Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
R
Staking

Rakeoff

Best for independently tracked protocol

Total value locked:$5m at this checkChains:1Audits recorded:0Audit report linked:Not foundRubric:v2.0 · verified 9 Aug 2026
Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last verified August 9, 2026
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
6.9
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 35%6.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
How this score was built

Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.

Counterparty & contract risk · 35% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
Cost transparency · 20% weight9/10 points · 9.0/10
  • Met
    Application reachable without an account

    Reachable without an account at this check.

    rakeoff.io
  • Met
    Protocol economics published independently

    TVL and change history published.

    defillama.com/protocol/rakeoff
  • Met
    Accounting methodology published

    Methodology published.

    defillama.com/protocol/rakeoff
  • Partial
    Fee or reward model documented publicly

    Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.

    rakeoff.io
  • Met
    No account required to reach the application

    Reachable without an account at this check.

    rakeoff.io
Market quality · 15% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10

A staking protocol holding $5m that simplifies Internet Computer staking, where the native process involves unusually complex mechanics.

Our assessment

RakeOff holds $5m and exists to simplify staking on the Internet Computer, where the native process involves neurons, dissolve delays and voting configuration that most holders find difficult to navigate correctly.

Complexity is a real barrier to staking

Where a network's staking mechanics are hard to understand, holders either avoid staking or configure it wrongly — locking capital for longer than intended, or missing rewards through a misconfigured setting. A protocol that abstracts this increases participation, which is a genuine contribution to network security.

Abstraction means someone else holds the settings

The parameters the protocol chooses on your behalf — lock duration, voting behaviour, reward handling — determine your outcome. Read them. On networks where staking terms are long, a default chosen for the protocol's convenience can commit your capital for a period you did not intend.

Evidence position

No audit report was retrievable at a public address at this check. At $5m with a small user base, there is limited adversarial testing to substitute for that review, which is the combination our rubric treats most cautiously.

Who it suits

RakeOff fits Internet Computer holders who want staking simplified and accept unaudited contracts at small size. Holders comfortable with the native process should stake directly and avoid the extra layer.

Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Rakeoff is safe?

No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published methodology and independently recorded market data. Contract risk is not tested by us.

Where do the TVL and audit figures come from?

A public analytics dataset queried at the verification date, plus the audit reports it links. Both are re-runnable by anyone.

Why do some protocols score zero on audits?

Because no audit report is linked in the public record. The indicator records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit exists.