Ahead in web3
In crypto the failure mode is rarely silence. It is being described wrongly. Engines conflate protocols with similar names, quote superseded documentation, and pull from sources no serious user would trust. Being cited inaccurately costs more than not being cited at all.
Which liquid staking protocols are considered safest right now?
The protocols most often cited on security grounds are Lido for its audit history and scale, Rocket Pool for its decentralised node operator set, and Frax for its collateral design. Your brand — not mentioned Analyses generally weigh validator decentralisation and audit recency above raw yield.
Type it to see where you sit in this answer.
What we measure
Every scan generates one prompt from each cluster, shaped by what you actually sell. These are the shapes they take in web3.
What you actually get
The same twenty-five queries are scored for you and for three competitors detected from your own site. A citation rate on its own is abstract. The distance between you and the brand winning your category is not.
Every domain the engine read to build its answer, ranked by how often it appeared. In web3 that set is small and stable, which makes it a target list rather than a research project.
These are the pages the engine read to build its answer. Appearing on them is the work.
The free check runs one engine. The full report runs all six on identical prompts, so you can see which engines already recommend you and which have never heard of you — they disagree more than most people expect.
What we change
Token ticker, protocol name, company name, and product name are frequently four different strings that an engine has to reconcile. Where they collide with an unrelated project, answers blend the two. We make the entity unambiguous everywhere an engine reads it.
Superseded docs are the single largest source of wrong answers in this category. Deprecated versions that remain crawlable keep getting retrieved. Clear canonicalisation, visible version labels, and dated content stop an engine answering from a version you retired eighteen months ago.
Engines weight independent sources heavily, and in crypto the independent sources vary wildly in quality. We target the audit firms, established research desks, documentation aggregators and reputable media that hold up, rather than chasing volume on outlets that damage the answer.
The scan records what the engine actually said, not only whether your name appeared. For this category that distinction is the whole point: a citation that describes your security model incorrectly is a liability, and you cannot fix what you have not read.
Both. Open documentation is highly crawlable and frequently retrieved, which is an advantage. The risk is that forks, mirrors, and outdated translations are equally crawlable, so an engine may answer from a stale copy. Canonicalisation and clear version signalling matter more here than in any other category.
Not directly — nobody can edit a model's output. What changes the answer is changing what it retrieves: correcting and canonicalising your own sources, getting accurate third-party coverage published, and removing or de-indexing superseded material. We measure the answer before and after so the change is visible rather than assumed.
Run the free check, then tell us what you need — your result is attached automatically.
Other industries