Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
S
Liquid Staking

Sanctum Validator LSTs

Best for independently tracked protocol

Total value locked:$1,127m 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
7.5
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 35%6.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%8.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $1,127m recorded independently
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
Market quality · 15% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10

A Solana infrastructure layer holding $1.13bn that lets any validator issue its own liquid staking token with shared exit liquidity.

Our assessment

Sanctum's validator LSTs hold $1.13bn. The protocol lets any Solana validator issue its own liquid staking token, with shared liquidity providing an exit route so a small validator's token is tradeable from launch.

Solving the bootstrapping problem

A new liquid staking token normally fails because nobody will hold an asset they cannot sell. Sanctum supplies the exit liquidity centrally, so a validator with modest stake can issue a usable derivative. That directly counteracts the winner-takes-most dynamic that concentrates staking among a few large providers.

Shared liquidity means shared exposure

Every token supported by the shared pool is exposed to the others. If one validator is slashed or one token's contracts fail, the pool absorbs it. The safety of the whole arrangement rests on the admission criteria for new tokens, which is a governance process rather than a cryptographic guarantee.

No audit report at this check

No audit report was retrievable at a public address. For infrastructure that pools risk across many independent tokens, published review of both the contracts and the listing criteria would be worth considerably more than for a single-asset protocol.

Who it suits

Sanctum fits Solana stakers who want to support smaller validators without sacrificing liquidity. Stakers who want published audits and the deepest single derivative should use Jito.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
Lido9.6audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Stader9.5audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
StakeWise V29.4audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Sanctum Validator LSTs 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.