Sanctum Validator LSTs $SANC

$SANC / Sanctum: I found the historical yield comparison interesting, especially the 100 SOL example where INF ended at 105.95 SOL vs 105.31 SOL for JitoSOL over 11 months.

The only thing I found a bit hard was checking how those numbers were calculated. It would be helpful to show the exact dates, epoch-by-epoch returns, and whether fees or rebalancing are included. That would make the 0.64 SOL difference much easier to verify.

$SANC / Sanctum Infinity: I reproduced the "Compare real, historic yields" box on app.sanctum.so/infinity (INF 105.93 SOL vs JitoSOL 105.31 SOL, "last 10 months"). It answers @Sarkisk's question below, and it also shows both headline numbers are about 0.2 SOL too high.

What I did: the page requests /lsts/<mint>/apys?limit=173 from the Sanctum API. I pulled the same 173 epochs (872 to 1044) for both tokens and compounded each epoch as (1+APY)^(1/182.5). That gives exactly 105.9346 for INF and 105.3106 for JitoSOL, so that is the formula.

The problem: 1/182.5 assumes every epoch lasts 2 days. The API's own epochEndTs shows epochs ran about 50h until epoch 1019, about 44h for 1020 to 1023, and about 38h since 1024. The 173 epochs actually span 2025-11-01 to 2026-09-28, which is 331 days, not 346. This may also be why the label reads "10 months" while the math covers 11.4 months of 2-day epochs.

Ground-truth check: Jito's stake pool stats (TVL / supply) put JitoSOL at 1.24069 SOL on 2025-11-01 and 1.30372 SOL on 2026-09-28, so 100 SOL became 105.08, not 105.31. Compounding the same APYs by actual epoch duration gives 105.10 for JitoSOL (close to on-chain) and 105.70 for INF. INF's lead of about 0.6 SOL holds; the absolute figures don't.

Suggestions: weight each epoch by (epochEndTs minus the previous epochEndTs), print the start and end dates next to the result, and link the formula. Two smaller things: INF's epoch 876 epochEndTs is only 6h after epoch 875 (877 then spans 90h), and none of the 23 docs pages explain how to get the apiKey that every endpoint requires; calls without one return "Missing API key."

$SANC I compared Sanctum’s Instant and Delayed unstaking quotes for 1 JupSOL. The interface quoted 1.211690599 SOL instantly versus 1.213295632 SOL through delayed unstaking, but I had to switch tabs and remember both figures manually.

The delayed option also said “claim at the next epoch” without showing the current epoch’s remaining time. A side-by-side comparison—“receive now” versus “receive after approximately X hours,” including the exact SOL difference—would make the cost-versus-wait trade-off much easier to evaluate.

$SANC is a gem! I tested the instant unstaking option for 1 JuP SOL and compared it with the delayed route. The difference in the expected amount was noticeable, but I had to switch between tabs to compare them.

$SANC / Sanctum: the INF unstaking help contradicts the interface.

On https://app.sanctum.so/unstake/INF, selecting INF makes Instant the active option and disables Delayed. The FAQ also says INF must be converted through instant unstaking. However, opening "How to choose?" describes delayed unstaking and assigns it "0.3% for INF". That presents a fee for an option the interface does not offer.

This makes the exit-method comparison confusing: a newcomer could expect a delayed INF route, then wonder why it cannot be selected.

Suggestion: make the help dialog follow the selected asset. For INF, explicitly state that only Instant is supported and remove INF from the delayed-fee sentence. For eligible LSTs, show the applicable delayed fee and the wallet claim step.

Is that 0.3% reference left over from a previous flow, or is there a supported INF redemption route the interface does not expose? Either way, aligning the help text, FAQ, and available actions would resolve the ambiguity.

Evidence: public interface checked on 6 October 2026, without connecting a wallet or submitting a transaction.

$SANC

I showed up as a total beginner and the first wall was the words themselves. Homepage says Sanctum powers “Solana’s largest LSTs” but never once says what an LST actually is. Same thing on the docs’ “What is Sanctum?” page — LST gets used over and over with zero definition.

To even find out what the product is you have to dig into a separate “Introduction to LSTs” section, and the very first page there is titled “PoW and PoS blockchains”. Feels like the beginner stuff is hidden.

Also in the footer there’s a “Staking (Deprecated)” link sitting right next to the live ones with no explanation of what that means for someone new.

Would help a lot if the homepage just had one plain sentence explaining what an LST is, with a link to a simple “what is an LST” page.

$SANC I read Sanctum’s unstaking guide before unstaking an LST, and two things were unclear. First, the instant unstake fee is described as “variable, typically around 0.1%”, rising when demand is heavy — but the guide never states a maximum or how the fee is calculated, so I can’t estimate my worst-case cost before starting. Second, for delayed unstaking the guide says my LST becomes a stake account that deactivates at the end of the epoch and that “your SOL arrives in your wallet”, but it never says whether I need to come back and claim or withdraw it, or where I can track a pending delayed unstake. Could you add the instant-fee cap (or a live fee indicator) and a short “what happens after the epoch ends” section to the guide?

$SANC : show a useful message when the app fails to load, and put the basis next to the headline APY

On 15 October 2026, I went through sanctum.so and tried to open the liquid staking app at app.sanctum.so from Chrome on my PC. Instead of loading, the app showed “Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information).” Because of that, I couldn’t verify the headline 5.65% APY shown on the homepage.

That raises two small issues. First, a raw error message gives a user, especially someone about to stake, no clue whether their funds, wallet or connection are at risk. A short fallback page would help, with a status link, a retry button, and a line saying nothing has been signed or sent. Second, on the homepage itself, the 5.65% APY shows no basis (current or trailing, which pool, last updated), and the other metrics, such as $5M+ partner revenue and 350,000 Gateway transactions, show no time window.

Suggestion: add a friendly error fallback with a status page link, and show the basis beside the APY in a format like: “5.65% APY · 7-day trailing average · JupSOL · updated 15 Oct 2026,” linking to a methodology page. Giving the other metrics a similar tag, such as “$5M+ partner revenue (lifetime, as of Oct 2026),” would let readers tell lifetime figures from recent ones.

Question: is the headline APY a trailing average or the current rate, and which pool does it represent?

Scope: public website only; the app did not load, so no wallet connection, stake or transaction was attempted. This post concerns the product’s interface and documentation for $SANC.

I tried to pull LST data from Sanctum ($SANC) the way a new developer would, starting at learn.sanctum.so.

The Sanctum API page lists 10 endpoints on sanctum-api.ironforge.network. Its .md version, the one llms.txt points to, contains only /lsts and /lsts/[mint or symbol]. Every endpoint requires apiKey, and I couldn't find anywhere that says how to get one. With no key I get 401 "Missing API key.", and with a wrong one I get 400 "Invalid API key."

The "A few things you should know about" page links the trading API at api.sanctum.so, which returns HTTP 530 (Cloudflare error 1016). The stats API at extra-api.sanctum.so works without a key. But /v1/apy/latest returns 0.0 for INF, jupSOL and even the spec's own example list, with an empty errs object. Meanwhile /v1/apy/inception gives INF 0.0692 and jupSOL 0.0688.

There are two small link bugs as well. The vanity-keypair link ends in an escaped ")" and returns 404, and the Metaplex storage-providers link is a 404 too.

Suggestion: return an error in errs rather than a silent 0.0. Question: has api.sanctum.so been retired in favour of the ironforge host?

I explored $SANC app at app.sanctum.so and browsed the LST swap interface. The concept is solid — instead of each liquid staking token (like jitoSOL, mSOL, bSOL) needing its own separate liquidity pool, Sanctum's Infinity Pool unifies them all so you can swap between any LST instantly.

What I noticed: when picking which LST to swap into, the interface shows the exchange rate but doesn't break down where the yield comes from — base staking APY vs MEV rewards vs validator commission. For popular ones like jitoSOL, experienced users already know. But for smaller validator LSTs, there's no way to tell if you're getting 7% from real staking or from a temporary validator subsidy without leaving the site entirely.

Suggestion: add a small tooltip next to each LST showing "Base yield: X% | MEV: Y% | Commission: Z%." This would help users compare LSTs at a glance and could actually drive more stake toward transparent smaller validators.

$SANC — the public app page describes two different security models for the same downloadable product.

On sanctum.so/app, the security section says each wallet is a three-key multisig (device, cloud backup, and email sign-in), every transaction gets device + cloud signatures, and two remaining keys can replace a lost one. But that entire section is labeled ‘Coming soon.’

The FAQ on the same page answers ‘How does Sanctum keep my money safe?’ differently: current access is an email one-time code through Turnkey, with an optional recovery email and App Lock. It does not say whether the downloadable iOS/Android app currently uses one key, two signatures, or the three-key scheme.

For an app asking users to hold SOL/USDC and buy assets, this boundary matters. Suggestion: add a ‘Current security’ box with today’s key/signature model and move the three-key design into a clearly labeled roadmap section. A small table—feature, current status, recovery path, and who can sign—would let users understand the custody and recovery model before funding.

Question: which exact signing and recovery model is active in the public app today?

Scope: public product page and FAQ checked 16 Oct 2026; no funds were deposited and no transaction was attempted.

Source: https://sanctum.so/app

$SANC - Exploring Sanctum’s Infinity Pool and LST swap interface from a UI/UX perspective: abstracting unified LST liquidity into a simple swap card makes onboarding much cleaner than traditional DeFi pools. However, when comparing dozens of validator LSTs in the Explore tab, a first-time user can see the APY% immediately, but can’t easily compare validator delinquency history or unstake fee edge cases (instant vs. delayed epoch unstaking) without clicking into separate views. Adding a compact risk/unstake-time badge directly inside the token selector modal would make choosing between LSTs much faster for non-technical users.