Kiln vs Allnodes: Staking-As-A-Service & AVS Operation

Comprehensive API-first platform: Offers granular APIs for staking, rewards, and AVS management, plus a white-label dashboard. This is critical for fintechs and custodians (e.g., Coinbase, Ledger) embedding staking services directly into their products without building from scratch.

Flat-fee model: Charges a fixed monthly fee per node (e.g., $20/month for an Ethereum validator) instead of a percentage of rewards. This provides cost certainty for high-volume stakers and can be significantly cheaper than revenue-share models at scale.

Enterprise-first infrastructure: Offers MPC-based custody, SOC 2 Type II certification, and dedicated legal support for institutional clients. This matters for regulated entities (banks, funds) and protocols requiring audit-ready staking operations.

Native EigenLayer AVS operator and Ethereum core contributor. Provides one-click AVS restaking and specialized nodes for chains like Solana and Sui. This matters for protocols building on restaking or teams needing multi-chain staking with AVS participation.

Supports 85+ networks (vs. Kiln's ~10) with a unified, intuitive dashboard. Features non-custodial staking, one-click mainnet launches, and automated updates. This matters for VCs/DAOs managing diverse portfolios or projects seeking a low-friction, multi-chain entry point.

Flat-fee model (e.g., $10/month per node) with no performance fees, unlike Kiln's revenue-share model. Offers a public pricing calculator. This matters for bootstrapped projects and teams with predictable budgets who prioritize cost certainty over potential upside sharing.

Revenue-share fees (typically 5-10%) and enterprise pricing create a higher cost basis. Onboarding involves legal and technical integration. This is a drawback for small teams or projects where minimizing operational overhead is the primary goal.

While a generalist for node operations, it has less native integration with emerging restaking primitives (EigenLayer, Babylon) compared to Kiln. This is a drawback for protocols whose roadmap depends on deep integration with specific AVS ecosystems.

First-mover in EigenLayer AVS operation: Kiln operates nodes for major protocols like EigenDA, Eoracle, and Lagrange. This matters for protocols seeking a single, battle-tested provider for both Ethereum staking and the emerging restaking ecosystem, simplifying infrastructure management.

Deep enterprise integration: Offers a comprehensive API, dedicated dashboards, and support for complex multi-signature setups (e.g., Gnosis Safe). This matters for funds, exchanges, and protocols with $10M+ in assets that require programmatic control, detailed reporting, and robust security workflows.

Broadest protocol coverage: Supports staking, validation, or node operation for 80+ networks (vs. Kiln's ~15), including Ethereum, Cosmos, Polkadot, and Solana. This matters for multi-chain protocols or investors who want a unified dashboard and fee structure for diverse assets, reducing operational overhead.

Predictable, flat-fee model: Charges a clear monthly fee per validator (e.g., $10/month for Ethereum) instead of a percentage of rewards. This matters for high-volume stakers where a percentage fee becomes costly, providing cost certainty and better margins at scale compared to Kiln's revenue-share model.

Revenue-share fee model: Kiln takes a cut of staking rewards (typically 5-10%). While justifiable for its premium services, this matters for large-scale operators where Allnodes' flat fee could represent significant long-term savings, making Kiln's value proposition less compelling for pure, high-volume Ethereum staking.

Generalist focus on breadth: While adding support for new networks rapidly, Allnodes may have less operational depth in nascent, complex systems like EigenLayer AVSs compared to Kiln's dedicated focus. This matters for protocols betting heavily on restaking who need a provider with proven, early technical integration expertise.