MEV Shared via Native Staking excels at direct, transparent, and protocol-aligned value distribution. Validators on networks like Ethereum, which implement Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS), directly receive MEV rewards via block.coinbase transfers, which are then shared with their delegators through the protocol's staking yield. This model, as seen with over 40% of Ethereum's validators, ensures the value capture is tightly integrated with the core consensus security mechanism, reducing reliance on external systems. The direct flow means rewards are denominated in the native asset (e.g., ETH), avoiding secondary market dependencies.
LABS
Comparisons
MEV Shared via Liquid Staking Tokens vs MEV Shared via Native Staking
A technical comparison of MEV reward distribution models, analyzing how liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH and native staking on networks like Ethereum differ in yield composability, security, and user control for protocol architects and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The MEV Distribution Dilemma
A foundational comparison of two dominant models for distributing Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) to stakers, a critical decision for protocol sustainability and user alignment.
MEV Shared via Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) takes a different approach by decoupling MEV distribution from the base consensus layer. Protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool aggregate staking capital and use off-chain, operator-managed strategies—including sophisticated searcher networks and order flow auctions—to maximize MEV extraction. This results in a trade-off: it can potentially generate higher yields through professionalization (e.g., Lido's stETH often shows a yield premium), but introduces smart contract risk, centralization concerns around operator sets, and a reliance on the LST's secondary market liquidity for value realization.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing systemic risk, ensuring protocol-native alignment, and accepting a more standardized yield, choose Native Staking. If you prioritize maximizing potential returns through competitive, specialized extraction and require immediate liquidity for your staked position, choose an LST-based model. The decision hinges on your tolerance for smart contract exposure versus your demand for yield optimization.
tldr-summary
MEV Shared via Liquid Staking Tokens vs Native Staking
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the two dominant models for capturing and distributing MEV to stakers, highlighting core architectural trade-offs.
01
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs): Capital Efficiency
Unlocked liquidity: Stake ETH to receive a liquid token (e.g., stETH, rETH) that can be used as collateral in DeFi protocols like Aave or MakerDAO. This enables leveraged staking strategies and higher capital utility. This matters for protocols and users who need to maintain active treasury management or pursue yield stacking.
02
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs): MEV Aggregation & Sophistication
Professionalized MEV extraction: Large pools (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) operate dedicated block builder networks and relay alliances (e.g., with Flashbots SUAVE). This centralizes expertise, often leading to higher and more consistent MEV yields. This matters for stakers prioritizing maximized APR over decentralization, trusting the pool's operators.
03
Native Staking: Protocol Alignment & Sovereignty
Direct validator control: Users run their own node or use a non-custodial service (e.g., Obol, SSV Network). This supports network decentralization and censorship resistance. MEV rewards are earned directly via proposer-builder separation (PBS) and distributed by the consensus layer. This matters for protocols with strong decentralization mandates or those building trustless infrastructure.
04
Native Staking: Simplicity & Reduced Counterparty Risk
No secondary token risk: Rewards and principal are denominated in the native asset (ETH). Eliminates exposure to LST depeg risk and the smart contract risk of the liquid staking protocol. MEV flow is governed by Ethereum's core protocol (e.g., fee recipient address). This matters for large, risk-averse institutional stakers and for protocols minimizing dependency layers.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: MEV via LSTs vs Native Staking
Direct comparison of MEV distribution models for Ethereum validators.
| Metric | MEV via Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) | MEV via Native Staking |
|---|---|---|
MEV Distribution to Stakers | Indirect via LST yield/rebates | Direct to validator address |
Capital Efficiency | ||
Liquidity for Staked Assets | ||
Protocol Examples | Lido (stETH), Rocket Pool (rETH) | Solo Staking, Staking Pools |
Typical MEV Share for Staker | 85-90% of captured MEV | 100% of captured MEV |
Setup & Operational Complexity | Low (Delegate to provider) | High (Run own infra) |
Slashing Risk Management | Pool-diversified | Solo bearer |
pros-cons-a
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) vs Native Staking
MEV via Liquid Staking Tokens: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating MEV revenue distribution strategies. Focus on liquidity, composability, and protocol control.
01
LSTs: Superior Liquidity & Composability
Immediate liquidity: LSTs like Lido's stETH ($30B+ TVL) or Rocket Pool's rETH can be traded, used as collateral, or deployed in DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, MakerDAO) immediately. This unlocks capital efficiency and complex yield strategies. This matters for protocols needing to maximize asset utility or users requiring flexible exit strategies.
02
LSTs: Lower Technical & Capital Barriers
Democratized access: Users can participate with any amount (e.g., 0.001 ETH) and avoid the 32 ETH minimum, hardware costs, and slashing risk of native staking. This matters for attracting a broad user base and scaling TVL quickly without requiring users to become node operators.
03
Native Staking: Direct Protocol Control & Alignment
Full MEV capture: Native stakers (e.g., solo validators or using EigenLayer) retain 100% of proposer payments and MEV rewards, with no protocol-level fee cuts. This matters for large institutions or DAOs with the expertise to run infrastructure and maximize raw yield.
04
Native Staking: Reduced Systemic & Counterparty Risk
No dependency on third-party protocols: Avoids smart contract risk associated with LST issuers (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) and the centralization risks of large LST pools dominating consensus. This matters for risk-averse enterprises and protocols prioritizing network decentralization and security.
pros-cons-b
LIQUID STAKING TOKENS VS. NATIVE STAKING
MEV via Native Staking: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for distributing MEV rewards at a glance.
01
Liquid Staking: Capital Efficiency
Unlocks DeFi Composability: LSTs like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH can be used as collateral across lending (Aave, Maker), yield strategies (Convex, Yearn), and perps (dYdX). This creates a secondary yield layer on top of staking rewards and MEV. This matters for protocols and users seeking to maximize capital utility and total yield.
02
Liquid Staking: Accessibility & Scale
Lowers the Entry Barrier: Users can stake any amount (e.g., 0.1 ETH) without running a validator, accessing MEV rewards indirectly. Major pools like Lido ($35B+ TVL) aggregate thousands of small stakers, creating massive, decentralized validator sets. This matters for onboarding mainstream users and achieving network security scale without technical overhead.
03
Native Staking: Direct Reward Capture
Maximizes MEV Yield: Solo stakers or professional operators using tools like Flashbots MEV-Boost capture 100% of block proposer payments and MEV bundles before any pool fees. This matters for sophisticated validators with >32 ETH who prioritize absolute yield optimization and direct control over block building.
04
Native Staking: Protocol Alignment & Security
Eliminates Middleman Risk: Direct stakers are the canonical network participants, avoiding reliance on LST smart contract risk or governance centralization (e.g., Lido's 30+% dominance concerns). This matters for institutions with strict risk mandates and for protocols prioritizing the long-term, trust-minimized security of the base layer.
05
Liquid Staking: Centralization & Smart Contract Risk
Introduces Systemic Dependencies: Major LST providers concentrate validator control (top 3 pools control ~50% of Beacon Chain). A critical bug in the LST contract (e.g., stETH) could cascade through DeFi. This matters for risk-averse treasury managers and architects concerned about single points of failure.
06
Native Staking: Operational Burden & Slashing
Requires High Expertise & Uptime: Validators must manage node infrastructure, key security, and software updates 24/7. Mistakes lead to slashing penalties (loss of staked ETH) and missed MEV opportunities. This matters for teams without dedicated DevOps/SRE resources or those unwilling to accept direct slashing risk.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
MEV Shared via Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for composability and capital efficiency. Strengths: LSTs like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax's sfrxETH are deeply integrated into DeFi primitives. They can be used as collateral in lending markets (Aave, Compound), LP in DEXs (Uniswap, Curve), and in yield strategies (Yearn). This unlocks leveraged staking and maximizes capital utility. MEV rewards are typically distributed via staking yield, benefiting all LST holders proportionally. Considerations: Relies on the security and decentralization of the underlying LST provider. Smart contract risk is introduced.
MEV Shared via Native Staking for DeFi
Verdict: Simpler but less flexible; ideal for foundational, low-risk treasury strategies. Strengths: Direct staking via clients like Prysm, Lighthouse, or Teku provides pure exposure to Ethereum's consensus layer rewards and MEV-Boost payments. It's the most direct and trust-minimized method, with no intermediary token. Suitable for protocol treasuries prioritizing sovereignty and minimizing counterparty risk. Considerations: Capital is locked and illiquid (until withdrawals are enabled), reducing its utility in active DeFi strategies. Requires significant node operation expertise or a staking-as-a-service provider.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between LST-based and native MEV sharing is a strategic decision balancing composability, yield, and protocol alignment.
MEV Shared via Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) excels at composability and capital efficiency because the staked capital remains liquid and can be deployed across DeFi. For example, an LRT like EigenLayer's restaked ETH can be used as collateral on Aave while still earning MEV rewards, creating a powerful yield stack. This approach democratizes access to MEV for non-validators and integrates seamlessly with the existing DeFi ecosystem, but introduces smart contract risk and reliance on third-party LST protocols.
MEV Shared via Native Staking takes a different approach by directly integrating rewards into the consensus layer, as pioneered by protocols like Ethereum's Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). This results in a trade-off of lower composability for maximal security and protocol alignment. Validators receive MEV rewards natively, eliminating intermediary risk and ensuring rewards are tied directly to the health of the underlying chain. However, capital is locked and illiquid, and the technical barrier to running a validator is significantly higher.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing capital efficiency, building complex DeFi products, or attracting users who demand liquidity, choose LST-based MEV sharing (e.g., via Lido, Rocket Pool, or EigenLayer). If you prioritize maximizing security, minimizing smart contract risk, and aligning incentives purely with chain validators, choose native MEV sharing (e.g., Ethereum's PBS, Cosmos, or Solana). For most application developers seeking user growth, LSTs offer the superior path; for core infrastructure builders and high-trust institutional stakers, native sharing remains the gold standard.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall