Native Restaking excels at security and capital efficiency because it allows validators to directly secure additional protocols like EigenLayer AVSs using their staked ETH. This creates a unified security pool, with over $15B in TVL secured for protocols such as EigenDA and Lagrange. The direct slashing mechanisms provide strong cryptographic guarantees, making it the preferred choice for high-value, security-critical applications.
LABS
Comparisons
Native Restaking vs. Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs)
A technical analysis comparing direct asset locking in protocols like EigenLayer against holding liquid derivative tokens such as ezETH or rsETH. Focuses on composability, risk, and yield optimization for protocol architects and technical decision-makers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A foundational comparison of direct and indirect approaches to Ethereum restaking, analyzing their core trade-offs for protocol architects.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) take a different approach by abstracting complexity and enhancing liquidity. Protocols like Ether.fi, Renzo, and Kelp DAO issue a liquid token (e.g., eETH, ezETH) representing a user's restaked position. This unlocks composability across DeFi (e.g., using ezETH as collateral on Aave), but introduces an additional layer of protocol risk and potential points farming dilution versus direct rewards.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing base-layer security and minimizing intermediary risk for your AVS, choose Native Restaking. If you prioritize user accessibility, liquidity for your token, or integrating with a broader DeFi ecosystem, choose Liquid Restaking Tokens.
tldr-summary
Native Restaking vs. Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs)
TL;DR Summary
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs and architects.
01
Native Restaking (EigenLayer)
Direct security integration: Stake ETH natively to secure EigenDA, EigenLayer AVSs. This matters for protocols requiring maximized security and slashing guarantees with minimal intermediation.
$15B+
TVL (EigenLayer)
40+
Active AVSs
02
Native Restaking Trade-off
Capital inefficiency: Staked ETH is locked and illiquid. This matters for protocols or DAOs that need to leverage capital for DeFi activities like lending on Aave or providing liquidity on Uniswap V3.
03
Liquid Restaking Tokens (e.g., ezETH, rsETH)
Liquidity & Composability: Receive a liquid token (LRT) representing your staked position. This matters for DeFi strategies where you can farm additional yield by using the LRT as collateral on platforms like Pendle or Aave.
$8B+
Total LRT TVL
15+
Major LRT Protocols
04
Liquid Restaking Trade-off
Protocol & Depeg Risk: Introduces counterparty risk from the LRT issuer (e.g., Renzo, Kelp DAO) and potential LRT/ETH depeg events. This matters for risk-averse institutions where capital preservation is the top priority.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Native Restaking vs. LRTs
Direct comparison of core technical and economic attributes for infrastructure selection.
| Metric | Native Restaking (e.g., EigenLayer) | Liquid Restaking Tokens (e.g., ether.fi, Renzo) |
|---|---|---|
Capital Efficiency | ||
Liquidity Access | Locked until withdrawal | Instant via DeFi (Aave, Uniswap) |
Yield Sources | EigenLayer AVS Rewards | AVS Rewards + LRT Protocol Fees + DeFi Yield |
Protocol Integration Complexity | High (Direct smart contract calls) | Low (Standard ERC-20 token) |
Slashing Risk Exposure | Direct to operator/AVS | Buffered by LRT protocol (varies) |
Avg. Time to Unstake | ~7 days (EigenLayer queue) | < 24 hours (via LRT liquidity pools) |
Primary Use Case | Operators / Dedicated Restakers | Traders / DeFi Users / Restaking Aggregators |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Native Restaking vs. Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs)
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between direct EigenLayer staking and using liquid restaking tokens. Choose based on your capital efficiency, risk tolerance, and operational needs.
01
Native Restaking: Maximum Security & Rewards
Direct protocol integration: Stake ETH directly with EigenLayer operators, capturing 100% of restaking rewards and protocol incentives (e.g., EigenLayer points, future token airdrops). This matters for large, long-term holders (e.g., DAO treasuries, institutional validators) prioritizing raw yield and minimizing counterparty risk.
100%
Reward Capture
02
Native Restaking: Operational Complexity
Manual management overhead: Requires direct interaction with EigenLayer contracts, active operator selection based on slashing history, and managing unbonding periods. This matters for teams lacking dedicated DevOps who cannot monitor operator performance or handle the technical setup for multiple AVSs (e.g., EigenDA, Lagrange).
7-Day
Unbonding Period
04
LRTs: Protocol & Counterparty Risk
Additional trust assumptions: You inherit the smart contract risk of the LRT protocol (e.g., Renzo, Ether.fi) and its operator set. Reward distribution (points, airdrops) is at the protocol's discretion. This matters for risk-averse institutions where the failure of an intermediary LRT platform could lead to total loss, unlike native slashing which is capped.
2+ Layers
Added Trust Assumptions
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Native Restaking vs. Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs)
Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs and architects choosing a restaking strategy. Data based on Ethereum mainnet and leading LRT protocols.
01
Native Restaking (EigenLayer)
Direct Security Integration: Stake ETH natively to secure Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like EigenDA or Omni Network. This provides the highest security guarantee with no intermediary risk.
Full Control: Operators maintain direct custody and control over validator keys and slashing conditions, crucial for institutional stakers.
> $15B
TVL in Native Restaking
40+
Integrated AVSs
02
Liquid Restaking Tokens (e.g., ezETH, rsETH)
Capital Efficiency: Unlock liquidity from staked ETH. Use LRTs as collateral in DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, or Pendle to earn additional yield.
Accessibility: Lower barrier to entry (no 32 ETH minimum) and simplified UX via protocols like Ether.fi, Kelp DAO, or Renzo Protocol.
> $10B
Aggregate LRT TVL
50+
DeFi Integrations
03
Native Restaking Cons
Capital Lockup: Staked ETH is illiquid and subject to unbonding periods, creating significant opportunity cost.
Operational Complexity: Requires running or delegating to a node operator, managing slashing risks, and monitoring multiple AVS commitments.
04
Liquid Restaking Tokens Cons
Smart Contract & Depeg Risk: Introduces dependency on LRT protocol security. Historical depegs (e.g., ezETH in April 2024) highlight this systemic risk.
Yield Dilution: Rewards are shared between node operators, the LRT protocol, and the end user, potentially lowering net yield versus native staking.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
Native Restaking for Architects
Verdict: The foundational choice for maximum security and control. Strengths: Direct integration with Ethereum's consensus (EigenLayer) provides the highest security guarantees for new Actively Validated Services (AVS). You maintain direct control over slashing conditions and operator selection. This is critical for high-value, trust-minimized systems like decentralized sequencers (e.g., Espresso, AltLayer) or interoperability layers. Trade-offs: Requires significant in-house DevOps to manage node operations or operator delegation. Capital is locked and illiquid, impacting treasury flexibility.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) for Architects
Verdict: Ideal for bootstrapping AVS security and user adoption quickly. Strengths: Platforms like Ether.fi, Renzo, and Kelp DAO abstract away operator management while providing a liquid representation of restaked capital. You can incentivize adoption by integrating LRTs into your protocol's tokenomics (e.g., as collateral). This dramatically lowers the barrier for users to secure your AVS. Trade-offs: Introduces a dependency on the LRT protocol's security and redemption mechanisms. You cede fine-grained control over operator sets.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between direct and liquid restaking strategies for protocol builders.
Native Restaking excels at capital efficiency and direct security alignment because it allows validators to allocate their staked ETH directly to a specific Actively Validated Service (AVS) like EigenLayer. For example, a protocol like EigenDA or Espresso Systems can directly attract and reward native restakers, creating a strong, non-synthetic security bond. This approach minimizes intermediary risk and provides the AVS with the most straightforward claim on slashing penalties, which is crucial for high-value, security-critical infrastructure.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) take a different approach by abstracting complexity and maximizing liquidity. Protocols like Ether.fi (eETH), Renzo (ezETH), and Kelp DAO (rsETH) pool user ETH, handle the technical restaking operations, and issue a liquid token. This results in a trade-off: users gain instant liquidity and DeFi composability (e.g., using ezETH as collateral on Aave or for liquidity pools), but the AVS receives security from a derivative asset, adding a layer of intermediary trust in the LRT protocol's operator set and withdrawal management.
The key trade-off is between direct control and user accessibility. If your priority is maximizing cryptoeconomic security for your AVS with minimal trust layers, choose Native Restaking. This is ideal for foundational infrastructure projects where slashing guarantees are paramount. If you prioritize rapid bootstrapping of TVL and catering to a mainstream DeFi user base that demands liquidity, choose LRTs. The data shows LRTs dominate in TVL (over $12B aggregate), demonstrating their pull for liquidity-seeking capital, while native restaking anchors the security of the most critical AVSs.
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