If you are evaluating incentive infrastructure for your protocol, the two platforms with the deepest traction in this category are Merkl and Turtle. Merkl is the longest-running distribution engine. Turtle is the most complete coordination layer, combining distribution, sourcing, curation, and advisory into a single platform. Royco, once positioned as a third option through its Incentivized Action Markets, has since pivoted to a structured yield tranching product called Dawn, which serves a fundamentally different function. We include Royco in this guide for context, but the active competitive landscape for incentive infrastructure is between Merkl and Turtle.
This guide breaks down all three platforms honestly. We will tell you when Merkl is the right choice, where Turtle fits, and where each one falls short. The goal is to give your growth team the framework to decide, not to sell you on any single platform.
TL;DR Comparison Table
Merkl | Turtle | Royco | |
Approach | Multi-chain incentive distribution engine | Full-stack liquidity coordination, Incentive distribution, and advisory | Pivoted from Incentivized Action Markets to structured yield tranching (Dawn) |
Best for | Protocols with existing liquidity provider bases needing efficient distribution | Protocols needing metric-driven TVL, capital allocator sourcing, curation, and ongoing support | No longer directly comparable; Dawn serves institutional yield structuring, not incentive distribution |
Chain support | 60+ chains | 60+ chains | 7 chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Berachain, Sonic, Corn, Hyperliquid) |
Scale/traction | $1.5B+ distributed, 200+ protocols, 20K+ campaigns | $5.5B+ liquidity routed, 60+ protocols, 430K+ wallets | $3.5B peak TVL (Boyco); current product (Dawn) is whitelisted and early-stage |
Key limitation | Distribution only; no capital allocator sourcing, no advisory | Newer brand; building toward full self-serve | No longer an incentive platform; pivoted to risk tranching |
Pricing | 3% fee on campaigns (0.5% for airdrops) | Integration fee + % on successfully raised TVL | 4% fee on incentives spent by protocols (V1); Dawn pricing not disclosed |
Merkl: Distribution Infrastructure at Scale
What It Does
Merkl is a multi-chain incentive distribution engine built by Angle Labs. Protocols configure campaigns, define reward parameters, and Merkl handles the calculation and distribution of rewards to liquidity provider addresses based on on-chain activity. Think of it as the plumbing layer: you tell it what to incentivize, and it makes sure the right wallets get the right tokens.
[Source: Merkl Documentation, docs.merkl.xyz]
Strengths
Merkl's track record is hard to argue with. Since launching in November 2023, the platform has distributed over $1.5 billion in incentives across 60+ chains and 200+ protocols. It is backed by a16z through its parent organization Angle Labs, which raised a $5 million seed round led by a16z in 2021.
[Source: Merkl 2025 Year in Review, blog.merkl.xyz; Source: a16z investment announcement, a16z.com]
The integration list reads like a who's-who of DeFi. Merkl powers the incentive programs for Uniswap, Aave, Morpho, Euler, Arbitrum, and Optimism. Its rewards APRs are displayed natively inside the Uniswap and Aave apps. The Arbitrum DRIP program alone distributed 80 million ARB tokens through Merkl's infrastructure.
[Source: Merkl 2025 Year in Review, blog.merkl.xyz]
Documentation is thorough, the API is well-built, and campaign creation takes minutes rather than weeks of custom development. For teams that need to move fast and do not want to build distribution infrastructure from scratch, this matters.
How It Works
- Protocol sets reward parameters (pool, token, distribution logic, duration)
- Merkl's off-chain engine calculates reward scores for each liquidity provider address based on on-chain activity
- Merkle root proofs are posted on-chain
- Liquidity providers claim rewards through Merkl's interface or directly from the contract
Merkl supports concentrated liquidity (Uniswap V3/V4), lending and borrowing (Aave, Morpho, Euler), airdrops, ERC-20 token holding rewards, and more. Distribution can be variable-rate, fixed-rate, or capped, and cross-chain campaigns allow you to incentivize activity on one chain while distributing rewards on another.
[Source: Merkl Docs, docs.merkl.xyz]
Limitations
Merkl is distribution infrastructure. That is both its strength and its boundary.
It does not help you find capital allocators or liquidity providers. It does not curate which vaults or pools are worth incentivizing. It does not advise you on campaign strategy, token economics, or how to structure your liquidity program for long-term retention. You need to arrive at Merkl already knowing what you want to incentivize, how much you want to spend, and where your liquidity providers are coming from.
For protocols with established liquidity provider bases and experienced growth teams, this is fine. For newer protocols still figuring out their liquidity strategy, the self-serve model can be a gap. You get a powerful engine, but you are responsible for everything that feeds into it.
Best For
Protocols with established liquidity provider bases that need efficient, battle-tested distribution mechanics across multiple chains. If you already have capital allocators and know exactly what behavior you want to incentivize, Merkl is likely the most efficient path.
Turtle: Coordination and Relationship Infrastructure
What It Does
Turtle (formerly Turtle Club, now at turtle.xyz) takes the broadest approach of any platform in this category. Rather than focusing on distribution alone (Merkl), Turtle provides a full-stack liquidity coordination layer: capital allocator sourcing from a network of 430,000+ wallets and thousands of institutional liquidity providers, curation and risk assessment of vaults and opportunities, incentive distribution through its Streams product, campaign management, and advisory services.
[Source: Turtle.xyz; Source: GlobeNewsWire, Turtle Club $6.2M raise announcement]
Strengths
Turtle's core differentiator is the relationship layer between protocols and capital allocators. Where Merkl provides the distribution engine and leaves sourcing to the protocol, Turtle handles both sides: sourcing the right liquidity providers and distributing incentives to them through targeted coordination.
The numbers show meaningful traction. Since launching in March 2024, the platform has routed over $5.5 billion in liquidity to partner projects, integrated with 60+ protocols across 60+ chains, and onboarded 430,000+ wallets. A single chain bootstrapping campaign deployed $550 million in 45 days. The TAC Protocol campaign alone bootstrapped over $800 million in TVL.
[Source: GlobeNewsWire, May 2025; Source: VentureBurn, Turtle $5.5M raise; Source: Mitosis University, "Turtle Club: Phantom Liquidity"]
Turtle has raised $11.7 million in total funding, with a $6.2 million seed round led by THEIA and participation from institutional investors including Susquehanna (SIG), Consensys, and Laser Digital. Angel investors include Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin, Wintermute co-founder Yoann Turpin, and Ryan Fang of Ankr.
[Source: GlobeNewsWire, May 2025; Source: VentureBurn, October 2025]
Streams, Turtle's incentive distribution product, enables protocols to distribute rewards directly to their liquidity providers with targeting logic built in. This gives Turtle distribution capabilities comparable to Merkl, layered on top of sourcing and curation that no other platform in this category provides.
The advisory component is worth noting separately. Beyond incentive distribution, Turtle assists protocols with exchange listing strategy, market maker introductions, audit RFQ processes, and overall liquidity program design. For protocols that need more than software, this is a meaningful difference.
How It Works
- Protocol defines liquidity objectives and constraints
- Turtle sources and curates capital allocators from its network based on fit (risk profile, capital size, chain preference)
- Incentives are distributed through Turtle Streams with targeting logic
- Campaigns are designed with ongoing optimization, analytics, and advisory support
Turtle operates as a non-custodial protocol. Users retain control of their funds while participating in campaigns. The platform offers direct interaction, API connections, and SDK integrations for partners to distribute liquidity opportunities.
[Source: Turtle.xyz documentation]
Limitations
Turtle's model has historically been more hands-on than Merkl's pure self-serve approach. The platform is actively building toward a full self-serve experience, but today, some workflows still involve a higher-touch process. For protocol teams that want to configure a campaign in three minutes and walk away, this may feel like friction rather than value in the short term.
It is also the newer brand. Merkl launched in November 2023 and has the weight of Angle Labs and a16z behind it. Turtle has been building since March 2024 with strong traction metrics but less brand-name recognition in the broader market.
And because the pricing model is relationship-based rather than a flat percentage, it requires a conversation rather than a quick self-serve checkout. This is a feature for some teams and a friction point for others.
Best For
Protocols that want metric-driven TVL and the full stack: not just distribution, but capital allocator sourcing, vault curation, campaign strategy, and ongoing support. Particularly strong for protocols that care about who provides their liquidity, not just how much, and for teams that want data-backed optimization of their incentive spend rather than guesswork.
Royco: From Incentive Markets to Structured Yield
What It Was
Royco originally positioned itself as an Incentivized Action Market (IAM) protocol. Protocols posted incentive offers on an order book, liquidity providers bid to fulfill them, and the market set the price. It was a price discovery mechanism for liquidity.
[Source: Royco Documentation, docs.royco.org]
This approach proved itself at massive scale during Berachain's pre-launch. The Boyco program, built on Royco's infrastructure, attracted over $2.2 billion in pre-deposits from more than 150,000 wallets within days of going live. At its peak, Boyco pushed Berachain to $3.1 billion in TVL before the mainnet even launched, temporarily making it the eighth-largest chain by TVL.
[Source: CoinDesk, January 2025; Source: NFTgators, "Royco Skyrockets to $3B TVL"]
The Pivot: Royco Dawn
In February 2026, Royco launched Dawn, a structured yield tranching product that represents a fundamental shift in the protocol's direction. Dawn takes yield sources, from DeFi vaults to RWAs, and splits them into Senior and Junior pools. Senior depositors get downside protection backed by Junior capital as first-loss. Junior depositors earn a risk premium for providing that protection.
[Source: Royco @roycoprotocol, February 9, 2026]
This is not an iteration on IAMs. It is a different product category entirely: structured yield, not incentive coordination. Dawn is closer to risk tranching protocols than to incentive distribution platforms.
Dawn is currently whitelisted and selectively onboarding institutions, funds, and DAOs. It is not available to U.S. persons. The contracts have been audited by Cantina and Hexens.
What This Means for the Comparison
Royco is no longer building in the same category as Merkl and Turtle. The IAM product still exists, but the team's focus and development resources have shifted to Dawn. Protocols evaluating incentive infrastructure should be aware that Royco's roadmap is now oriented toward structured yield, not incentive distribution or liquidity coordination.
The Boyco Lesson
The Boyco case study remains relevant regardless of Royco's pivot, because it illustrates a structural risk in market-based liquidity bootstrapping.
After Berachain's mainnet launched, TVL dropped by approximately 71%, falling from over $3 billion to roughly $990 million. Monthly active users declined by 85%, from 2.2 million to 330,000. The BERA token price fell roughly 80% from its post-launch high.
[Source: The Defiant, "Berachain TVL Plummets 70%"; Source: Sentora/Medium analysis of Boyco]
The core issue was structural. The market mechanism optimized for price discovery, and the participants it attracted were, by design, yield maximizers. Many depositors never interacted with Berachain's protocols and left as soon as rewards were distributed. The capital was mercenary not because the liquidity providers were bad actors, but because the mechanism did not select for or build ecosystem commitment.
[Source: Sentora/Medium, "Why Royco's Pre-Deposit Vault Programs Fall Short"]
This dynamic is worth understanding for any protocol evaluating how it sources liquidity. The mechanism you use to attract capital shapes the behavior of the capital you attract.
Head-to-Head: Feature Comparison
Feature | Merkl | Turtle | Royco |
Incentive distribution | Yes (core product) | Yes (via Streams) | V1 only (IAMs); Dawn is a different product |
Capital allocator sourcing / CRM | No | Yes (430K+ wallet network, thousands of institutional liquidity providers) | No |
Vault / pool curation | No | Yes (risk screening and selection) | No |
Campaign analytics | Yes (dashboard, APR tracking) | Yes (distribution analytics and optimization) | V1 only (market data, bid/ask visibility) |
Advisory services | No | Yes | No |
Cross-chain support | 60+ chains | 60+ chains | 7 chains |
Self-serve capability | Full self-serve | Hybrid (self-serve + managed; full self-serve on roadmap) | Dawn is whitelisted; not self-serve |
Retention mechanisms | None (distribution only) | Capital allocator curation and targeted distribution | None |
Pricing transparency | Public (3% campaigns, 0.5% airdrops) | Relationship-based (not publicly listed) | V1: Public (4% of incentives); Dawn: not disclosed |
Audits | Code4rena | Cantina | Spearbit, Cantina (V1); Cantina, Hexens (Dawn) |
Backing | a16z (via Angle Labs) | THEIA, SIG, Consensys, Laser Digital | Not publicly disclosed |
Active product focus | Incentive distribution | Liquidity coordination and distribution | Structured yield tranching (Dawn) |
What the Data Says
The cost of acquiring and retaining liquidity varies significantly across approaches.
Merkl's model gives you precise control over spend, but the efficiency of that spend depends entirely on your team's ability to target the right capital allocators with the right incentives. The 3% platform fee is transparent and predictable.
Turtle's campaign data shows a different pattern. The TAC Protocol campaign bootstrapped over $800 million in TVL through a curated approach, and the second chain bootstrapping campaign deployed $550 million in 45 days. The curated capital allocator network is designed to reduce mercenary capital risk, though long-term retention data across the full portfolio is still maturing given the platform's March 2024 launch.
[Source: GlobeNewsWire; Source: Mitosis University]
Royco's Boyco case study provides a cautionary data point. At peak, Berachain attracted $3.1 billion through the program. Post-launch, approximately 71% of that capital left, with TVL settling around $990 million. Whether this represents success or failure depends on your perspective: $990 million in retained TVL is significant, but the cost-per-retained-dollar was substantially higher than the cost-per-initial-dollar suggested. Royco's subsequent pivot to Dawn suggests the team itself recognized the limitations of the IAM model for sustainable liquidity.
[Source: The Defiant; Source: Sentora/Medium analysis]
For deeper analysis on cost-per-TVL benchmarks and retention metrics, see our research on DeFi liquidity incentive costs and how to measure LP retention.
Merkl + Turtle: A Combined Approach
Turtle and Merkl are partners and have worked together on multiple campaigns, with Turtle handling sourcing, curation, and advisory while Merkl handles distribution mechanics. For protocols whose needs span the full liquidity stack, from finding the right capital allocators to distributing incentives efficiently, this combined approach is a proven pattern. It gives you Merkl's battle-tested distribution engine with Turtle's relationship layer and strategic support on top.
The Bottom Line
The incentive platform landscape has consolidated. Royco's pivot to structured yield tranching (Dawn) has narrowed the field for protocols evaluating incentive infrastructure to two primary options.
Distribution alone rarely solves the liquidity problem. Protocols that treat incentives as a standalone function, disconnected from sourcing, curation, and strategy, tend to overspend and under-retain.
The protocols seeing the strongest results are the ones that approach liquidity as a full-stack coordination problem: who provides the capital, where it goes, how incentives are structured, and how performance is measured over time.
-
Merkl is the right tool if your only need is distribution. You already have capital allocators, you know your target pools, and you want a battle-tested engine to get rewards out efficiently across 60+ chains.
-
Turtle is the right platform if you are solving for the broader problem. From sourcing the right capital allocators to curating opportunities to distributing incentives through Streams to ongoing advisory, Turtle covers the full liquidity lifecycle. For most protocols, especially those still building or scaling their liquidity programs, this is the approach that converts spend into durable TVL.
-
The two are not mutually exclusive. Turtle and Merkl are partners and have worked together on multiple campaigns. Protocols that need Turtle's sourcing, curation, and strategy layer alongside Merkl's distribution infrastructure can use both.
If you are early in your liquidity journey, starting with the full stack and narrowing down is a stronger position than starting with distribution alone and trying to retrofit sourcing and strategy later.
