native-token fee front-loaded into the quote. Aggregators (LI.FI) pay an underlying bridge plus a thin markup. Intent and relay layers (Mobula, Relay, Across, Near Intents) compress all of it into a single spread quoted on a settlement intent or an optimistic fill. On small trades the fixed-fee component dominates and the gap stretches, on large trades the spread component dominates and the leaderboard re-orders." - q: "Are bridge aggregators cheaper than direct bridges?" a: "Not consistently. Aggregators route through whichever underlying bridge is cheapest at quote time, but they add a markup on top and their best route is constrained to the bridges they have integrated. Intent layers can route to any solver willing to settle the intent, including aggregators themselves. On liquid USDC corridors intent layers usually lead this leaderboard, but aggregators win when a corridor has only one underlying bridge and that bridge is cheaper than every solver's quote." - - q: "Why does OpenChainBench use $300 notional instead of $1000 or $10000?" - a: "Most published bridge fee tables sample at $1000 or $10000, where fixed-fee blowups are diluted into the percentage. At $300 the fixed component (destination gas, base protocol fee) becomes the dominant share of the cost, which is the regime real retail users face. Small-trade dynamics are also where intent layers compress costs hardest and aggregator markups become visible. The harness records $5, $50, $300, $1000 and $10000 buckets; this report surfaces $300 as the most representative retail size." + - q: "Is it cheaper to bridge small or large amounts?" + a: "Large amounts, in percentage terms. Part of every bridge quote is fixed (destination gas, base protocol fee), so at $300 the fixed component is the dominant share of the cost, while at $1000 or $10000 it dilutes into the percentage and the leaderboard re-orders. That is also why published bridge fee tables sampled at $10000 understate what retail users pay. The harness records $5, $50, $300, $1000 and $10000 buckets; this report surfaces $300 because the small-trade regime is where intent layers compress costs hardest, aggregator markups become visible, and most real transfers happen." - q: "Why does the cheapest bridge change throughout the day?" a: "Solver competition is the main driver. Intent layers like Mobula and Relay rank quotes from a rotating set of solvers whose inventory and risk appetite shift with destination-chain volatility and time of day. When Solana gas spikes or an L2 sees a deposit cluster, solvers reprice, and the leaderboard re-orders. The 5-minute scrape cadence catches these moves; the 24-hour p50 smooths them so the headline number reflects sustained competitiveness rather than a single favourable quote." diff --git a/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities.yml b/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities.yml index ee3f6392..9f6c59e2 100644 --- a/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities.yml +++ b/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities.yml @@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ faq: a: "The question is per chain because several providers are single-chain by design (Base official, Binance, Arbitrum Foundation, Optimism Foundation, Avalanche) and a cross-chain aggregate mechanically rewards whichever single-chain endpoint happens to be fastest on its one chain. Current per-chain leaders. Ethereum {{best_name:chain:ethereum}} at {{best_p50:chain:ethereum}}, Base {{best_name:chain:base}} at {{best_p50:chain:base}}, BNB Chain {{best_name:chain:bnb}} at {{best_p50:chain:bnb}}, Arbitrum {{best_name:chain:arbitrum}} at {{best_p50:chain:arbitrum}}. The leaderboard re-sorts every 60 seconds against fresh Prometheus samples averaged across us-east, eu-west and sgp probes. Switch the chain tab to see the leader on the network your product runs on." - q: "Which public RPCs work without an API key in 2026?" a: "15 audited providers across 10 EVM chains. Universal multi-chain (work on 4+ chains): PublicNode, dRPC, Tenderly Gateway (`gateway.tenderly.co/public/`), Nodies (POKT successor at `*-pokt.nodies.app`). Ethereum-specific or limited footprint: MeowRPC (ETH + Arbitrum only since 2025), Flashbots Protect, Cloudflare (read-degraded), Lava Network (ETH + Arbitrum no-key, other chains require key), Chain-official foundation RPCs: Arbitrum (`arb1.arbitrum.io/rpc`), Optimism (`mainnet.optimism.io`), Base (`mainnet.base.org`), Avalanche (`api.avax.network`), BNB (`bsc-dataseed1.binance.org`). Excluded: Ankr (key-gated), gateway.fm (29 req/IP), LlamaRPC / BlockPI / OmniaTech (Cloudflare 521 region-blocked), Alchemy demo (rate-limited dead), NodeReal / GetBlock / Chainstack (key-gated)." - - q: "Why is Cloudflare-eth returning errors?" - a: "Cloudflare's public Ethereum gateway recently switched to a permissioned mode for many JSON-RPC methods. The endpoint still returns HTTP 200 quickly, but the body is increasingly a JSON-RPC error (`-32046 Cannot fulfill request`) rather than a block number. This benchmark catches the trap by classifying responses as `ok` only when both the HTTP status is 200 and the JSON-RPC body has a usable `result` field. Latency without reliability is a misleading ranking signal for a public RPC." + - q: "Does Cloudflare still have a free Ethereum RPC that works?" + a: "Partially, and the trend is the wrong way. Cloudflare's public Ethereum gateway (cloudflare-eth) switched to a permissioned mode for many JSON-RPC methods. The endpoint still answers HTTP 200 quickly, but the body is increasingly a JSON-RPC error (`-32046 Cannot fulfill request`) rather than a block. This benchmark catches the trap by classifying a call as `ok` only when the HTTP status is 200 AND the JSON-RPC body has a usable `result` field, so Cloudflare's real success rate is visible in the Success column instead of hiding behind fast error responses. Latency without reliability is a misleading ranking signal for a public RPC." - q: "Why can an RPC with a low success rate still show a fast latency?" a: "Latency percentiles are computed only from successful calls. The harness records a round-trip time when a probe returns a valid, fresh block; HTTP errors, JSON-RPC error bodies, timeouts and stale responses increment the `rpc_call_total` counter but never enter the latency distribution. An endpoint failing 60 percent of its calls is therefore timed only on the 40 percent that succeed, which can make it look faster than a healthy provider doing real work on every request. That is why the leaderboard pairs every latency figure with a Success column computed as ok calls over total calls in the same 24h window. Read rows below 50 percent success as degraded regardless of their p50. Providers under 5 percent success are dropped from the ranking and pinned below the table as unresponsive." - q: "Which free RPC supports Ethereum archive node calls?" diff --git a/benchmarks/rpc-keyed-latency.yml b/benchmarks/rpc-keyed-latency.yml index 8b391906..f8c39623 100644 --- a/benchmarks/rpc-keyed-latency.yml +++ b/benchmarks/rpc-keyed-latency.yml @@ -2,10 +2,10 @@ slug: rpc-keyed-latency number: "069" -title: Fastest free-tier keyed RPC. Alchemy, Infura, Chainstack, Ankr, Helius -seo_title: "Fastest free-tier RPC API 2026" -seo_description: "Alchemy vs Infura vs Chainstack vs Ankr vs Helius: free-tier RPC latency measured live every 60s from 3 regions. Signup-gated endpoints, real node calls." -subtitle: HTTP round-trip latency for eth_getBlockByNumber against the signup-gated free tiers of Alchemy, Infura, Chainstack, Ankr and Helius, probed every 60 seconds from 3 regions. +title: Fastest RPC API with a free key. Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode, Ankr, Chainstack, Helius +seo_title: "Fastest RPC API with a free key 2026: Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode compared" +seo_description: "Fastest RPC API with a free key: the keyed developer tiers of Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode, Ankr, Chainstack and Helius measured live every 60s from 3 regions." +subtitle: HTTP round-trip latency for eth_getBlockByNumber against keyed developer API tiers (Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode, Ankr, Chainstack, Helius), the signup-gated free plans, probed every 60 seconds from 3 regions. category: RPCs status: live metric: RPC latency @@ -13,9 +13,13 @@ unit: ms higher_is_better: false seo_intro: | - Every dapp that outgrows the no-key public RPCs asks the same - question next. which free tier do I sign up for. Alchemy, Infura, - Chainstack, Ankr and Helius all hand out a free API key with a + This bench ranks the keyed developer API tiers: the RPC you get + with a free API key after signup, as opposed to the no-key public + endpoints ranked on the companion + [rpc-capabilities](/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities) bench. Every dapp + that outgrows the public RPCs asks the same question next. which + free key do I sign up for. Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode, Ankr, + Chainstack and Helius all hand out a free API key with a monthly quota; none of them publish comparable latency numbers. This benchmark probes each provider's free-tier endpoint with the same anti-cache call used on our no-key bench @@ -69,8 +73,8 @@ faq: a: "Same probe, same classification, same regions, different tier. The [rpc-capabilities](/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities) bench measures endpoints that work with zero signup; this page measures what a free API key gets you after a five-minute signup (Alchemy, Infura, Chainstack, Ankr, Helius). Comparing the two pages answers whether the signup buys you anything on latency, and on some chains the no-key tier is genuinely competitive." - q: "Do the probes stay inside each provider's free quota?" a: "Yes, by design. One probe per 60 seconds per chain per region ≈ 131k requests/month/chain, against audited free budgets of 1M to 3M requests/month. A quota guard additionally pauses probing at 90% of each region's monthly budget, so the bench can never exhaust a key. Sample sizes per cell are published (`sample_size`), so the statistical cost of the slower cadence is visible." - - q: "Why are QuickNode, Tenderly, Moralis and GetBlock missing?" - a: "Quota math or plan scope, never editorial. QuickNode's free plan issues a single endpoint on one chain (too narrow to compare against multi-chain keys). Tenderly excludes Node RPC from its free plan. GetBlock's 50k CU/day cannot sustain one chain at probe cadence. Moralis caps the free plan at 2 node endpoints. Blast API shut down in October 2025. Providers can enter the cohort the day their free plan clears the bar, and the bar is published in the methodology." + - q: "Why are Tenderly, Moralis and GetBlock missing?" + a: "Quota math or plan scope, never editorial. Tenderly excludes Node RPC from its free plan. GetBlock's 50k CU/day cannot sustain one chain at probe cadence. Moralis caps the free plan at 2 node endpoints. Blast API shut down in October 2025. QuickNode is in the cohort on BNB and Optimism via shared endpoints with the plan disclosed in the methodology, because its free plan issues a single endpoint on one chain. Providers can enter the cohort the day their free plan clears the bar, and the bar is published in the methodology." - q: "Is the free tier representative of a provider's paid performance?" a: "No, and this page does not claim it is. Several providers route free-tier traffic to shared or separate infrastructure pools. What this bench measures is the free-tier experience: the latency and reliability a developer actually gets from the key handed out at signup. Paid-tier SLAs, dedicated clusters and websocket performance are out of scope." diff --git a/benchmarks/stablecoin-peg.yml b/benchmarks/stablecoin-peg.yml index e597a693..e808a794 100644 --- a/benchmarks/stablecoin-peg.yml +++ b/benchmarks/stablecoin-peg.yml @@ -91,8 +91,8 @@ faq: a: "Yes, on Binance USDEUSDT specifically, the night of October 10 2025. Ethena's USDe is anchored by a delta-neutral basis trade rather than fiat reserves, and a sharp liquidation cascade on perp positions briefly cleared the orderbook on Binance well below peg. The benchmark exposes this kind of event live via the `peg_depeg_event_flag` (set when a stable has been outside [$0.97, $1.03] for ≥5 consecutive minutes) and via the USDT-anchored secondary metric. USDe's USD-anchored primary deviation cannot be measured because no major USD venue lists a deep USDe/USD pair; the USDT-anchored value is the honest live signal." - q: "How is the stablecoin peg measured on OpenChainBench?" a: "We poll Binance, Coinbase, Kraken and Bitstamp REST tickers every 5 seconds for every (stable, venue) pair, and the Curve 3pool `get_dy` on-chain every 12 seconds (matches Ethereum block time; DAI's price is the geometric mean of the forward and reverse quotes so the pool fee cancels). Per-venue samples are grouped into 60-second buckets and aggregated into a liquidity-weighted median per stable (weight = 24h USD volume). Deviation is `|aggregated_price - 1.00|` in basis points, recorded as both a gauge and a histogram. The leaderboard sorts on the 24 h median (p50) of the per-minute worst deviation; the p99 column shows the depeg tail. USDT-quoted pairs are exposed on a separate secondary metric so USDT's own peg deviation does not contaminate the USD-anchored primary." - - q: "Why ignore CoinGecko or CoinMarketCap prices?" - a: "Aggregator prices (CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, DefiLlama) are themselves liquidity-weighted medians of the venues this benchmark already polls directly, refreshed every 1-5 minutes. Re-aggregating an aggregator adds latency, hides the venue-level cross-spread that actually matters during stress (USDT briefly $0.9978 on Kraken while $1.0003 on Coinbase), and inherits whatever venue selection the aggregator chose. The benchmark goes to the source venues directly so the cross-venue gap is visible and the depeg event flag fires within 5 minutes of the price actually breaking the band." + - q: "Are CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap stablecoin prices accurate during a depeg?" + a: "They lag by design. Aggregator prices (CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, DefiLlama) are liquidity-weighted medians of the venues this benchmark already polls directly, refreshed every 1-5 minutes, so during a fast depeg they smooth away the first minutes of the move and hide the venue-level cross-spread that actually matters under stress (USDT briefly $0.9978 on Kraken while $1.0003 on Coinbase). This benchmark goes to the source venues directly instead: the cross-venue gap stays visible and the depeg event flag fires within 5 minutes of the price actually breaking the band, rather than after an aggregator's median catches up." source: https://github.com/ChainBench/OpenChainBench/tree/main/harnesses/stablecoin-peg diff --git a/benchmarks/validator-yield.yml b/benchmarks/validator-yield.yml index b2e8103a..93ed2e5c 100644 --- a/benchmarks/validator-yield.yml +++ b/benchmarks/validator-yield.yml @@ -111,10 +111,12 @@ faq: a: "Two legitimate causes, both visible in the live data. (1) Commission set to 100%: the validator operator has configured their vote account to route 100% of staking rewards to themselves, so delegators receive 0%. This is common for operators running their own treasury stake (Binance, exchange custody, etc.) where 'delegators' is a fiction, there's only the operator's own SOL. (2) Zero leader slots in the current epoch: Solana's leader schedule is stake-weighted but randomised per epoch, so a small validator can statistically draw zero slots in a given ~2-day epoch and earn zero block-production rewards. Both states are transient: commission can be lowered, leader slots cycle every epoch. The bench surfaces them as 0 rather than filtering because they ARE part of the live validator set." - q: "What does the Ethereum number measure?" a: "It is the network-average consensus-layer APR for a 32 ETH solo validator, computed from the beacon chain spec reward formula on the live total effective balance published by ultrasound.money. It covers attestation, proposer and sync committee rewards in expectation, at 100% participation (realized participation runs about 99.5%, a drift of under 2 bps). It EXCLUDES execution-layer tips and MEV, so a proposer running MEV-Boost earns more in practice. It is NOT a liquid staking APY: Lido or Coinbase quotes are product rates with their own fee schedules netted out. Ethereum ships as one aggregate series rather than per-validator gauges because the active set is about 1M validator indices and consensus rewards are uniform per 32 ETH increment, so the network average equals the solo validator nominal APR. Per-validator Ethereum gauges and MEV inclusion require beacon-node or relay ingestion and stay on the v2 roadmap." - - q: "Where do Stakewiz and Jito Kobe data come from?" - a: "Stakewiz (`api.stakewiz.com`) is a community-maintained Solana validator analytics service that ingests on-chain vote-account state, commission history, leader schedule and reward distribution, then publishes a clean `/validators` JSON with `total_apy` already computed as a 30-epoch trailing estimate. Jito Kobe (`kobe.mainnet.jito.network`) is Jito Labs' public API exposing per-validator MEV-tip earnings broken down by epoch. Both are free, key-less, and well-known in the Solana validator-ops community, this bench treats them as the canonical source for Solana validator APR the same way most Solana staking dashboards do (Solana Beach, Marinade UI, etc., all consume one or both)." - - q: "Why cap Solana at the top 200 validators?" - a: "Prometheus cardinality budget. The full Solana validator set is ~3000; tracking all of them across `net_yield`, `gross_yield`, `mev_share`, `commission`, `uptime`, `stake_usd`, `jailed` would land ~21k label combinations on the OCB Prom, vs ~1.6k for the top 200. The top 200 by activated stake represent ~90% of staked SOL by USD value, so the chain median is representative of where real delegated stake sits, not skewed by the long tail of <1k-SOL validators that have negligible delegate base. The cap is a knob, if Prom capacity grows, it lifts to 500 or 1000." + - q: "Where can I find reliable Solana validator APY data?" + a: "The two sources this bench treats as canonical, both free and key-less. Stakewiz (`api.stakewiz.com`) is a community-maintained Solana validator analytics service that ingests on-chain vote-account state, commission history, leader schedule and reward distribution, then publishes a clean `/validators` JSON with `total_apy` already computed as a 30-epoch trailing estimate. Jito Kobe (`kobe.mainnet.jito.network`) is Jito Labs' public API exposing per-validator MEV-tip earnings broken down by epoch. Most Solana staking dashboards (Solana Beach, Marinade UI, etc.) consume one or both, so numbers quoted across sites usually trace back to the same upstream; this bench polls them directly every 5 minutes and republishes the per-validator gauges." + - q: "How many Solana validators are there, and which ones matter for staking?" + a: "The full active set is ~3000 validators, but stake concentrates hard: the top 200 by activated stake hold ~90% of staked SOL by USD value, which is why this bench tracks exactly that cohort (also a Prometheus cardinality budget: ~1.6k series for 200 validators vs ~21k for the full set). For a delegator the practical universe is smaller still, the long tail of <1k-SOL validators has negligible delegate base and statistically draws few leader slots per epoch. The chain median shown here reflects where real delegated stake sits; the cap is a knob that lifts to 500 or 1000 if Prom capacity grows." + - q: "What is the best place to stake SOL right now?" + a: "By delegated stake, the largest Solana validators tracked here are Figment, Helius, Binance Staking, Jupiter and Ledger by Figment, and their net yields cluster around the chain's modal ~6% rather than the median {{p50:solana}} (which is dragged by validators currently at 0% APY). This bench is neutral: it ranks measured net yield (`gross APR × uptime`, MEV included), takes no commercial placement, and does not rank custodians or liquid staking products. Pick on the per-validator gauges: sane commission (not 100%), sustained uptime, and enough stake to draw leader slots, then note that yields among healthy validators differ by tens of bps, so decentralization is a defensible tiebreaker." source: https://github.com/ChainBench/OpenChainBench/tree/main/harnesses/validator-yield diff --git a/src/app/perps/page.tsx b/src/app/perps/page.tsx index bad48300..0a7314d5 100644 --- a/src/app/perps/page.tsx +++ b/src/app/perps/page.tsx @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ const DESCRIPTION = export const metadata: import("next").Metadata = pageMetadata({ path: "/perps", - title: "Perpetual DEX leaderboard 2026", + title: "Best perp DEX 2026: perpetual DEX leaderboard", description: DESCRIPTION, }); @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ export default async function PerpsHubPage() {

Perpetuals

- Perpetual DEX leaderboard, measured neutrally. + Best perp DEX 2026, measured neutrally.

DefiLlama style ranking columns paired with the live execution diff --git a/src/app/prediction-markets/page.tsx b/src/app/prediction-markets/page.tsx index 1a65873d..9f523709 100644 --- a/src/app/prediction-markets/page.tsx +++ b/src/app/prediction-markets/page.tsx @@ -23,11 +23,11 @@ import { SITE } from "@/data/site"; */ const DESCRIPTION = - "Cross-venue prediction market leaderboard: volume, OI, resolution delay, API latency, freshness. Polymarket, Kalshi, Limitless, Manifold, Myriad."; + "Polymarket vs Kalshi plus Limitless, Manifold and Myriad on one cross-venue leaderboard: volume, OI, resolution delay, API latency, freshness."; export const metadata: import("next").Metadata = pageMetadata({ path: "/prediction-markets", - title: "Prediction markets leaderboard", + title: "Prediction markets leaderboard 2026", description: DESCRIPTION, }); diff --git a/src/app/rpc/page.tsx b/src/app/rpc/page.tsx index bd7f5305..a24fdefd 100644 --- a/src/app/rpc/page.tsx +++ b/src/app/rpc/page.tsx @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ const DESCRIPTION = export const metadata: import("next").Metadata = pageMetadata({ path: "/rpc", - title: "RPC Node Benchmarks by Chain & Region", + title: "Fastest RPC Providers 2026, by Chain & Region", description: DESCRIPTION, }); @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ export default async function RpcHubPage() {

RPC nodes

- RPC Node Benchmarks + Fastest RPC providers, by chain and region

Every free, no-key public RPC endpoint, measured per chain with