Wrapped tokens (e.g., wstETH, rETH) excel at seamless DeFi composability because they are designed as ERC-20 tokens with a static balance. This eliminates the need for protocols to handle the underlying staking rewards that accrue to the base token, simplifying integration. For example, wstETH's fixed-balance design has made it the dominant asset in EigenLayer, with over 1.5 million wstETH deposited, enabling straightforward collateralization in lending markets like Aave and AMMs like Curve.
LABS
Comparisons
Restaking Wrapped Liquid Staked Tokens (e.g., wstETH) vs. Their Unwrapped Counterparts
Technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects on choosing between ERC-20 wrapped (non-rebasing) and native (rebasing) LSTs for integration with restaking protocols like EigenLayer and AVSs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Integration Dilemma for Restaking
Choosing between wrapped and unwrapped liquid staked tokens for restaking involves a fundamental trade-off between composability and control.
Unwrapped counterparts (e.g., stETH, cbETH) take a different approach by representing a rebasing or balance-changing asset. This results in a trade-off: while they offer direct exposure to staking rewards and avoid an extra wrapping layer, they create integration complexity. Smart contracts must be explicitly designed to handle the daily rebase events, which can complicate accounting and increase gas costs for frequent transactions, as seen in early MakerDAO vault integrations with stETH.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing capital efficiency and simplifying integration across a wide range of DeFi protocols and restaking platforms, choose wrapped tokens. If you prioritize minimizing protocol dependencies and maintaining direct, unmediated exposure to the underlying staking yield, choose unwrapped tokens.
tldr-summary
wstETH vs. Native stETH
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the two primary forms of Lido's staked ETH, highlighting the technical and economic trade-offs for DeFi integration and restaking.
01
wstETH: Seamless DeFi Integration
Standardized ERC-20 token: No rebasing mechanics, making it compatible with all major DeFi protocols like Aave, Uniswap V3, and Compound. This matters for protocol architects building on stable token assumptions.
02
wstETH: Simplified Restaking
Direct EigenLayer deposit: wstETH is natively supported as a restaking asset, enabling single-transaction deposits. This matters for users and integrators seeking to maximize capital efficiency across Ethereum and AVS ecosystems.
03
Native stETH: Direct Yield Accrual
Rebasing token balance: Holder's wallet balance increases daily, providing visible, real-time staking rewards (~3-4% APY). This matters for long-term holders who prioritize transparent, passive yield without additional interactions.
04
Native stETH: Lower Gas & Complexity
No wrapping/unwrapping: Avoids the gas cost and smart contract risk associated with the wstETH wrapper. This matters for cost-sensitive users who stake and hold, rather than actively deploy in complex DeFi strategies.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: wstETH vs. stETH for Restaking
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for DeFi and restaking strategies.
| Metric | wstETH (Wrapped) | stETH (Unwrapped) |
|---|---|---|
Native Restaking Compatibility | ||
Ethereum ERC-20 Standard | ||
Automatic Reward Compounding | ||
Underlying Token | stETH | ETH |
Primary Use Case | DeFi & Restaking (e.g., EigenLayer) | Liquid Staking & DeFi |
Annual Staking Yield (Source) | ~3.5% (Lido) | ~3.5% (Lido) |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $10B+ | $30B+ |
pros-cons-a
RESTAKING WRAPPED LIQUID STAKED TOKENS VS. UNWRAPPED COUNTERPARTS
Pros and Cons: Wrapped LSTs (e.g., wstETH, rETH)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for integrating with EigenLayer and other restaking protocols.
01
Wrapped LSTs: Enhanced DeFi Composability
Standardized ERC-20 token: Wrapped LSTs like wstETH and rETH are non-rebasing, making them compatible with major DeFi protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound. This unlocks deeper liquidity pools and more efficient capital utilization across the ecosystem.
02
Wrapped LSTs: Simplified Restaking Workflow
Direct integration with EigenLayer: Protocols can natively accept wstETH or rETH for restaking, bypassing the need to unwrap and manage the underlying stETH. This reduces transaction steps, gas costs, and smart contract complexity for operators.
03
Unwrapped LSTs: Capital Efficiency & Yield
Access to native staking rewards: Holding the underlying token (e.g., stETH) allows you to capture the base Ethereum staking yield directly, which is often higher than the yield on the wrapped version when considering the wrapper's fee structure.
04
Unwrapped LSTs: Protocol Control & Flexibility
Direct custody and optionality: Managing the unwrapped asset (e.g., stETH) provides full control over the restaking process. You can choose when to wrap, which restaking pool (EigenLayer, Symbiotic) to use, or deploy it in niche DeFi strategies not supporting the wrapper.
pros-cons-b
RESTAKING WRAPPED (wstETH) VS. UNWRAPPED (stETH)
Pros and Cons: Unwrapped LSTs (e.g., stETH, cbETH)
Key strengths and trade-offs for integrating Liquid Staked Tokens into restaking protocols like EigenLayer.
01
Wrapped LSTs (e.g., wstETH) - Pros
Non-rebasing, fixed-balance token: wstETH's balance doesn't change, simplifying smart contract integration for DeFi protocols like Aave, Compound, and MakerDAO. This is critical for restaking vaults where balance stability prevents accounting errors.
Universal DeFi compatibility: As the standard for yield-bearing collateral, wstETH is natively supported across major lending markets and DEX pools, offering deeper liquidity (e.g., ~$2B TVL in wstETH/ETH pools) for leveraged restaking strategies.
02
Wrapped LSTs (e.g., wstETH) - Cons
Additional layer of abstraction: Introduces a wrapper contract dependency (e.g., wstETH from Lido), adding a smart contract risk vector. Users must trust the wrapper's code and admin keys.
Gas overhead for wrapping/unwrapping: Converting between stETH and wstETH incurs extra transaction costs, which can erode margins for frequent restakers or those managing collateral ratios on platforms like EigenLayer.
03
Unwrapped LSTs (e.g., stETH, cbETH) - Pros
Direct exposure to base yield: Holders benefit directly from staking rewards reflected as a rebasing balance, providing transparent, real-time yield accrual without intermediary token mechanics.
Reduced protocol dependency: Eliminates the wrapper contract risk. Interacting directly with the core LST (e.g., Lido's stETH or Coinbase's cbETH) means one less potential failure point, a key consideration for risk-averse institutional restakers.
04
Unwrapped LSTs (e.g., stETH, cbETH) - Cons
Rebasing complexity for DeFi: Many DeFi protocols, including early restaking modules, are not built to handle balance-changing tokens. This can limit integration options and require custom, audited adapters.
Lower native compatibility: While improving, direct stETH support in lending markets is often less extensive than wstETH, potentially restricting collateral utility and leverage strategies for restaked positions.
WRAPPED VS. UNWRAPPED LSTs
Technical Deep Dive: Rebasing Mechanics and Contract Implications
Understanding the core technical differences between wrapped liquid staked tokens (like wstETH) and their unwrapped counterparts (like stETH) is critical for protocol architects and smart contract developers. This analysis breaks down the rebasing mechanics, contract composability, and integration trade-offs.
Wrapped tokens like wstETH are significantly easier to integrate. Their static, non-rebasing balance simplifies accounting logic in smart contracts, making them the default choice for protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound. Unwrapped, rebasing tokens like stETH require contracts to handle balance changes on every block, increasing complexity and audit surface. For new integrations, wstETH is the standard.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Asset Type
wstETH for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for composability and capital efficiency. Strengths:
- Composability: As an ERC-20 token, wstETH integrates seamlessly with AMMs like Uniswap, lending markets like Aave, and yield aggregators. Its static balance simplifies contract logic.
- Yield Accrual: The underlying stETH yield is automatically rebased into the token's value, removing the need for manual reward claims in your protocol.
- Liquidity: Dominant liquidity on Ethereum L1/L2s (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) makes it the most liquid staked asset for pools and collateral. Considerations: You must trust the wstETH wrapper contract (audited, but adds a layer).
stETH for DeFi
Verdict: Use for direct integrations with the Lido protocol or when handling rebases is acceptable. Strengths:
- Simplicity: One less wrapper contract dependency. Direct access to Lido's staking rewards via balance rebases.
- Protocol-Level Integrations: Required for direct interactions with Lido's contracts for withdrawals or node operator functions. Considerations: Rebasing mechanics complicate accounting in DeFi contracts, as user balances change daily. Most major protocols (Aave v3, Compound) have moved to wstETH for this reason.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
Choosing between wrapped and unwrapped liquid staked tokens is a strategic decision between composability and direct utility.
Wrapped tokens (e.g., wstETH, rETH) excel at DeFi composability because they maintain a constant balance, eliminating the need for constant rebasing calculations. This makes them the de facto standard for integration with major protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound. For example, wstETH's TVL in DeFi exceeds $10B, demonstrating its dominance as a collateral and liquidity asset. Their predictable tokenomics simplify smart contract logic and user experience across the stack.
Unwrapped tokens (e.g., stETH, cbETH) take a different approach by representing direct yield accrual through a rebasing or balance-increasing mechanism. This results in a trade-off: users see their holdings grow organically, which is intuitive for long-term stakers, but it creates friction in DeFi. Many lending markets and AMMs require adapters or special handling for these tokens, limiting their immediate utility outside of native platforms like Lido or Coinbase.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing capital efficiency and integration within a complex DeFi strategy—using the asset as collateral, in liquidity pools, or within yield vaults—choose the wrapped version (wstETH). Its ERC-20 consistency is a critical infrastructure advantage. If you prioritize simplicity of yield accrual for direct holding or are building exclusively within a staking protocol's native ecosystem, the unwrapped counterpart (stETH) may suffice, acknowledging the potential composability limitations.
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