How we research crypto earn platforms

This site exists because the gap between an advertised APY and what a reader receives is large, systematic and almost never explained. Closing that gap is a research problem rather than an opinion problem, so the method matters more than the verdict. This page sets out the method in enough detail that you can check our work, and tell us when it is wrong.

The source hierarchy

We rank sources, and we say in the text which tier a figure came from when it is not the first. A rate quoted from an aggregator is not the same class of fact as a rate quoted from the provider’s own page, and presenting them identically is how errors propagate across this whole category.

The eleven things we record for every platform

Every provider on this site is documented against the same fields, in the same order, whether it is a global exchange or a single-product lender. Uniformity is what makes the comparison honest; it also makes the absences visible.

1. The provider and its category — exchange, savings and lending platform, broker or app, or bank. The category predicts the failure mode.
2. The yield model — staking, lending, platform rewards, a bank deposit, or a mixture. This is the first thing we establish and the last thing most marketing pages mention.
3. The headline figure — exactly as the provider advertises it, not rounded and not improved.
4. The condition attached to it — the balance tier, term, loyalty level, token holding or promotional quota that the headline depends on.
5. The assets covered — how many, and which ones actually carry the headline rate.
6. Geographic access — countries and, where relevant, US states that are excluded, and whether the exclusion is explicit or merely an absence from a list.
7. Lock-up and redemption — including what happens to accrued rewards on early exit, which is frequently harsher than the lock-up itself.
8. The fee — the stated commission on rewards, or a plain statement that no percentage is published.
9. Licensing — the named entity, the named regulator and the date, where we could confirm them in a register or an official announcement.
10. The date we checked — attached to every variable figure. For this edition of the site that date is 16 September 2026.
11. What we could not verify — published as its own section rather than quietly omitted.

Promotional, standard, variable and fixed

Four different things get advertised as "the rate", and conflating them is the most common error in this category. We keep them apart.

A standard rate is what an ordinary customer earns with no additional conditions. A promotional rate is quota-limited, time-limited, tier-limited or restricted to a first tranche of balance — we say which, and we never lead with the promotional number. Avariable rate can be changed by the provider or the protocol at any time; several platforms state that their flexible rates move every minute. A fixed rate is contractual for a stated term, and in this market it is rare. Where a rate is partly contractual and partly discretionary, we print the split, because the contractual part is the only part you can plan around.

Why we publish "not disclosed"

A comparison table with no blanks is a warning sign, not a quality signal. Large parts of this market do not publish a commission percentage, per-asset minimums, an unbonding schedule, a supported-state list or the source of the yield itself. Filling those cells with an estimate would make the tables prettier and the site less useful. So we leave them as findings, and we group them by provider so a reader can see at a glance who tells you the least.

The same rule applies when a provider contradicts itself, which happens more than you would expect. Where marketing copy and a help-centre FAQ disagree, we print both and date them. Where two reputable data sources disagree on a figure, we print the range rather than picking the flattering end.

No scores, no stars, no rankings

There are no ratings anywhere on this site. A composite score obscures the weighting that produced it, invites providers to optimise for the weighting rather than the product, and collapses genuinely incomparable things — a bank deposit guarantee and a promotional APY — into one axis. Ordering on the platform comparison is editorial, it is stated on the page, and it is not a ranking. Readers who want a verdict will find one in the prose, where it can be argued with.

Dates, and how they are maintained

Every rate, fee, licence date and product term on this site was checked on 16 September 2026unless a different date is stated next to the figure. We prefer an honestly dated figure to an undated current-sounding one, because rates in this market move without notice and a reader who knows a number is a month old can act on that. When we revisit a page, the date moves and the changed figures move with it.

Quoting, and why we use the provider’s own words

Where the wording is the finding, we quote it rather than paraphrase it. Kraken’s flexible staking page states that it will "only stake a portion of your assets" and pay rewards on "up to 50%" of what you commit. Bitpanda describes part of its stablecoin rate as granted "at Bitpanda’s sole discretion" and the product itself as "an unregulated product". OKX states that Simple Earn assets "will be pooled and loaned to borrowers on our platform". Paraphrase softens all three, and a reader who wants to check us needs the sentence we actually read. When we quote, the quotation is the provider’s and the emphasis is ours.

Corrections

We correct errors on the page where they appeared, promptly, and we update the check date when we do. Material corrections — a wrong rate, a wrong licence, a wrong exclusion — are fixed as a priority over new work. We do not quietly delete a paragraph that turned out to be wrong; if a claim was load-bearing, the correction says what changed. If you think something here is inaccurate, email editorial@cryptoearn.guide with the page, the sentence and a source. We read everything and we prefer being told.

How this site is funded, in plain terms

CEX.IO is a commercial partner. Every call-to-action button on this site links to CEX.IO, each one is marked nofollow, and each is labelled as a partner link where it appears. CEX.IO is listed first on the platform comparison and that placement is disclosed at the top of the page rather than buried in a footer.

What that relationship does not buy: it does not buy a score, because there are none; it does not buy the removal of a finding; and it does not buy pre-publication approval, which we do not offer to anyone. The gaps in CEX.IO’s own disclosure — no MiCA authorisation we could locate, no proof of reserves, no published fee schedule, and no stated source for the yield on its Savings product — are printed on this site in the same places as everyone else’s.

If you want to see the method applied, the fifteen-platform comparison is the fullest example, and crypto earn risks is where the same evidence is turned into a risk framework. For who we are and why the site exists at all, read about CryptoEarn Guide.