Single-Asset Staking excels at predictable, low-risk yield because it secures a single blockchain like Ethereum or Solana. For example, Ethereum's consensus layer offers a base yield of ~3-4% APR, derived purely from issuance and transaction fees on the L1. This model provides a clear, auditable fee structure with minimal smart contract risk, making it the bedrock for institutional validators. Protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool abstract the technical complexity while offering liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like stETH and rETH, but the underlying yield source remains the native chain's economics.
LABS
Comparisons
Fee Structures for Re-Staking vs Single-Asset Staking Fees
A technical analysis comparing the fee models, economic incentives, and risk-reward profiles of restaking protocols like EigenLayer against traditional single-asset staking pools like Lido and Rocket Pool.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The New Economics of Validator Yield
A data-driven comparison of the fee structures and yield potential between single-asset staking and re-staking protocols.
Re-Staking (via EigenLayer) takes a different approach by allowing staked ETH (or LSTs) to be "re-staked" to secure additional services like rollups, oracles, and bridges. This strategy creates a new yield layer from AVS (Actively Validated Services) fees, but introduces slashing risks beyond the base chain. The trade-off is a potentially higher, but more variable, yield—early AVSs like EigenDA or AltLayer offer additional rewards on top of base staking yield, but expose capital to the performance and cryptoeconomic security of these new services.
The key trade-off: If your priority is capital preservation and predictable returns within a mature ecosystem, choose Single-Asset Staking. If you prioritize maximizing yield and are willing to underwrite new crypto-economic security for emerging infrastructure, choose Re-Staking. The decision hinges on your risk tolerance and belief in the long-term demand for decentralized trust markets beyond a single blockchain.
tldr-summary
Re-Staking vs. Single-Asset Staking Fees
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Re-Staking: Capital Efficiency
Amplified yield potential: Earn base staking rewards (e.g., 3-5% on Ethereum) plus additional fees from AVS services like EigenLayer, AltLayer, or Espresso. This matters for protocols and whales seeking to maximize utility from a single capital deposit.
02
Re-Staking: Protocol-Level Revenue
Access to new fee streams: Earn fees from providing cryptoeconomic security to middleware (e.g., oracle networks like eoracle, rollups like Mantle). This matters for stakers aligned with the modular blockchain thesis and willing to accept slashing risks for higher returns.
03
Single-Asset Staking: Predictable Costs
Transparent, fixed fee model: Most providers (Lido, Rocket Pool, Figment) charge a clear commission (5-15%) on staking rewards. This matters for institutions and conservative investors requiring simple, auditable cost structures and no additional slashing exposure.
04
Single-Asset Staking: Lower Complexity & Risk
Isolated validator slashing: Risk is confined to the underlying chain's consensus rules. This matters for compliance-focused entities and those avoiding the novel, correlated slashing risks introduced by AVS dependencies in re-staking ecosystems.
RE-STAKING VS. SINGLE-ASSET STAKING
Head-to-Head Fee Structure Comparison
Direct comparison of fee models, costs, and economic incentives for staking protocols.
| Metric | Re-Staking (e.g., EigenLayer) | Single-Asset Staking (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Protocol Fee (Yield Cut) | 0-10% (varies by AVS) | 5-15% |
Slashing Risk Exposure | High (multiple AVSs) | Low (single chain) |
Additional Yield Sources | ||
Minimum Stake (ETH equivalent) | 32 ETH (native) | 0.001 ETH (liquid) |
Withdrawal/Unlock Period | ~7 days + queue | Instant (liquid) or ~1-7 days |
Fee Complexity | Multi-layered (protocol + AVS) | Single layer |
pros-cons-a
Fee Structures for Re-Staking vs Single-Asset Staking Fees
Re-Staking (EigenLayer) Fee Model: Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of the economic models for securing additional services (AVSs) versus traditional validator rewards.
01
Re-Staking: Multi-Layered Yield
Unlocks dual revenue streams: Earn base Ethereum staking rewards (~3-4% APR) plus additional fees from Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like EigenDA, Lagrange, and Espresso. This matters for stakers seeking to maximize capital efficiency and yield on a single asset (e.g., stETH).
2x+
Potential Yield Sources
02
Re-Staking: Protocol-Level Fee Capture
Direct alignment with new services: Fees from AVSs are paid directly to the re-staking pool, creating a scalable economic flywheel. This matters for protocols building decentralized sequencers, oracles (e.g., eoracle), and data availability layers that need robust, cryptoeconomic security.
03
Single-Asset Staking: Predictable Simplicity
Fixed, transparent fee model: Validator rewards are determined by Ethereum's protocol (consensus + MEV). Liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH charge a clear fee (e.g., 5-10% of rewards). This matters for institutions and risk-averse stakers prioritizing stable, auditable cash flows.
5-10%
Typical LST Fee on Rewards
04
Single-Asset Staking: No Slashing Complexity
Isolated risk profile: Slashing penalties are confined to Ethereum consensus failures. This matters for operators who want to avoid the additional slashing conditions imposed by AVSs in EigenLayer, which can include penalties for liveness faults or incorrect proofs in services like AltLayer or Omni.
pros-cons-b
FEE STRUCTURE BREAKDOWN
Single-Asset Staking (Lido, Rocket Pool) Fee Model: Pros and Cons
Comparing the economic incentives and trade-offs between the dominant liquid staking providers. Key metrics include protocol revenue, node operator margins, and user yields.
01
Lido's Fee Model: High-Efficiency Scale
10% fee on staking rewards distributed to node operators and the DAO treasury. This model prioritizes capital efficiency and deep liquidity, supporting a $30B+ TVL and seamless DeFi integrations (Aave, Curve). The predictable, flat-rate fee is optimal for large institutions and protocols seeking maximum composability with minimal slippage.
10%
Protocol Fee
$30B+
Total Value Locked
02
Rocket Pool's Fee Model: Decentralized Incentives
Dynamic commission set by node operators (currently ~14%). This creates a competitive marketplace for staking services. The RPL bond requirement (10% collateral) aligns operator incentives with network security. This model is superior for users prioritizing credible neutrality and supporting a permissionless, decentralized validator set.
~14%
Avg. Node Commission
10%
Min. RPL Collateral
03
Lido Con: Centralization & Governance Risk
Fee distribution and upgrades are controlled by Lido DAO, creating a systemic dependency. The concentration of validator keys among ~30 professional node operators presents a potential single point of failure. For protocols with strict decentralization requirements (e.g., stablecoin issuers, prediction markets), this poses a non-trivial governance and slashing risk.
04
Rocket Pool Con: Complexity & Higher Cost
The RPL collateral requirement adds capital overhead and volatility exposure for node operators, potentially limiting scale. For end-users, yields can be lower than Lido after the higher node commission. The model involves more moving parts, making it less suitable for large, passive capital seeking a simple, set-and-forget yield product.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Re-Staking (EigenLayer, Babylon) for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for launching novel, security-critical protocols. Strengths: Enables economic security bootstrapping by leveraging Ethereum's validator set. Protocols like EigenDA (data availability) and Omni Network (interoperability) use it to inherit trust without building a new validator network. Ideal for bridges, oracles (e.g., Oracle), and shared sequencers that require high cryptoeconomic guarantees. Fee Consideration: You pay for AVS (Actively Validated Service) operator rewards on top of base staking yields. This is a premium for security, not just transaction execution.
Single-Asset Staking (Lido, Rocket Pool) for DeFi
Verdict: The foundational layer for yield generation and liquidity. Strengths: Provides liquid staking tokens (LSTs like stETH, rETH) that become core DeFi collateral. These LSTs are integrated into every major money market (Aave, Compound), DEX (Curve, Uniswap), and yield aggregator. Fees are straightforward: a small protocol commission on staking rewards. When to Choose: Your protocol's value is in leveraging or composing with liquid staked assets, not in creating new cryptoeconomic security layers.
COST & RISK ANALYSIS
Technical Deep Dive: Fee Mechanics and Slashing
Understanding the financial and security trade-offs between re-staking and traditional staking is critical for protocol architects and treasury managers. This section breaks down the fee structures, slashing conditions, and economic models to inform your infrastructure decisions.
Re-staking typically involves higher cumulative fees due to its multi-layered nature. While the base staking fee on a network like Ethereum is the same, re-staking protocols like EigenLayer add additional fees for their services, including operator commissions and potential revenue-sharing models. Single-asset staking on a solo validator or via Lido incurs only the base network and service provider fees, making it the simpler, lower-fee option for pure consensus security.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between re-staking and single-asset staking fees is a strategic decision between capital efficiency and operational simplicity.
Re-staking protocols like EigenLayer excel at maximizing capital efficiency by allowing the same asset (e.g., staked ETH) to secure multiple services simultaneously. This creates a powerful flywheel: a single $32 ETH stake can secure the Ethereum Beacon Chain while also providing cryptoeconomic security for an EigenLayer Actively Validated Service (AVS). This unlocks significant yield potential, with top-tier AVOs offering additional rewards on top of base staking yields, often pushing total APY into the double digits.
Single-asset staking on networks like Ethereum or Solana takes a different approach by prioritizing operational simplicity and risk isolation. The fee structure is straightforward: stakers earn protocol-native rewards (e.g., ETH, SOL) and potentially MEV, with no exposure to slashing risks from external protocols. This results in a trade-off of lower capital efficiency for a more predictable, secure, and auditable yield profile. The total value locked (TVL) in Ethereum's native staking, exceeding $100B, underscores its dominance as the foundational, low-complexity option.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing capital efficiency and yield for sophisticated, risk-tolerant operations, choose a re-staking strategy. If you prioritize operational simplicity, risk isolation, and foundational network security, choose single-asset staking. For protocol architects, the decision hinges on whether your application requires the shared security and economic alignment of an AVO ecosystem or the battle-tested, standalone security of a primary chain's validator set.
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