Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax Finance's sfrxETH excel at maximizing capital efficiency and governance participation by decoupling staked value from voting rights. This allows holders to vote in DAOs like Aave or Curve while simultaneously using the LST as collateral in DeFi, creating a powerful flywheel. For example, Lido's stETH, with over $30B in TVL, is a dominant governance asset in major protocols, demonstrating the model's scalability and utility.
LABS
Comparisons
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) vs Native Staked Assets in Governance
A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing governance rights, voting power delegation, and systemic trade-offs between using staking derivatives like stETH and holding native staked assets.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Governance Dilemma in Modern Staking
A technical breakdown of the governance trade-offs between liquid staking tokens and native staked assets for protocol architects.
Native Staked Assets take a different approach by maintaining a direct, non-transferable link between the staked principal and its voting power, as seen in networks like Cosmos (ATOM) and Solana (SOL). This strategy results in a trade-off of reduced capital fluidity for stronger sybil resistance and direct accountability. Governance power is tied to the economic stake securing the network itself, aligning voter incentives with long-term protocol health rather than short-term speculative gains.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing voter turnout and integrating staked assets into a broader DeFi ecosystem, choose LSTs. If you prioritize security-aligned, sybil-resistant governance where voting power directly reflects network security contribution, choose Native Staked Assets. The decision hinges on whether you value liquidity and composability or unwavering economic alignment.
tldr-summary
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) vs Native Staked Assets
TL;DR: Key Governance Differentiators
A direct comparison of governance mechanics for technical leaders. Choose based on your protocol's need for capital efficiency versus direct sovereignty.
01
LSTs: Capital Efficiency & Delegation
Simultaneous utility: LSTs like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH enable staked capital to be used in DeFi (e.g., as collateral on Aave, Maker) while voting power is delegated to professional node operators. This matters for protocols needing to attract TVL from yield-optimizing users without sacrificing governance participation.
02
LSTs: Aggregated Voting Power
Centralized influence: Major LST providers (Lido, Coinbase) often control large, unified voting blocs. For example, Lido's ~30% of Ethereum stake is voted by a small set of node operators. This matters if you need to secure large, decisive votes quickly but introduces centralization risks.
03
Native Assets: Direct Sovereignty & Security
Unmediated control: Native staked ETH or SOL grants the holder direct, non-custodial voting rights via clients like Prysm or Solana Labs. This matters for protocols prioritizing censorship resistance and minimizing third-party risk, as seen in Ethereum's core developer governance.
04
Native Assets: Slashing Accountability
Direct skin-in-the-game: Validators staking native assets face direct slashing penalties for misbehavior, aligning economic and governance incentives. This matters for high-value, long-tail governance decisions (e.g., Cosmos Hub parameter changes) where voter accountability is critical.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Governance Feature Comparison: LSTs vs Native Staked Assets
Direct comparison of governance mechanics, participation, and economic impact.
| Governance Feature | Liquid Staking Tokens (e.g., stETH, rETH) | Native Staked Assets (e.g., SOL, ATOM, ETH) |
|---|---|---|
Direct Voting Power | ||
Delegation Required | ||
Voting Participation Rate | ~5-15% of LST supply | ~30-80% of native supply |
Slashing Risk During Voting | ||
Governance Token Rewards | Often separate token (e.g., LDO, PRT) | Integrated into staking rewards |
Cross-Protocol Governance Utility | ||
Time to Unlock for Voting | Instant (LST is liquid) | Unbonding period (e.g., 7-28 days) |
pros-cons-a
Liquid Staking Tokens vs. Native Staked Assets
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs): Governance Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of governance trade-offs between liquidity and direct control. Choose based on your protocol's need for capital efficiency versus voting power.
01
LSTs: Capital Efficiency for Governance
Simultaneous DeFi participation: LSTs like Lido's stETH ($30B+ TVL) or Rocket Pool's rETH can be used as collateral in lending protocols (Aave, Compound) while still earning staking rewards. This matters for protocols that need to maximize capital utility for governance token buybacks or treasury management.
02
LSTs: Governance Abstraction & Risk Diversification
Delegated validator operations: Users delegate technical risk (slashing, downtime) to professional node operators (e.g., Lido's curated set, Rocket Pool's permissionless nodes). This matters for institutions or individuals who lack the infrastructure to run validators but want governance exposure. However, this introduces protocol dependency risk (e.g., Lido DAO control over oracle upgrades).
03
Native Assets: Direct Voting Power & Sovereignty
Unmediated control: Native staked ETH (32 ETH validator) or SOL grants full, non-custodial voting rights in network upgrades (Ethereum's EIPs, Solana's SIMD proposals). This matters for foundations, large DAOs (like Uniswap), or any entity where protocol-level sovereignty is non-negotiable. Voting power is tied directly to the consensus layer.
04
Native Assets: Slashing Liability & Illiquidity Penalty
Full slashing risk and capital lock-up: Validators face direct penalties (up to 100% of stake for attacks) and a ~27-day unbonding period (Ethereum). This matters for risk-averse treasuries or protocols that cannot tolerate sudden loss of governance weight or illiquid positions during critical votes. The trade-off is maximum security for maximum responsibility.
pros-cons-b
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) vs Native Staked Assets
Native Staked Assets: Governance Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of governance trade-offs between holding native staked assets (e.g., stETH, cbETH) versus direct staking (e.g., native ETH).
01
LSTs: Enhanced Governance Participation
Delegated voting power: LSTs like Lido's stETH enable voting delegation through platforms like Snapshot and Tally, allowing holders to participate in DAO governance (e.g., Aave, Uniswap) without running a node. This matters for protocols seeking high voter turnout and decentralized decision-making from a liquid asset base.
02
LSTs: Composability & Yield Stacking
Simultaneous utility: Holders can engage in governance on DeFi platforms while earning staking rewards. For example, stETH can be used as collateral in Aave (≈$2B supplied) while voting on Aave Improvement Proposals. This matters for capital-efficient protocols and users maximizing yield across lending, borrowing, and governance.
03
Native Assets: Direct Protocol Influence
Unmediated voting rights: Native stakers (e.g., 32 ETH validators) have direct voting power on the consensus layer (Ethereum's Beacon Chain). This matters for core protocol upgrades (like EIP-4844) and slashing decisions, ensuring stakeholders with skin-in-the-game control the network's fundamental rules.
04
Native Assets: No Counterparty Risk in Governance
Eliminates LST provider risk: Governance power isn't dependent on the solvency or actions of an LST protocol (e.g., Lido DAO, Coinbase). This matters for institutional validators and sovereign entities requiring absolute certainty that their governance rights cannot be diluted or altered by a third party's failure.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose LSTs vs Native Governance
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for composability and capital efficiency. Strengths: LSTs like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax's frxETH are ERC-20 tokens, enabling seamless integration with AMMs (Uniswap, Curve), lending markets (Aave, Compound), and yield strategies (Convex, Yearn). This unlocks leveraged staking, collateralized borrowing, and deep liquidity pools. The primary trade-off is governance delegation: stakers cede voting power to the LST provider's DAO or node operators.
Native Staked Assets for DeFi
Verdict: A niche choice for protocols prioritizing direct governance alignment. Strengths: Native assets (e.g., staked ETH via EigenLayer, or direct validator stakes) retain full governance rights and slashing risk. This is critical for protocols like EigenLayer AVSs that require cryptoeconomic security or DAOs that need to vote directly on-chain. The trade-off is severe capital lock-up and inability to use the asset in most DeFi primitives without wrapping it first, which defeats the purpose.
LSTs VS NATIVE STAKING
Technical Deep Dive: Governance Power Delegation and Slashing
A critical analysis of how Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and native staked assets differ in governance participation, delegation mechanics, and slashing risk exposure for protocols and DAOs.
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) provide superior delegation flexibility. LSTs like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH separate governance rights from the underlying asset, allowing them to be delegated independently to different validators or DAOs. Native staked assets (e.g., directly staked ETH or SOL) typically lock governance power with the chosen validator. This makes LSTs ideal for protocols like Aave or Compound that want to participate in governance without managing validator operations, while native staking is simpler but less composable.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Strategic Recommendations for Protocol Architects
A final assessment of the governance trade-offs between Liquid Staking Tokens and direct staking for protocol design.
Native Staked Assets excel at providing direct, unambiguous voting power because they are the canonical representation of network ownership. For example, on Ethereum, a validator's 32 ETH stake grants a single, non-fungible voting right, creating a clear sybil-resistance model and aligning incentives with long-term network health. This direct link is critical for foundational governance decisions like consensus upgrades, as seen in the seamless activation of the Dencun hard fork.
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax Finance's frxETH take a different approach by decoupling governance rights from liquidity. This results in a trade-off: it dramatically increases capital efficiency and DeFi composability (with LSTs like stETH powering over $30B in DeFi TVL) but fragments and often delegates the underlying voting power to a small set of node operators or DAOs, centralizing political influence.
The key architectural decision hinges on your protocol's governance model and user base. If your priority is maximizing participation and liquidity for a DeFi-native application, choose LSTs for their seamless integration with AMMs like Uniswap, lending markets like Aave, and their ability to attract users who refuse to lock capital. If you prioritize sybil-resistant, direct stakeholder alignment for a protocol making high-stakes, long-term parameter decisions, Native Staked Assets provide the gold standard for governance integrity.
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