Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
LABS
Comparisons

LST in Options Protocols vs Native Stake in Options Protocols

A technical comparison of using Liquid Staking Tokens versus direct native staking positions as underlying assets for options and vaults. Analyzes liquidity, pricing efficiency, and risk for protocols like Lyra and Dopex.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Underlying Asset Dilemma for Options

A foundational comparison of using Liquid Staking Tokens versus native staked assets as collateral in on-chain options protocols.

Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax's sfrxETH excel at unlocking liquidity and composability. By representing staked ETH, they allow users to simultaneously earn staking rewards and deploy capital in DeFi options protocols such as Lyra, Dopex, or Premia. This dual yield strategy is evidenced by the billions in TVL across LSTs, enabling higher capital efficiency for market makers and traders who need to hedge or leverage positions without sacrificing base-layer yield.

Native Stake in Options Protocols takes a different approach by integrating the staking mechanism directly into the options contract, as pioneered by protocols like Aevo and Ribbon Finance. This strategy results in a trade-off: it offers a more streamlined, self-contained user experience and eliminates reliance on external LST oracle prices, but it sacrifices the deep liquidity and interoperability that the broader LST ecosystem provides. Capital is locked specifically within the protocol's staking contract.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum capital efficiency and DeFi composability—enabling complex strategies across money markets, lending protocols, and other derivatives—choose an LST-based options protocol. If you prioritize simplicity, reduced oracle risk, and a unified staking/options experience for your users, choose a protocol built on native stake.

tldr-summary
LSTs vs Native Stake in Options Protocols

TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance

A rapid comparison of liquidity, yield, and risk profiles for protocol architects.

01

Choose LSTs for Liquidity & Composability

Instant liquidity and capital efficiency: LSTs like Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH can be used simultaneously as collateral in DeFi (e.g., Aave, MakerDAO) and within the options protocol itself. This unlocks leveraged strategies and higher capital efficiency, crucial for market makers and yield aggregators.

$30B+
LST TVL
02

Choose Native Stake for Protocol Security & Simplicity

Direct validator alignment and reduced systemic risk: Protocols like Lyra or Dopex that accept native ETH stake (e.g., via EigenLayer restaking) align incentives directly with Ethereum's consensus. This avoids dependencies on LST issuers and smart contract risks, which is critical for long-dated options and risk-averse institutional vaults.

32 ETH
Validator Minimum
03

Choose LSTs for Higher Baseline Yield

Stacked yield from staking + options premiums: LSTs provide a base staking APR (~3-4%) on top of which options strategies (selling covered calls on Ribbon Finance) can be layered. This creates a superior risk-adjusted return profile for yield-focused users compared to native stake alone.

04

Choose Native Stake for Predictable Slashing Risk

Controlled, transparent penalty exposure: Native stake slashing risk is bounded by Ethereum's consensus rules. In contrast, LSTs add a layer of smart contract risk and potential de-peg events (e.g., stETH's temporary discount in June 2022), which can be catastrophic for options sellers holding the asset.

HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON

Feature Comparison: LST vs Native Stake as Options Underlying

Direct comparison of key metrics for options protocols like Lyra, Dopex, and Premia.

MetricLiquid Staking Token (LST)Native Stake

Capital Efficiency

100% (via LST restaking)

100% (locked in consensus)

Settlement Speed

~1-2 min (L1 finality)

~7-14 days (unstaking period)

Yield Source

Staking rewards + DeFi incentives

Base staking rewards only

Protocol Integration

true (e.g., Lyra, Aevo, Synthetix)

Cross-Chain Portability

true (via bridges like LayerZero)

Smart Contract Composability

true (collateral in Aave, Compound)

Underlying Asset Risk

Smart contract & depeg risk

Pure consensus/slash risk

pros-cons-a
LSTs vs Native Stake in Options Protocols

Pros and Cons: Using Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs)

Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocols like Lyra, Dopex, and Premia.

01

LST Advantage: Capital Efficiency

Simultaneous yield and utility: LSTs like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH allow users to earn staking rewards while using the token as collateral for options strategies. This unlocks leveraged yield farming (e.g., selling covered calls on stETH) and improves capital efficiency by 2-3x compared to idle native stake.

02

LST Advantage: Composability & Liquidity

Deep integration with DeFi: LSTs are supported as collateral across major lending markets (Aave, Compound) and DEXs (Uniswap, Curve). This provides superior liquidity for options settlement and collateral unwinding. Protocols can tap into $40B+ LST TVL for deeper option books and tighter spreads.

03

Native Stake Advantage: Protocol Security & Simplicity

Direct economic alignment: Using native stake (e.g., ETH for Ethereum options) directly secures the underlying chain. This eliminates counterparty risk from LST providers and simplifies the options payoff structure. It's the preferred model for protocols like Lyra's native ETH vaults, which avoid LST depeg scenarios.

04

Native Stake Advantage: Regulatory & Technical Clarity

Reduced smart contract risk: Avoiding LSTs removes dependencies on external staking contracts (e.g., Lido's stETH rebasing) and potential regulatory scrutiny of liquid staking derivatives. Settlement is purely in the native asset, simplifying oracle pricing and reducing integration complexity for protocols.

pros-cons-b
LSTs vs. Native Stake in Options Protocols

Pros and Cons: Using Native Staking Positions

Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs and Protocol Architects building or integrating with DeFi options platforms.

01

LSTs: Capital Efficiency

Unlocked Liquidity: LSTs like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH can be simultaneously used for staking yield and as collateral in options protocols (e.g., Lyra, Dopex). This enables strategies like covered calls on staked assets, boosting potential APY beyond base staking rewards.

02

LSTs: Composability & Speed

Instant Exposure & Exit: Acquiring an LST is faster than the native staking unlock period (e.g., 7-28 days on Ethereum). This allows rapid portfolio reallocation across DeFi options vaults (DOVs) on Avalanche, Arbitrum, or Solana without unbonding delays.

03

Native Stake: Protocol Security

Direct Consensus Incentives: Native stakers (e.g., on Solana, Ethereum) directly secure the underlying chain. Options protocols like Kamino Finance or Zeta Markets benefit from this foundational security, reducing systemic risk compared to layered LST dependencies.

04

Native Stake: Yield Simplicity

No Secondary Risk: Eliminates exposure to LST de-pegging events or validator slashing insurance models. The yield source is the native chain's inflation and fees, making risk modeling for options writers more straightforward compared to LSTs like cbETH or wstETH.

05

LSTs: Counterparty Risk

Smart Contract & Centralization Vectors: Adds dependency on LST provider security (e.g., Lido DAO governance). A bug in the LST contract or a dominant provider's failure introduces tail risk to the entire options strategy, as seen in past bridge exploits.

06

Native Stake: Opportunity Cost

Capital Lock-up Penalty: The unbonding period (e.g., 21 days for ATOM, 7+ days for ETH post-Cancun) creates illiquidity. This prevents using the staked capital for seizing volatility opportunities in options markets on dYdX or Synthetix during high-premium events.

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Decision Framework: When to Choose Which

LSTs for Capital Efficiency

Verdict: The clear winner for maximizing yield and leverage. Strengths: LSTs unlock the core value proposition of liquid staking derivatives. Protocols like Lyra and Panoptic allow users to simultaneously earn staking yield while using the LST as collateral for options strategies. This creates a composite yield (staking APY + options premiums) and enables leverage without unbonding. The composability with DeFi money markets like Aave and Compound further amplifies capital utility.

Native Stake for Capital Efficiency

Verdict: Inefficient; capital is locked and inert. Weaknesses: Staked ETH is non-transferable and yields only the base consensus reward. It cannot be used as collateral, sold, or leveraged within an options protocol, representing a significant opportunity cost. This model is only suitable if the sole objective is maximizing network security with zero DeFi interaction.

LSTs VS NATIVE STAKE

Technical Deep Dive: Pricing and Liquidity Mechanics

A data-driven comparison of how Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and native staked assets function as collateral within on-chain options protocols, examining their impact on pricing models, liquidity fragmentation, and capital efficiency.

LSTs offer superior capital efficiency for options sellers. By using an LST like stETH or rETH as collateral, sellers can simultaneously earn staking rewards from the underlying asset while generating premium income from selling options. Native stake (e.g., directly staked ETH) is typically locked and cannot be used as collateral without exiting the validator, creating a significant opportunity cost. Protocols like Lyra and Dopex are optimized for LST collateral, enabling leveraged yield strategies that native stake cannot match.

verdict
THE ANALYSIS

Verdict and Strategic Recommendation

Choosing between LSTs and native staking for an options protocol is a foundational decision that dictates your risk profile, capital efficiency, and user experience.

Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) excel at maximizing capital efficiency and composability because they unlock staked capital for use in DeFi. For example, protocols like Lyra and Dopex leverage LSTs like stETH and rETH, allowing users to simultaneously earn staking yield and deploy liquidity for options writing. This dual-yield model can significantly boost TVL and user APY, as seen in Ribbon Finance's vaults which integrate LSTs to enhance returns. The deep liquidity and established infrastructure of major LSTs reduce integration friction and provide a stable collateral base.

Native Stake (e.g., Solana, Cosmos) takes a different approach by anchoring the protocol directly to the chain's security and monetary policy. This results in a trade-off: you gain native yield and eliminate LST-specific risks (e.g., de-pegging, centralization of LST providers), but sacrifice the capital efficiency of a tradable derivative. Protocols like Zeta Markets on Solana benefit from faster, cheaper settlements and direct validator rewards, creating a streamlined experience where staking and options are part of a unified economic system, though locked capital cannot be redeployed elsewhere in DeFi.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum capital efficiency, cross-chain deployment, and tapping into established LST liquidity pools, choose an LST-based architecture. This is optimal for protocols targeting Ethereum's deep DeFi ecosystem or aiming for multi-chain expansion. If you prioritize minimizing systemic risk, leveraging a chain's native yield for simplicity, and building a tightly integrated, high-performance options venue, choose a native stake model. This is the strategic choice for protocols native to high-throughput chains like Solana or Cosmos, where performance and security alignment are paramount.

ENQUIRY

Get In Touch
today.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected Directly to Engineering Team
LST vs Native Stake in Options Protocols: Liquidity & Pricing | ChainScore Comparisons