Of 60 answers

The most named companies in the study, and S&P 500 financials, with how many of their 60 AI answers named them.

SWIFT47/60TRANSUNION46/60EXPERIAN42/60COINSTAR41/60NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION41/60ZELLE41/60BLOOMBERG L.P.38/60TRADINGVIEW38/60BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO37/60PAYPAL37/60VENMO37/60CHEXSYSTEMS33/60EQUIFAX33/60MORNINGSTAR32/60S&P GLOBAL31/60ALPACA MARKETS30/60COINBASE30/60PINWHEEL29/60STRIPE29/60XERO29/60ACORNS28/60AFFIRM28/60PAYFAST (PAYGATE)28/60PAYONEER28/60INTERACTIVE BROKERS26/60CHARLES SCHWAB19/60THE HARTFORD9/60MOODY'S21/60CME GROUP19/60ACCENTURE11/60CHUBB10/60MORGAN STANLEY6/60AMERICAN EXPRESS14/60SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL12/60FACTSET20/60NASDAQ19/60ALLSTATE11/60WELLS FARGO18/60PAYCHEX10/60ARES MANAGEMENT3/60
Rezolve Ai
MethodDemo
Back to the study
AI visibility statementFinance AI Visibility Study 2026Issued October 14, 2026
Account holder

P2P.org

p2p.org

Stablecoins and digital asset infrastructureCrypto and digital assets

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
809 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
35th of 80 digital asset infrastructure companies
Closing balance

Named in

6of 60 answers

by 4 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for P2P.org

AI assistants name this digital asset infrastructure company in 10% of answers, much more often than the typical company in its sector at 1.7%. It has an overall score of 31 out of 100, which ranks 809th of 2,219 companies. The website passes 4 out of 14 technical checks showing its readiness for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned P2P.org by name. AI assistants named it in 6 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 25th of 102 in its sector. The typical crypto and digital asset company is named in 1.7% of answers.

Overall score
31Overall score
  • Visibility10
  • Citations2
  • Sentiment71
  • Site quality67
  • AI readiness29
Summary of account
Named by AI in
10.0%
6 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
11.3%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
4/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
48 of 102
by overall score, where the typical crypto and digital asset company scores 30

Get the full report on P2P.org as a PDF

Enter your work email to download it.

We’ll use your email to follow up about this report. Privacy policy

Line itemsSection 01

Every question, and where the company came up

P2P.org came up on 4 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01Top-rated crypto staking platforms for businesses seeking professional validation and node hosting services?0/4
  2. 02Are there minimum staking requirements or pricing tiers for crypto businesses using staking-as-a-service?0/4
  3. 03Is enterprise-grade staking-as-a-service worth it for web3 businesses managing large token portfolios?0/4
  4. 04Does outsourcing staking infrastructure make sense for companies with in-house crypto teams?0/4
  5. 05Common issues when integrating staking APIs into a crypto exchange platform and how to resolve them?0/4
  6. 06What are frequent security concerns with institutional staking-as-a-service setups?0/4
  7. 07Options for non-custodial staking solutions tailored to web3 businesses and institutional clients?3/4
  8. 08How does staking through an enterprise-focused platform compare with retail crypto staking apps?0/4
  9. 09Which staking infrastructure platforms support Solana, Ethereum, and other major networks for US institutions?0/4
  10. 10How are fees typically structured for enterprise staking platforms serving institutional investors in the US?0/4
  11. 11How can US-based crypto exchanges leverage multi-network staking solutions to increase customer rewards?1/4
  12. 12Node hosting vs. staking-as-a-service: what's better for crypto exchanges looking to offer yield products?1/4
  13. 13What are secure alternatives to using a third-party staking provider for large crypto portfolios?0/4
  14. 14What are typical workflows for institutional clients using staking APIs in their trading operations?0/4
  15. 15What are the best enterprise staking-as-a-service providers for institutional crypto investors?1/4
Total namedOpenAI: 2/15Claude: 1/15Perplexity: 1/15Gemini: 2/15All assistants: 6/60
named the companyanswered without naming itdid not answer

Columns, left to right: OpenAI, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. Across the study, on 50% of the questions where a company is named, only one AI assistant names it.

Transaction detailSection 02

What Claude actually said

An answer that names the company

Claudenamed the company

“Options for non-custodial staking solutions tailored to web3 businesses and institutional clients?”

Based on current market offerings, here are the key non-custodial staking solutions tailored for web3 businesses and institutional clients:

Leading Infrastructure Providers

P2P.org, founded in 2018, provides non-custodial staking infrastructure and technology for intermediaries such as Web3 Wallets, Exchanges and Custodians. P2P.org operates non-custodial validator infrastructure across more than 40 proof-of-stake networks and offers a Staking-as-a-Business product designed for custodians, exchanges, wallet providers, and banks.

Everstake provides secure, compliant, and non-custodial sta …

The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.

PayeesSection 03

Where the mentions went

The companies these answers named, and how the mentions were split between this company and its peers.

Also named

CompanyTimes named
  1. 01
    Figment
    22
  2. 02
    Blockdaemon
    18
  3. 03
    Chorus One
    6
  4. 04
    Allnodes
    2

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Figment
    39.6%
  2. Blockdaemon
    30.2%
  3. P2P.org
    11.3%
  4. Chorus One
    11.3%
  5. Stakefish
    3.8%
  6. Allnodes
    3.8%
ReferrersSection 04

Websites the AI used as sources

How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers

  1. 01
    cobo.com
    28
  2. 02
    fireblocks.com
    22
  3. 03
    walletinvestor.com
    16
  4. 04
    figment.io
    16
  5. 05
    everstake.com
    15
  6. 06
    coingape.com
    10
  7. 07
    ethereum.org
    10
  8. 08
    p2p.org (its own website)
    8
  9. 09
    everstake.one
    8
  10. 10
    validationcloud.io
    7

P2P.org is in the study as a digital asset infrastructure company.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
2/15
OpenAI
2/15
Perplexity
1/15
Claude
1/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How P2P.org compares with all 2,219 companies

Every tower is a company in the study, taller for a higher overall score and lit where AI assistants named it. Its own group stays lit. Hover a tower to see it, and click to open it.

What makes up the score

Each part is scored out of 100.

Visibility
10

How often AI assistants name the company, and how that compares with its peers

Citations
2

How often AI uses the company's own website as a source

Sentiment
71

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
67

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
29

How easily AI tools can read and use the website

Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.

Against its sectorSection 07

Compared with crypto and digital asset companies

102 companies in this sector. The gold tick on each bar is the typical company.

Overall score
31
Ranks 48 of 102. Typical company: 30
Named in answers
10.0%
Ranks 25 of 102. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 52 of 102. Typical company: 33
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with digital asset infrastructure companies

80 companies in this category. The gold tick on each bar is the typical company.

Overall score
31
Ranks 35 of 80. Typical company: 29
Named in answers
10.0%
Ranks 18 of 80. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 42 of 80. Typical company: 36
AI agentsSection 09

Ready for AI agents

What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and pay through, on a scale of six levels.

  1. 0
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5

Level 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.

To reach level 2:
  • Content Signals
Can an AI agent check out here?

Not by itself. P2P.org publishes none of the agent payment protocols we look for. An agent would have to click through the website like a person.

Agent payment protocols
  • x402Not present
  • MPPNot present
  • AP2Not present
  • ACPNot present
  • UCPNot present
Interfaces for AI agents
  • MCP Server CardNot present
  • A2A Agent CardNot present
  • Agent SkillsNot present
  • API CatalogNot present
  • llms.txtNot present
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
77 of 100
  • robots.txtPassed

    A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.

    study: 86.1%
  • SitemapPassed

    An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced from robots.txt.

    study: 87.9%
  • Link headersNot met

    Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.

    study: 1.5%
  • DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present

    Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.

    study: 4.3%
Content accessibility
0 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationNot met

    Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.

    study: 6.2%
  • llms.txtNot met

    Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.

    study: 31.0%
Bot access control
32 of 100
  • AI bot rulesPartly met

    Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.

    study: 92.7%
  • Content SignalsNot met

    Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.

    study: 2.3%
  • Web Bot AuthNot present

    Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.

    study: 0.3%
APIs, auth and MCP
0 of 100
  • API CatalogNot met

    List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.

    study: 1.3%
  • OAuth discoveryNot met

    Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.

    study: 6.3%
  • OAuth Protected ResourceNot met

    Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.

    study: 5.3%
  • auth.mdNot met

    Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.

    study: 0.2%
  • MCP Server CardNot met

    Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.

    study: 0.8%
  • A2A Agent CardNot met

    Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.

    study: 0.2%
  • Agent SkillsNot met

    Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.

    study: 1.0%
  • WebMCPCould not check

    Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.

    study: 0.0%
  • ARD manifestNot met

    Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.

    study: 0.2%

Score 25 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · www.p2p.org · 2,200 companies scanned

See how every company did, and how this was measured.

AI readinessSection 10

The checks behind the AI readiness score

4 of 14 passed. This list is for your technical team. The percentage is how many companies in the study pass each check.

These 14 checks ran during the audit and are what the AI readiness part of the overall score counts. The scan above ran later and is stricter on Link headers and Markdown, so a check can pass here and not there.

Show the 14 checks

Discoverability

  • Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.1%
  • PassedXML sitemapstudy: 79.4%
  • PassedHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 42.5%

Content Accessibility

  • Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 7.4%
  • Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 28.1%
  • PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 97.3%

Bot Access Control

  • Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 11.5%

API / Auth / MCP

  • Not metAPI Catalog (.well-known/api-catalog)study: 1.1%
  • Not metOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 5.2%
  • Not metOAuth Protected Resource discoverystudy: 4.6%
  • Not metMCP Server Cardstudy: 0.2%
  • Not metA2A Agent Cardstudy: 0.0%
  • Not metWebMCP toolsstudy: 0.3%
  • Not metAgent Skills declaredstudy: 0.1%
AI crawlersSection 11

What AI crawlers may read (robots.txt)

This website sets no rules for any AI crawler by name, like 86% of the websites whose rules we could read. Every AI crawler follows its general rules.

Training AI

  • GPTBotpartly
  • ClaudeBotpartly
  • Anthropic-AIpartly
  • Google-Extendedpartly
  • Applebot-Extendedpartly
  • Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
  • FacebookBotpartly
  • Bytespiderpartly
  • CCBotpartly
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibotpartly

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBotpartly
  • Applebotpartly
  • Amazonbotpartly
  • YouBotpartly

Answering questions

  • ChatGPT-Userpartly
  • Claude-Userpartly
  • Perplexity-Userpartly
  • DuckAssistBotpartly
  • MistralAI-Userpartly

Read from the website’s own rules file (robots.txt). An asterisk marks a crawler the file names. The rest follow its general rules. “Partly” means only some pages are blocked.

Take it with you

Get the full report on P2P.org as a PDF

Every number on this page in a PDF you can keep and share with your team. Enter your work email to download it.

We’ll use your email to follow up about this report. Privacy policy

ShareSection 12

Share this result

Overall score 31 of 100 badge for P2P.org

A badge of this result that you can show on your own website. Copy the code below.

<a href="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/finance/p2p.org"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/finance/badges/p2p.org.svg" alt="Overall score 31 of 100, Finance AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>
End of statement
All 2,219 companiesHow we measured this
Next step

Want AI assistants to name your company?

Book a 30-minute demo to see Rezolve Ai in action and what it can do for your business.

Request a demo