Ankr vs Hipo: Multichain staking or TON? (2026)

Ankr and Hipo both offer liquid staking, but they serve different needs. Ankr is one part of a broader Web3 infrastructure business, with staking across several networks alongside RPC, API, rollup and enterprise services. Its listed staking chains include Ethereum, Flow, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Polkadot, Fantom, Gnosis and Kusama. That range makes Ankr the more flexible option if you stake across networks or want related developer infrastructure.

Hipo is focused on TON. Users stake GRAM and receive hGRAM, which represents their staked position and increases against GRAM as validation rewards accrue. The project says hGRAM can be used across TON DeFi. Hipo’s focus may appeal if you specifically want to stake GRAM, but it does not offer Ankr’s multichain reach. The choice is mainly between broad network coverage and a dedicated TON staking product.

Hipo currently advertises a 0% staking fee, meaning stakers receive 100% of staking rewards under the current terms. The project labels this rate as current, so it could change. Hipo’s site describes staking from as little as 1 GRAM, but network transaction fees and any costs for unstaking are not published. Check the app and documentation before confirming a transaction.

Ankr has not published staking fees, reward commission rates or unstaking costs. Its documentation and staking interface are the places to check current terms before depositing. Network gas fees also apply when transacting on the relevant chain. Ankr’s Web3 API has a free starting tier, but that is separate from staking, and pricing for paid API plans is not stated publicly. On the fee question, Hipo is clearer about its current staking charge; neither product provides a complete public picture of every possible transaction cost.

Both products carry smart-contract and network risks, and liquid staking adds the possibility that a liquid token trades below the value of its underlying asset. For Ankr, the listed audit count is two, but auditor names, dates and audit scope are not specified. Ankr also notes validator-performance and liquid-token depeg risks. Its staking fees and rates should be checked before use, and users should understand the process for the particular chain they choose.

Hipo’s project describes four audit reports for its v1 and v2 contracts, including a Quantstamp audit of v2 in April 2025, while two audits are listed in tracking data. Its contracts are described as open-source. These measures do not remove the risks of bugs, validators, TON network issues or hGRAM trading at a discount. Hipo does not publish its regulatory status, and public information does not describe a bug bounty or incident history. Do not stake funds you cannot afford to lose.

Choose Ankr if you want staking across several networks or value having RPC, rollup and enterprise infrastructure from the same provider. Its listed TVL is about $25.7 million, although its homepage cites more than $83 million and does not explain the difference. That makes the headline figures difficult to compare directly with Hipo’s roughly $11.7 million. Ankr’s staking-specific fees are not published, so check the current terms before committing funds.

Choose Hipo if you hold GRAM and want a TON-focused liquid staking option with a currently advertised 0% staking fee, a 1 GRAM minimum and hGRAM for use in TON DeFi. Keep in mind that rewards vary, the fee could change, and HPO is described as small and potentially illiquid. Neither option is a universal winner: Ankr is the broader multichain product, while Hipo is the more specialized choice for TON staking.