Figment Review

Figment scores 7.2 out of 10 in our staking platforms ratings, up from 6.6. Two things lift it. Figment's documentation now publishes the fee on its main retail route, and its exit procedures are written down. The rest of the profile is unchanged: a firm no-custody commitment, slashing reimbursement with stated limits in its institutional contracts, and one company running every validator.

This is desk research, checked on 1 November 2026. Figment's main website blocked automated access, so the evidence comes from its developer documentation and from a staking agreement that 21Shares filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We did not stake through Figment.

How Figment scores in staking platforms

Five criteria, each worth 20%. Two marks rose in this update and three are unchanged.

Arithmetic: (6 + 10 + 5 + 9 + 6) / 5 = 36 / 5 = 7.2.

What changed: Fee transparency rose from 4 to 6 after Figment's Ledger Wallet ETH FAQ began stating how its fee is taken and the 8% it targets. Exit & liquidity rose from 5 to 6 because the same FAQ documents each exit stage, and the 21Shares agreement commits Figment to providing pre-signed exit transactions. The earlier review cited "three levels of insurance" from figment.io. We could not open that page this time, so the claim is gone and Risk disclosure now rests on the filed contract.

Strongest criteria: custody and risk disclosure

Custody & control (10)

Section 5.4 of the 21Shares Ethereum ETF agreement, filed in February 2026, states that Figment "does not and will not accept or take custody over any Tokens or Rewards." The retail documentation describes the same structure. The Ledger FAQ says "your validator's withdrawal credentials are always assigned to your wallet," and adds that a contract-based design would have given Figment control of the funds. Under section 4.4 of the agreement, Figment provides pre-signed exit transactions on request, so a client can leave the validator set without Figment's cooperation.

Risk disclosure (9)

The filed agreement explains how slashing losses are handled. If a network slashes the client's tokens, Figment pays "Slashing Reimbursements" under section 5.5. Section 13.2 caps that liability per network at the service fees Figment collected in the six months before the penalty, and the cap does not apply where Figment was grossly negligent or acted fraudulently. Claims must be filed within 30 days and total at least $2,000. On Ethereum, Figment covers only days on which net rewards were negative, and it does not pay missed rewards. Figment publishes both the cover and its limits, which is what the rubric asks for. It falls short of 10 for two reasons. This cover is documented only for institutional contracts, and the Ledger FAQ describes none for retail stakers. We also found no published incident history.

Weakest criteria: fees, concentration and exit

Fee transparency (6)

For ETH staked through Ledger Wallet, Figment says it "does not take any cut" from consensus-layer rewards and takes its fee from execution-layer rewards, meaning transaction tips and MEV (maximal extractable value). The split is dynamic, and the FAQ says the effective rate returns to 8% as consensus rewards build up. That is a published rate, but a moving one, and a staker cannot read a fixed percentage off any single reward. Every other fee is negotiated: the 21Shares agreement lists the service fee among its confidential terms. Disclosure is partial, so the mark sits between the 4 for services with no figure and the 10 for a fixed published rate.

Decentralisation (5)

Every validator a Figment client uses is run by Figment. That is a concentration risk rather than a disclosure gap, and Everstake, the other single-operator service here, is marked the same.

Exit & liquidity (6)

The Ledger FAQ lists each stage of an exit. A validator can exit once about 27 hours have passed since activation. The exit queue "usually lasts a few days" but can stretch to weeks when demand surges, and the withdrawal then takes one to ten days. The process is fully documented, and the pre-signed exit commitment means Figment cannot block it. Even so, the fastest route is the protocol's own, and there is no liquid token or instant option.

What the score does not cover

• Negotiated pricing and service levels. Institutional terms vary by client and are mostly confidential.
• Networks beyond Ethereum and Solana. Figment's documentation covers more than 20 networks. Rules and fees on the others were not scored.
• Insurance policies. The agreement mentions insurance proceeds offsetting claims, but no policy, insurer or limit is published, so it adds nothing to the mark.
• Validator performance. We did not measure uptime or rewards.

Figment vs Everstake and Lido

Everstake is the closest structural peer, and the two tie on custody (10), decentralisation (5) and exit (6). They split the other two criteria in opposite directions. Everstake publishes fixed retail commissions and earns 10 for fees, but its terms exclude slashing liability (6 for risk). Figment's fee is a moving target (6), but its contracts reimburse slashing up to a stated cap (9). That leaves Everstake 0.2 ahead overall. Lido (8.0) spreads stake across many operators and issues a liquid token, so it beats both on decentralisation and exit. For a fuller comparison, see the Everstake review.

Who it suits

The rating is most relevant to institutions and platforms that can negotiate a staking agreement and want contractual slashing cover with keys kept in their own hands. A retail holder will usually meet Figment through Ledger Wallet, getting the same custody model with a published but variable fee and no stated slashing cover. Staking rewards are not guaranteed, and this rating is not a recommendation.