Rarible Review

How Rarible scores in NFT marketplaces

This entry rates the rarible.com NFT marketplace in our NFT marketplace ranking. Since June 22, 2026 its terms name Gahinga Inc., a Panama company, as the operator, and Rarible's FAQ says IMPOSSIBLE acquired the Rarible brand and key platform assets, while the RARI token and RARI Foundation remain separately managed. The token and its governance are not part of this rating. The basis is desk research of rarible.com's FAQ and terms, the Rarible Protocol contracts repository and the Ethereum exchange contract's public transaction record, checked on November 1, 2026. No wallet was connected and nothing was bought or listed. The category uses five equally weighted criteria, each marked 0 to 10, as set out in our ratings methodology.

The overall score is the plain average: (8 + 7 + 10 + 5 + 9) ÷ 5 = 39 ÷ 5 = 7.8. The previous overall was 7.2.

Two marks were changed on November 1, 2026. Fee transparency rose from 7 to 8 because the FAQ now publishes a rate per chain and says who pays, where the old entry could cite only a 1% example from developer documentation. Chain coverage rose from 3 to 5 because the FAQ now names five chains. The change of operator was also checked against the code criteria. The Ethereum exchange contract listed in the repository is still settling trades, and its recorded seller fee matches the FAQ's 2%, so those two marks stand.

Strongest criteria: open contracts and a named audit

Licence & code openness (10)

The Rarible Protocol repository publishes the Exchange v2 contracts, token contracts and royalty specification under the MIT licence. Its network file lists the deployed address of each contract. For Ethereum it records the Exchange v2 proxy at 0x9757F2d2b135150BBeb65308D4a91804107cd8D6 with a seller fee of 200 basis points (2%) and a buyer fee of 0, the same split the rarible.com FAQ gives. The contract's public record shows order matches and cancellations through late October 2026. A reader can therefore tie the published source to the contract the marketplace uses on Ethereum. The repository was last updated in October 2026.

Verification & audits (9)

The repository's README names ChainSecurity as the auditor of Exchange v2 and links the report page, which dates the audit to June 25, 2021 and describes its focus on order matching and cancellation. The mark stops at 9, the same as OpenSea's, for the same reason: the audit is a point-in-time review, and Exchange v2 sits behind an upgradeable proxy, so the deployed version can differ from the one reviewed. Rarible publishes no audit of its Solana trading, and the FAQ describes no process for verifying collections. An audit is not insurance against loss.

Middle and weakest criteria

Fee transparency (8)

The FAQ states the seller pays the marketplace fee from the proceeds and the buyer pays the listed price. On a 1 ETH sale on Ethereum with no royalty, the seller receives 0.98 ETH. Listings pulled in from other marketplaces carry that venue's fee, which the FAQ gives as 2% for Magic Eden and Tensor, and on EVM chains the buyer pays a further 2% to Rarible on top. The mark stops at 8 because fees on chains beyond the four named are shown only at listing, and the terms let Rarible change marketplace fees for any feature. For how a marketplace fee and gas combine, see our guide to crypto trading fees.

Royalty policy (7)

The FAQ says royalties are set by each collection and paid out of the sale, and the terms list commissions on secondary sales payable to creators. Rarible's developer documentation describes royalties as payments to the original creator each time an asset is sold, and the exchange's transfer manager looks royalties up in an on-chain royalties registry when a trade settles. What none of the marketplace pages say is whether a buyer or seller can reduce or skip a royalty, or how royalties are treated on aggregated listings. That gap holds the mark at 7.

Chain coverage (5)

The FAQ names Ethereum, BSC, Base, Polygon and Solana, and says fees on other supported chains vary, without listing them. Five named chains is wider than a single-chain venue but well short of the published lists of OpenSea or OKX NFT. The open contracts described above cover the EVM chains; the code used for Solana trades is not published.

What the score does not cover

• The operator change. Ownership and the Panama jurisdiction are not criteria. The terms do not explain how Gahinga Inc. relates to IMPOSSIBLE.
• Tokenized collectibles and Gacha packs. Rarible's physical-card tokens and random card packs are not rated.
• Liquidity and execution. Volume and fill quality were not measured.
• Wallet safety. Rarible is non-custodial, so a malicious signature cannot be reversed. Our guide to wallet scams and phishing covers the common traps.

Rarible vs OpenSea and Element

OpenSea, at 8.4, matches Rarible on fees (8), royalties (7), licence (10) and audits (9). The 0.6-point gap is chain coverage, where OpenSea lists 27 networks for a mark of 8 against Rarible's 5. Element, at 7.4, is 0.4 behind. It is level on fees (8), scores lower on licence (8 against 10), audits (7 against 9) and royalties (6 against 7), and higher on chain coverage, where it names 27 networks for a mark of 8 against Rarible's 5.

Who this rating suits

The score describes a marketplace whose Ethereum settlement code is open, audited and verifiably in use, and whose fee is published per chain. It is most useful to a seller on an EVM chain who wants to know the exact cut and read the contract that takes it. It is less useful to a trader who needs a full chain list, a creator who needs a stated rule on skipped royalties, or anyone weighing the new operator's track record. The score assesses published documentation and is not a recommendation to buy any NFT.