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 Yield Aggregators vs Native Stake in Yield Aggregators

A technical analysis comparing yield optimization strategies using Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) versus native staking within protocols like Yearn Finance and Convex Finance. We evaluate composability, yield sources, and risk profiles for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Composability Battle for Staked Capital

A data-driven comparison of Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and Native Stake within yield aggregators, highlighting the core trade-off between capital efficiency and protocol security.

LST-based strategies excel at maximizing capital efficiency and composability because they unlock staked capital for use across DeFi. For example, an LIDO-staked ETH (stETH) holder can deposit into protocols like Aave or Convex Finance to earn additional yield, creating a leveraged staking position. This composability is a primary driver behind LSTs like stETH and rETH achieving a combined Total Value Locked (TVL) exceeding $40B, demonstrating massive demand for yield stacking.

Native stake strategies take a different approach by interacting directly with the consensus layer. This results in a trade-off: while it forgoes the immediate composability of LSTs, it eliminates smart contract and liquidity risks associated with derivative tokens. Aggregators like StakeWise V3 and Rocket Pool's native mode offer this path, providing a more direct claim on validator rewards and stronger alignment with the underlying chain's security model.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing yield through DeFi composability and you accept the associated smart contract risk, choose an LST-based aggregator. If you prioritize minimizing counterparty risk and maintaining a direct, secure stake in the network's consensus, choose a native stake aggregator.

tldr-summary
LSTs vs Native Stake in Yield Aggregators

TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance

A direct comparison of the core trade-offs between using Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and direct native staking within yield aggregation platforms.

01

LSTs: Superior Capital Efficiency

Unlocked Liquidity: LSTs like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax's sfrxETH can be simultaneously deployed in DeFi (e.g., as collateral on Aave, liquidity in Curve pools, or deposited in other yield vaults). This enables leveraged yield strategies ("stake-and-borrow") that native staking cannot match.

02

LSTs: Faster Exit & Composability

Immediate Liquidity: Exit positions via secondary market swaps (e.g., on Uniswap) in seconds, bypassing typical unstaking cooldown periods (7-28 days on Ethereum). This reduces opportunity cost and allows rapid portfolio reallocation. LSTs are native ERC-20s, making them compatible with the entire Ethereum DeFi stack.

03

Native Stake: Protocol Security & Max Yield

Direct Network Alignment: Staking natively (e.g., via Lido, Rocket Pool, or solo) contributes directly to the consensus layer's security. You capture the full staking APR (~3-5% on Ethereum) without sharing fees with LST LP providers or aggregator platforms. This is the baseline for all other yield.

04

Native Stake: Lower Systemic Risk

Reduced Counterparty Exposure: Avoids smart contract risk associated with LST issuers and the depeg risk of the LST asset itself (e.g., stETH trading at a discount). Your stake is governed solely by the underlying blockchain's slashing conditions, not additional protocol failures.

LSTs vs NATIVE STAKE IN YIELD AGGREGATORS

Head-to-Head Feature Comparison

Direct comparison of key metrics and features for yield optimization strategies.

MetricLiquid Staking Tokens (LSTs)Native Stake

Capital Efficiency

Average Yield (Net of Fees)

3.5% - 5%

3.2% - 4.5%

Unbonding/Withdrawal Period

< 1 min

7 - 28 days

Composability for DeFi

Protocol Fee (Average)

5% - 10% of rewards

0%

Smart Contract Risk

Medium-High

Low

Supported Protocols

Lido, Rocket Pool, Frax Ether

Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos

pros-cons-a
LIQUID STAKING TOKENS VS. NATIVE STAKE

LST in Yield Aggregators: Pros and Cons

Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs and architects evaluating yield strategies.

01

LSTs: Superior Capital Efficiency

Unlocked Liquidity: LSTs like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax's sfrxETH can be simultaneously staked and deployed in DeFi. This enables composability with protocols like Aave, Curve, and Convex for leveraged yield strategies. This matters for protocols seeking to maximize APY through recursive strategies or use staked assets as collateral.

02

LSTs: Mitigated Slashing & Technical Risk

Risk Transfer: The underlying node operator (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) bears the slashing and infrastructure risk. For the end-user or aggregator, the LST is a simple ERC-20 token, simplifying integration and risk management. This matters for teams that want exposure to staking yield without the operational overhead of running validators.

03

Native Stake: Maximum Yield & Protocol Alignment

No Fee Dilution: Bypasses the ~10% operator fee taken by LST providers. Directly accrues all MEV, priority fees, and consensus rewards. This matters for large, long-term holders (e.g., DAO treasuries) where basis point optimization on billions in TVL is critical and operational complexity is acceptable.

04

Native Stake: No Depeg or Liquidity Risk

Price Stability: Native stake is not subject to the secondary market volatility or potential de-pegs that can affect LSTs (e.g., stETH's temporary depeg during the Merge). This eliminates a layer of smart contract and market risk. This matters for risk-averse institutions or protocols where capital preservation is the primary objective over yield maximization.

pros-cons-b
LSTs vs. Native Staking

Native Stake in Yield Aggregators: Pros and Cons

Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs managing high-value DeFi strategies. Focus on composability, yield, and risk vectors.

01

LSTs: Superior Composability

Unlocked liquidity: LSTs like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH can be used as collateral across DeFi (e.g., Aave, MakerDAO) while still earning staking yield. This enables complex strategies like leveraged staking or delta-neutral positions. This matters for protocols seeking to maximize capital efficiency.

02

LSTs: Higher Potential Yield

Yield stacking: Aggregators (e.g., Yearn, Convex) can farm additional yield on LSTs through lending, LP provision, or restaking (EigenLayer). Native staking yields are typically fixed by network issuance (~3-5% on Ethereum). This matters for funds targeting absolute return, not just base security rewards.

03

Native Stake: Eliminates Protocol Risk

Direct validator slashing: Bypasses smart contract and centralization risks of LST providers. Your stake is secured directly by the consensus layer (e.g., Ethereum's Beacon Chain). This matters for risk-averse institutions or protocols where asset preservation is paramount over extra yield.

04

Native Stake: Predictable Economics

No premium/discount volatility: Native staking rewards are not subject to the secondary market price fluctuations of LSTs (e.g., stETH trading at a discount during market stress). Yield is predictable and paid in the native asset. This matters for treasury management requiring stable, non-correlated returns.

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Strategic Recommendations by User Profile

Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) for Yield Maximizers

Verdict: Preferred for aggressive, multi-chain strategies. Strengths: LSTs unlock composability, allowing you to simultaneously earn staking rewards and deploy capital in high-yield DeFi protocols. For example, stETH can be used as collateral to borrow stablecoins on Aave, which can then be farmed in Curve pools. This recursive strategy can significantly boost effective APY beyond native staking. Protocols like Pendle and EigenLayer further enable yield-trading and restaking for additional points/airdrops. Considerations: This approach introduces smart contract risk from the LST issuer (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) and the integrated DeFi protocols. APY is variable and dependent on market conditions.

Native Stake for Yield Maximizers

Verdict: Inefficient for pure yield optimization. Strengths: Provides the safest base yield with no intermediary risk. However, the capital is locked and non-composable, capping your potential returns at the network's staking APR (~3-5% on Ethereum). Bottom Line: For maximizers, native stake is a foundational asset, but using it directly in a yield aggregator misses the primary value proposition of DeFi composability.

LSTs vs NATIVE STAKING

Technical Deep Dive: Yield Stacking and Risk Vectors

A technical comparison of the composability, yield, and risk profiles of using Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) versus native assets within yield aggregators.

LSTs in yield aggregators typically offer higher potential APY. This is due to yield stacking, where the base staking yield from the LST is combined with additional yields from DeFi protocols like Aave, Compound, or Curve. Native staking provides a single, predictable yield from network rewards. For example, an LST like stETH can earn ~3-4% from Ethereum staking, plus an additional 2-5% from being supplied as collateral or liquidity, creating a combined APY often exceeding native staking alone.

verdict
THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Decision Framework

A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between Liquid Staking Token (LST) and Native Stake integration for your yield aggregator.

LST Integration excels at maximizing capital efficiency and composability. By leveraging tokens like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, or Frax's sfrxETH, protocols can unlock the underlying value of staked assets for use in DeFi's money legos. This enables strategies like LST/stablecoin lending on Aave, LP provision on Curve's stETH/ETH pool, or recursive leverage loops. The result is a significant boost to potential APY, often adding 5-15% on top of base staking rewards, as seen in aggregators like Yearn Finance and Pendle.

Native Stake Integration takes a different approach by prioritizing security simplicity and protocol alignment. By building direct staking modules (e.g., using EigenLayer for Ethereum, or native delegation on Cosmos/Solana), aggregators minimize smart contract and liquidity risks associated with LSTs. This results in a trade-off: reduced complexity and reliance on third-party LST issuers, but at the cost of capital being locked and non-fungible during the unbonding period, limiting its utility in other yield-generating activities.

The key trade-off is between capital fluidity and risk surface. If your priority is maximizing absolute yield through complex, cross-protocol strategies and providing immediate liquidity to users, choose LSTs. Their deep liquidity (e.g., stETH's ~$30B TVL) and established DeFi integrations are proven. If you prioritize security minimalism, direct validator rewards, and avoiding dependencies on external LST protocols, choose Native Stake. This is critical for protocols where fund custody and slashing risk are paramount concerns.

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