Seraphim Lab LiveDelegateThe same figures the register prints for every provider, for this one. Accuracy and vote power are the current epoch; rewards and APR are the last completed epoch. Back to the full field →
Rubric 2026-08-19.1
11.3/ 100 composite
Five axes at fixed published weights. Every figure underneath is measured by somebody else — the weighting is the only thing this site adds, and the rules are published so you can disagree with it precisely. Letters are cut at A ≥ 85, B ≥ 70, C ≥ 55, D ≥ 40.
0.5/ 100
Band hit rates, ranked against the field and weighted the way the reward mechanism weights them — the primary (IQR) band carries 40% of FTSO reward value, the secondary (PCT) band 60%.
Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.
0.0/ 100
Rounds answered, plus the health of the validator nodes behind them. A node the registry cannot reach reports no uptime at all, so unreachable nodes are counted separately.
Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.Verify at Flare Registry ↗
43.0/ 100
The FIP.10 minimal-conditions record, eligibility, and how much of the funded feed set this provider covers.
Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.Verify at Flare Registry ↗
30.9/ 100
What a delegator actually receives after this provider’s fee, how steady it has been, and whether vote power sits above the 2.5% cap where it earns nothing extra.
Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.Verify at FlareMetrics ↗
0.2/ 100
How closely this provider’s submissions track Flare’s stock example implementation, as measured by Cerberus. A compliance signal, not an accuracy one — which is why it carries the smallest weight.
Verify at Cerberus On-Chain ↗Cerberus per-provider pages require an account. This is their open census endpoint — the same record this figure was read from, for every provider at once.Verify at Flare Registry ↗
This is the first epoch we have graded this provider in. The record builds as each reward epoch closes — a grade’s direction says more than its letter, and there is no direction to show yet.
Current reward epoch
#97of 128 providers with a published rate
Ranked on the rate a delegator actually receives — gross rate less that provider's own fee — across every provider that published one for the last completed epoch. The field median is 2.24% APR. See the whole field →
One point per snapshotted reward epoch
As reported by the Flare Systems Explorer
Four separate streams: delegation rewards paid on WNat, the mirrored staking reward, the fee this provider kept, and its own self-bond. They are not additive into a single "total earned" — each is claimed on its own terms.
0 of 12 snapshotted epochs met all four · 24 strikes
Swipe the table sideways for all 7 columns →
| Epoch | Scaling | FastUpd | Staking | FDC | Passes | Strikes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #449 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #448 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #447 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #446 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #445 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #444 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #443 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #442 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #441 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #440 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #439 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
| #438 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 0 | 2 |
A strike is an epoch whose minimal conditions were not met; four strikes cost the epoch's rewards.
0 nodes on the P-chain
The registry lists no validator nodes for this provider. That is not a fault — running validators is separate from providing price feeds, and many providers do one without the other.
Measured by a third party, published unadjusted
Cerberus’s own verdict: example provider match
Their census covered 98 providers and flagged 18 as likely running the stock example.
What this measures: agreement with Flare’s stock example implementation, which itself tracks the consensus price. A provider that is accurate for entirely independent reasons will agree with it often. This is a compliance signal about how a provider is built — never a reading on whether its prices are good.
| Agreement measured | Rate | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Exact same value | 78.20% | rounds submitted at a value identical to the example’s |
| Within 5 basis points | 90.41% | rounds within 0.05% of it |
| Same movement direction | 93.55% | rounds that moved the same way it did |
| Same volatility response | 97.51% | volatility events it reacted to the same way |
Verify at Cerberus On-Chain ↗Cerberus per-provider pages require an account. This is their open census endpoint — the same record this figure was read from, for every provider at once.
This provider has not signed a registry listing, so there is no declaration to compare against. Listing is optional and most of the field has not done it — this is not a mark against anyone.
On-chain, checkable
0xa4194444f3008Be13783cC9D9942f23b8492dF380x973D62094e8D6FD4654A2F7A3C559396544330E5Every figure on this page came from one of these
This site measures nothing itself. It reads four independent sources, joins them on the provider’s on-chain identity address, and applies a published weighting. Where a source disagrees with another, both are shown rather than resolved.
A figure that looks wrong is worth raising with the source that published it — they own the measurement and we do not. If the fault is in how we joined or weighted it, tell us and we will correct it.
Convinced by the data? Delegating takes two minutes. Delegate to Seraphim →