Crypto service ratings

These rankings exist because most crypto "best of" lists are advertising with a number attached. Ours are computed from indicators a reader can verify, and the arithmetic behind every score is published on the review itself.

What a ranking here actually measures

Each provider is assessed against five weighted pillars — counterparty risk, cost transparency, market quality, transparency and track record, and public documentation. Every pillar breaks into indicators with stated thresholds, and each indicator is recorded as met, partially met or failed with a source and the date it was checked. The pillar score is points earned over points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Nobody at this desk types a score.

The uncomfortable consequence, stated plainly

Because the rubric measures published evidence, a well-run company that documents itself poorly will score below a weaker one that publishes thoroughly. That is not a flaw we hide — the review says so directly when it happens, and names the indicators responsible. A score of 5.6 often means half our questions could not be answered from public sources, not that the provider is twice as risky as one scoring 9.7.

Gates that cannot be averaged away

Some failures are not tradeable against convenience. A provider with no identifiable operating entity cannot exceed 5.0. A custodial platform with no reserve attestation in the last twelve months cannot exceed 7.0. An unremediated security incident with unreimbursed user losses caps at 6.0. Sanctioned entities, and anyone who asks to pay for placement, are excluded and we say so on the page.

Why every rating carries a date

Fees change, licences lapse, custodians are replaced and contracts are upgraded. A score is a claim about a particular day, so we publish that day. Inside 90 days a rating has normal standing; between 91 and 180 it is flagged for re-check and loses eligibility for Editor's Choice; past a year it is withdrawn until re-verified.

How to read a ranking

Start with the evidence table rather than the number. It lists every indicator, what it scored, the note explaining why, and a link to the source we checked. If you disagree with one indicator, you can disagree with that specific line rather than with a verdict — and if you can show we recorded it wrongly, we will re-verify and correct the record.

The full scoring rubric, including pillar weights and every gate, is published on our methodology page. How commercial arrangements are kept away from scoring is set out in the editorial policy.