Boost Review

How Boost scores in incentive program operators

Boost is listed in our incentive and grant program operators ranking in the reward distribution role. Teams fund a budget on the platform, and it pays ERC-20 rewards when a user completes a set on-chain action or holds a position over time. The review is desk research of boost.xyz, the Boost documentation and its public API, read on November 6, 2026. We did not run a campaign or claim a reward.

The category has six criteria. Each one uses a fixed scale of marks set out in our ratings methodology, and a criterion on which the operator publishes nothing scores 0.

The overall score is the plain average of the six marks: (0 + 0 + 0 + 5 + 5 + 0) / 6 = 10 / 6 = 1.7. No mark changed at this check. The evidence read on September 22, 2026 still describes the platform, and nothing newly published on the six criteria was found.

Strongest criteria: abuse protection and open data

Boost's two non-zero marks come from material written for the teams running campaigns, not from reporting on outcomes.

Abuse protection (5). The FAQ gives a direct answer to "Can I prevent bots or sybil farming?". A one-time action campaign can be restricted to an allowlist of addresses, such as holders of a given NFT or token. A time-based campaign can require a minimum balance, count only new capital, or use Earning Activation. That last control pays only users whose first deposit went through a Boost contract, and its documentation page explains the contract flow. The rubric's top mark asks for a described mechanism against sybils and farming. These controls are eligibility gates set by the funder, which the scale treats as mentioned rather than described, so the mark is 5.

Open data (5). Campaign records can be read without an account. A request to the explore endpoint, sorted by total spend over seven days, returned 920 campaigns. Each record carried its name, chain, USD spent, completions and the World ID verification level where one is required. Two things keep the mark at 5: the time window stops at seven days, and the analytics the homepage describes are for campaign owners only.

Weakest criteria: four marks of zero

All four zeros are disclosure gaps: Boost publishes nothing on these criteria. They are not findings about how its campaigns perform.

• Named programs and disclosed volume. The API shows campaign names that their creators chose, but Boost itself does not name a program with its network and dates, and it gives no distributed amount for any program. The headline counters count claims and claimants. They are not a figure for money paid out.
• Impact report. The homepage promises return-on-spend metrics to campaign owners. No public report gives such metrics or explains how they are measured.
• Independence. No policy covers relationships between Boost and the protocols that fund rewards on it.

What the score does not cover

The rubric scores what an operator publishes about its own programs. It does not test reward delivery, contract security, fees or user experience. Boost's 10% protocol fee on one-time action rewards, and its statement that budgets sit in audited contracts without naming an auditor, are outside the six criteria and did not affect the marks. Nor does the score judge any token offered as a reward. Boost's terms leave it to participants to check that a reward token is genuine, and our guide to wallet scams and phishing covers fake reward offers.

Boost vs the closest rated peers

At 1.7, Boost has the lowest score among the twelve rated operators at the time of this check. Turtle scores 3.3, Layer3 4.7 and Karma 5.0. Merkl, another platform that pays rewards for positions held over time, scores 5.8. The gap with these peers comes from criteria Boost leaves empty: it names no programs and publishes no volume or impact figures.

Who it suits

The score fits teams that want to set up on-chain-verified reward campaigns on EVM chains themselves and are prepared to measure the results on their own. It is not evidence of what Boost's campaigns achieve, because Boost publishes none.