Chainflip Review
Apache-licensed, with documentation gaps
of 10
Chainflip publishes a single clear economic fact — 0.1% of swap volume is used to buy and burn FLIP — and releases its backend under Apache 2.0. Its validator and security documentation could not be reached.
No money changes hands. This is a non-commercial project: no advertising, no sponsored placements, and no affiliate or referral links. Links to the services below earn us nothing. Every overall score is the plain average of the criteria shown on the page, so you can check the arithmetic yourself — see our rating methodology and how the site is funded.
Fee
0.1% of swap volume, used to buy and burn FLIP
Licence
Apache License 2.0
Trust model
Not verified — documentation pages returned 404
Chains
Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana and more; no count published
Audits
Not found
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (7.0 + 2.0 + 9.0 + 3.0 + 2.0) ÷ 5 = 4.6.
Pros
- Fee published as a single figure: 0.1% of swap volume, used to buy and burn FLIP
- Apache License 2.0 on the backend repository
- Names Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana among supported assets
Cons
- Validator overview and swapping introduction pages both returned 404, so the trust model is unverified
- No chain count is published, only that it supports Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana and more
- No audits page could be reached and no firm is named
- Validator figures appear in search results but not on any live official page we could read
One clean economic fact
Chainflip's token economics page states that 0.1% of swap volume is used to buy and burn FLIP. That is a single, unambiguous figure of the kind this rubric rewards, and it tells a user both what the protocol takes and where it goes.
The security documentation was unreachable
Both the validator overview and the swapping introduction returned 404 when we checked. Validator counts and cryptographic scheme details appeared in search result snippets, but we do not publish figures we could not read on a live official page — a snippet is not a source, and a protocol's security model is exactly the wrong place to relax that rule.
The result is that a protocol which may well have a well-documented trust model scores poorly here, because we could not verify it. That is the honest outcome rather than a judgement on the design.
How it compares
Synapse
MIT-licensed, and little else readable
Squid
Charges nothing, documents little
deBridge
Per-chain flat fees, published in full
Hop Protocol
Every fee component published as a range
Stargate / LayerZero
Exact fee split, and a licence that expired unresolved
Celer cBridge
GPL-3.0 with a published fee ceiling
Wormhole
A named quorum: 13 of 19 guardians
Across
Optimistic security explained in one sentence
Axelar
Apache-licensed with the deepest audit archive
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Chainflip — token economics — checked
- 2.Chainflip backend — LICENSE — checked
- 3.Chainflip — FAQ — checked
Frequently asked questions
What does Chainflip charge?
The official token economics page states that 0.1% of swap volume is used to buy and burn FLIP.
How is Chainflip secured?
We could not verify it. The validator overview and swapping introduction pages both returned 404 when checked on 24 July 2026.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.