Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH excel at maximizing capital efficiency and composability. By unlocking the liquidity of staked assets, they allow users to simultaneously earn staking rewards and deploy collateral in DeFi protocols like MakerDAO, Aave, and Compound. For example, stETH alone represents over $30B in TVL, demonstrating massive demand for this model. This creates a powerful flywheel for CDP growth but introduces reliance on the security and peg stability of the underlying LST.
LABS
Comparisons
LST for Collateralized Debt Position (CDP) Stability vs Native Stake for CDP Stability
A technical analysis comparing Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like stETH and native staked ETH as collateral in CDP protocols. Evaluates peg volatility, liquidation cascades, and systemic risk for protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Collateral Dilemma for CDP Stability
Choosing between Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and native staked assets as collateral presents a fundamental trade-off between capital efficiency and protocol security.
Native Stake for CDP Stability, as pioneered by protocols like Aave's GHO module or yet-to-launch designs, takes a different approach by using the validator's staked principal directly. This results in superior protocol-native security and eliminates third-party oracle or depeg risk for the core collateral asset. The trade-off is immediate illiquidity; the staked capital is locked and cannot be re-deployed elsewhere in DeFi, representing a significant opportunity cost compared to the LST model.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing capital efficiency, yield stacking, and user adoption within the broader DeFi ecosystem, choose LST-based collateral. If you prioritize maximizing protocol-native security, minimizing external dependencies, and insulating your CDP system from third-party liquidity crises, choose native stake integration. The choice defines your protocol's risk profile and growth trajectory.
tldr-summary
LSTs vs. Native Stake for CDP Stability
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the core trade-offs between using Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and Native Staking as collateral for a CDP.
01
LSTs: Superior Capital Efficiency
Immediate Liquidity: LSTs like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH can be used as collateral while simultaneously earning staking rewards. This unlocks ~2x leverage potential compared to locked native stake. Critical for protocols like MakerDAO (MKR) and Aave that maximize yield on idle collateral.
02
LSTs: Composability & Yield Stacking
Deep DeFi Integration: LSTs are the base layer for yield strategies. They can be deposited in lending markets (Aave, Compound), used in LP pools (Curve stETH-ETH), or restaked (EigenLayer). This creates a secondary yield layer on top of base staking APR, enhancing CDP stability through diversified revenue.
03
Native Stake: Maximum Security & Simplicity
No Counterparty Risk: Direct staking eliminates reliance on LST providers' smart contracts and governance. The collateral is the native asset secured by the base layer consensus (e.g., Ethereum's LMD-GHOST). This is the gold standard for risk-averse institutions and foundational for protocols like Oasis.app that prioritize security over yield.
04
Native Stake: Predictable, Uncorrelated Slashing
Isolated Risk Profile: Slashing penalties are protocol-defined and non-financial. A slashing event does not directly crash the collateral's market price, unlike an LST depeg. This provides a more stable, predictable collateral factor for CDP risk engines, simplifying liquidation models.
05
LSTs: Liquidation Risk from Depegs
Smart Contract & Peg Risk: LSTs carry the risk of a "depeg" from the underlying asset (e.g., stETH trading at 0.97 ETH), which can trigger mass liquidations. This was observed during the Terra/Luna collapse and the Shanghai upgrade uncertainty. Requires robust oracle feeds (Chainlink) and higher liquidation penalties.
06
Native Stake: Capital Lockup & Opportunity Cost
Illiquidity During Unbonding: Native-staked assets (e.g., ETH) have a withdrawal queue/delay (27 hours on Ethereum). This limits collateral agility and prevents rapid deleveraging or migration. In a volatile market, this lock-up can be a significant disadvantage compared to instantly tradable LSTs.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: LST vs Native Stake for CDP Collateral
Direct comparison of liquid staking tokens (LSTs) and native stake as collateral for CDP stability.
| Metric | Liquid Staking Token (LST) | Native Stake |
|---|---|---|
Capital Efficiency |
| 100% (locked in consensus) |
Liquidation Risk Profile | Dependent on LST/asset peg (e.g., stETH/ETH) | Directly tied to validator slashing |
Immediate Liquidity | false (unbonding period required) | |
Yield Source for Collateral | Staking rewards + potential DeFi yield | Base staking rewards only |
Protocol Integration Complexity | Medium (oracle & liquidity depth checks) | Low (direct chain state verification) |
Typical Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio | 70-85% (e.g., Aave, MakerDAO) | Not directly applicable |
Systemic Risk Exposure | Smart contract risk (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) | Consensus-layer slashing risk |
pros-cons-a
LSTs vs Native Stake for CDP Stability
LST Collateral (e.g., stETH, rETH): Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for collateralizing DeFi debt positions. Choose based on your protocol's risk tolerance and target user base.
01
LSTs: Superior Capital Efficiency
Liquidity yield + collateral utility: LSTs like Lido's stETH (~$30B TVL) and Rocket Pool's rETH generate staking rewards (3-5% APY) while being used as collateral. This creates a positive carry for borrowers, reducing effective borrowing costs. Essential for protocols like MakerDAO and Aave that prioritize user yield.
02
LSTs: Deep, Established Liquidity
Instant exit liquidity: Major LSTs have robust secondary markets (Curve pools, DEXs) and native redemption mechanisms. This provides a critical liquidity backstop for liquidations, reducing systemic risk. For example, stETH's ~$1B liquidity on Curve ensures large positions can be unwound without catastrophic slippage.
03
Native Stake: Maximum Security & Simplicity
Direct validator slashing risk: Collateralizing natively staked ETH (e.g., via EigenLayer or native restaking) ties the CDP's safety directly to Ethereum consensus. This eliminates counterparty risk from LST providers (e.g., Lido DAO governance) and smart contract risk from the LST token. Ideal for protocols like Lybra Finance v2 seeking minimal attack vectors.
04
Native Stake: Eliminates Depeg Risk
No price oracle dependency: Native stake's value is always 1:1 with ETH, removing the liquidation risk from LST depegs (e.g., stETH's depeg during the Merge/U.S. sanctions). This simplifies risk modeling and makes the CDP system more resilient during market-wide stress, as seen in protocols favoring pure ETH collateral.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Native Stake vs. LSTs for CDP Stability
Key strengths and trade-offs for using staked ETH versus Liquid Staking Tokens as collateral in lending protocols.
01
Native Stake: Pro - Direct Security
No third-party risk: Collateral is secured directly by the Ethereum consensus layer. This eliminates smart contract risk from LST protocols (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) and depeg risk from their governance. This matters for risk-averse institutions or protocols like EigenLayer where slashing conditions are native.
02
Native Stake: Con - Capital Inefficiency
Locked liquidity: Staked ETH is illiquid and cannot be withdrawn until the Shanghai upgrade's unlock period. This creates a massive opportunity cost for borrowers, as ~$50B+ in staked ETH is currently non-fungible. This matters for active treasury management or protocols needing flexible collateral.
03
LSTs: Pro - Liquidity & Composability
Instant fungibility: Tokens like stETH (Lido) or rETH (Rocket Pool) can be instantly traded, used in DeFi pools (e.g., Curve, Aave), or posted as collateral without unlocking delays. This enables higher capital efficiency and complex strategies. This matters for leveraged staking or protocols like MakerDAO that rely on deep liquidity.
04
LSTs: Con - Protocol & Depeg Risk
Added dependency layer: Collateral value is tied to the LST protocol's health. Risks include smart contract bugs (historical examples: Lido oracle delays), governance attacks, or a stake concentration penalty causing a depeg from ETH. This matters for maximum security CDPs where collateral must be bankruptcy-remote.
LST FOR CDP STABILITY VS. NATIVE STAKE FOR CDP STABILITY
Risk Profile Analysis: Deconstructing the Threat Models
Direct comparison of key risk and stability metrics for collateralized debt positions.
| Risk Metric | LST (Liquid Staking Token) | Native Stake |
|---|---|---|
Primary Counterparty Risk | LST Provider (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) | Underlying Blockchain Protocol |
Slashing Risk Exposure | Indirect (Provider-managed) | Direct (User-managed) |
Collateral Liquidity Premium | High (Tradable on DEXs, used in DeFi) | Low (Locked, illiquid) |
Oracle Dependency for CDP | ||
Depeg/Devaluation Risk | Medium (e.g., stETH/ETH peg stress) | None (1:1 asset) |
Maximum Theoretical LTV | Typically 70-90% | Typically 0% (non-liquid) |
Smart Contract Risk Layer | Added (LST & DeFi protocols) | Minimal (native staking contract only) |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Collateral
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: The Superior Choice. LSTs like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and Frax's sfrxETH are purpose-built for maximizing capital utility. Their primary strength is composability. You can simultaneously earn staking rewards and deploy the token as collateral across DeFi protocols like Aave, MakerDAO, and Compound. This creates a yield-on-yield strategy, significantly boosting effective APY. The liquidity of major LSTs on DEXs (e.g., Uniswap, Curve) also provides a critical safety net for efficient liquidations.
Native Stake for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: Functionally Inefficient. Natively staked assets (e.g., ETH in the Beacon Chain, SOL in native delegation) are locked and non-transferable for the duration of the unbonding period. This represents dead capital that cannot be leveraged elsewhere. While secure, it fails the core DeFi principle of capital efficiency. It's only suitable if your sole, singular goal is securing the network with zero additional financial strategy.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing the optimal collateral strategy for CDP stability depends on your protocol's risk tolerance and target user base.
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) excel at providing capital efficiency and immediate composability. By using an LST like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH, users can simultaneously earn staking rewards and deploy the token as collateral, avoiding the lock-up and unbonding periods of native staking. For example, the ~$30B TVL in Lido's stETH demonstrates massive demand for this liquidity solution. This creates a more flexible and liquid collateral base, which can attract a wider user pool and potentially higher protocol TVL.
Native Stake takes a fundamentally different approach by prioritizing security and protocol alignment. Collateralizing natively staked assets, as seen with Cosmos Hub's ATOM or Solana's SOL, creates a stronger sybil-resistance mechanism and reduces reliance on external LST protocols. This results in a trade-off: superior censorship resistance and reduced smart contract risk, but at the cost of locked capital and significantly reduced liquidity for the borrower, which can deter adoption and limit leverage options.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing user adoption, capital efficiency, and DeFi composability, choose an LST-based model. This is ideal for lending protocols like Aave or MakerDAO seeking deep liquidity. If you prioritize maximizing cryptoeconomic security, minimizing oracle/contract risk, and ensuring long-term protocol alignment, choose native stake collateral. This is critical for foundational DeFi primitives on networks like Cosmos or for protocols where the collateral asset is core to the chain's security.
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