Ankr sits in two categories that share an operational backbone but have very different failure modes: RPC and node infrastructure for builders, and staking products that introduce smart contract and privileged-access risk.

In 2026, a clean evaluation requires separating these lanes. RPC failures are usually latency, rate limits, or correlated outages. Liquid staking failures are typically contract privilege, key compromise, or liquidity and de-peg dynamics. This review focuses on the mechanisms that determine outcomes in both lanes.

What Ankr Offers in 2026

Ankr is frequently described in third-party infrastructure overviews as an RPC provider with multi-chain endpoint coverage and tiered access models. Ankr’s staking suite includes liquid staking products on specific networks. In liquid staking, the user receives a receipt token that represents staked assets plus accumulated rewards, and that receipt token can be used across DeFi.

The procurement implication is that “Ankr” is not a single risk profile. It can be a fit for RPC usage while being unacceptable for liquid staking, or the reverse, depending on mandate constraints.

RPC Infrastructure: What Determines Real-World Reliability

RPC procurement should be performance-driven. Average latency is rarely the deciding factor. The deciding factors tend to be tail latency under load, rate limit behavior, incident response during chain events, and how quickly a provider communicates issues. Correlated failure is the main threat. The worst outages occur during chain upgrades, forks, congestion spikes, or large cloud incidents.

A strong RPC evaluation asks for:

Latency distribution in target regions, not only global averages.
Rate limit and burst behavior, including how throttling is communicated.
Endpoint redundancy and routing behavior during upstream failures.
Support pathways and escalation timelines.

Independent comparisons of RPC vendors also emphasize these operational features. For example, Dwellir’s RPC provider comparison references load balancing and failover as differentiators across major providers, including Ankr.

Liquid Staking: Where Risk Lives

Liquid staking introduces a second risk layer beyond protocol staking.

Protocol staking risk is mostly validator operations and chain mechanics. Liquid staking adds:

Smart contract risk from the receipt-token system.
Privileged-access risk for upgrade and emergency actions.
Liquidity and pricing risk when receipt tokens trade on secondary markets.

Even when liquid staking is marketed as “more flexible staking,” the flexibility is delivered through additional plumbing that can fail.

A neutral definition helps frame this correctly. Investopedia’s explanation of the 2022 Ankr incident describes a receipt token used for staked BNB and highlights how minting and contract control became the failure point, not the underlying PoS consensus rules.

The aBNBc Exploit: Why It Still Matters in 2026

Ankr’s BNB liquid staking history includes a high-signal incident: the aBNBc exploit in December 2022.

Ankr’s after-action report describes the incident, the response plan, and the measures used to compensate affected users and restructure the token model.

Mainstream summaries emphasize the mechanism that matters most for diligence: a private key compromise tied to privileged contract access, which allowed malicious modification and unauthorized minting of the liquid staking receipt token supply. That is not a “DeFi volatility” problem. It is a privileged-access and key-management problem.

The procurement implication is straightforward. A liquid staking buyer is not buying a token. The buyer is buying a security posture around privileged keys, upgrade controls, emergency pause mechanisms, and post-incident remediation.

Token Model Changes: ankrBNB and Migration Context

After the exploit, public coverage described a replacement token approach for BNB liquid staking. Investopedia’s summary notes that the plan included reissuing an updated token to valid holders and discontinuing older receipt tokens.

Market data platforms also reflect the existence of an ankrBNB receipt token as the liquid staking representation used on BNB-related flows. For example, CoinGecko lists “Ankr Staked BNB” as a tracked asset, which is consistent with a post-exploit consolidated receipt token model.

For diligence, the important part is not the ticker name. The important part is privileged-access design and audit freshness in the specific contracts used for minting, redemption, and reward accounting.

Security Due Diligence: Questions That Reduce Risk

A liquid staking review should focus on privileged actions. High-value questions include:

What privileged keys exist, and what each key can do.
Whether privileged actions are gated by multi-party approvals.
How emergency pauses work, who can trigger them, and under what policy.
How upgrade processes are staged, reviewed, and executed.
What the remediation policy is if a contract failure impacts users.

A buyer should also model cascade risk. Liquid staking receipt tokens often become collateral, LP components, or routing assets. When a receipt token breaks, the losses can propagate beyond direct stakers through DeFi integrations.

Fees, Liquidity Costs, and De-Peg Risk

Liquid staking costs are rarely limited to a stated protocol fee. Hidden or second-order costs can include:

Liquidity costs when entering or exiting via DEX pools.
Price divergence risk in stressed markets.
Slippage during “instant” exits, where liquidity is a market condition rather than a guaranteed redemption.

Under normal conditions, receipt tokens can track their implied value reasonably well. Under stress, spreads widen and exit decisions become a market risk decision.

Pros and Cons

Pros

Broad RPC positioning with multi-chain reach described in independent infrastructure reviews.
Visible market presence across both builder infrastructure and staking categories.
A detailed primary after-action report for a major incident, which creates a concrete diligence reference point.

Cons and watch-outs

Liquid staking introduces meaningful privileged-access and contract risk beyond protocol staking.
The exploit history makes key management, access control, and audit freshness non-negotiable diligence items.
“One vendor for everything” can increase diligence workload. RPC and liquid staking require different approval criteria.

Who It Fits Best

Ankr tends to fit best when the mandate is focused on RPC and infrastructure access, and the buyer can validate performance from target regions with clear incident-response expectations.

For liquid staking, fit depends on whether the mandate can tolerate privileged-access risk and smart contract exposure. Some institutions will accept that risk for liquidity and composability. Others will treat it as out of scope regardless of mitigations.

Conclusion

Ankr’s 2026 profile is clearest when evaluated as two lanes: RPC infrastructure reliability and liquid staking security. RPC decisions should be driven by measured latency behavior, rate limits, and incident response under chain stress. Liquid staking decisions should be driven by privileged-access design, emergency controls, and remediation posture, with the aBNBc exploit serving as a concrete reminder of how quickly failures can cascade. Buyers that separate these lanes and apply the correct diligence lens to each will reach the cleanest decision.

The post Ankr Review 2026: RPC Infrastructure, Liquid Staking, Security, and Fit appeared first on Crypto Adventure.

---

Filed under: Bitcoin - @ February 17, 2026 9:06 am