Native Token Staking excels at maximizing cryptoeconomic security by directly aligning staker incentives with the health of the AVS network. Stakers lock the protocol's native token, creating a direct, non-transferable financial stake in its success. This model, used by protocols like EigenLayer for restaking Ethereum (ETH), creates a high-cost-of-attack security budget. For example, an AVS with $1B in natively restaked ETH creates a formidable slashing deterrent, as malicious validators risk losing their principal stake.
LABS
Comparisons
Native Token Staking vs Liquid Staking Tokens for AVS Security Budgeting
A technical comparison for protocol architects and CTOs on selecting the primary staking asset for an Actively Validated Service (AVS), analyzing capital efficiency, liquidity, and security trade-offs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core AVS Security Budget Decision
Choosing between native token staking and liquid staking tokens (LSTs) defines the economic security and capital efficiency of your Actively Validated Service (AVS).
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) take a different approach by prioritizing capital efficiency and accessibility. Stakers deposit a base asset (e.g., ETH) to receive a liquid, yield-bearing token (e.g., stETH, rETH) which can then be restaked. This unlocks composability, allowing capital to be simultaneously deployed in DeFi (e.g., lending on Aave) while securing an AVS. The trade-off is a potential dilution of security alignment, as the LST holder's primary loyalty may be to the underlying liquid staking protocol (like Lido or Rocket Pool) rather than your specific AVS.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing slashable security and direct validator alignment for a high-value, standalone AVS, choose Native Staking. If you prioritize lower barrier-to-entry, higher total value locked (TVL), and staker flexibility to bootstrap your security budget quickly, choose Liquid Staking Tokens. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether you value pure security weight or adoption velocity.
tldr-summary
Native Token Staking vs. Liquid Staking Tokens
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of core trade-offs for securing AVS (Actively Validated Services) budgets. Choose based on your protocol's priorities for capital efficiency, security, and user experience.
01
Native Staking: Superior Security & Simplicity
Direct Slashing Risk: Staked tokens are subject to the AVS's native slashing conditions, creating a direct, non-dilutable economic bond. This is critical for high-value, high-risk services like EigenLayer's EigenDA or Omni Network where validator misconduct must carry maximum cost.
Protocol Control: The AVS has direct governance over staking parameters and slashing logic without reliance on external LST protocols like Lido or Rocket Pool.
02
Native Staking: Lower Systemic Complexity
No Dependency Risk: Eliminates reliance on the security and liquidity of a secondary LST protocol. Your AVS's security isn't impacted by a bug in stETH or a depeg event.
Simpler Tokenomics: Avoids the layered yield and rebasing mechanics of LSTs, making reward distribution and accounting more straightforward for protocols like AltLayer or Hyperlane.
03
Liquid Staking: Maximum Capital Efficiency
Unlocked Liquidity: Users stake once (e.g., in Lido or Rocket Pool) and use the LST (e.g., stETH, rETH) to secure multiple AVSs simultaneously. This dramatically lowers the barrier to entry and can bootstrap TVL faster, as seen with EigenLayer's LST restaking queues.
Composability: LSTs can be used as collateral in DeFi protocols like Aave or Compound while still securing the AVS, enabling leveraged staking strategies.
04
Liquid Staking: Enhanced User Experience & Adoption
Frictionless Entry: Users avoid unbonding periods and can exit positions instantly via DEX liquidity pools for wstETH or cbETH. This is vital for retail-focused AVSs or those with volatile reward schedules.
Proven Liquidity Networks: Leverages existing, deep liquidity pools and infrastructure from giants like Coinbase (cbETH) and Binance (wBETH), reducing the AVS's need to bootstrap its own ecosystem from zero.
AVS SECURITY BUDGETING
Feature Comparison: Native Token vs Liquid Staking Token (LST)
Direct comparison of capital efficiency and operational trade-offs for securing Actively Validated Services (AVS).
| Metric | Native Token (e.g., ETH) | Liquid Staking Token (e.g., stETH, rETH) |
|---|---|---|
Capital Efficiency for Restaking | 1x (Token is locked) |
|
Liquidity During Staking | ||
Typical Yield Source | Consensus + Execution Layer Rewards | Consensus Layer Rewards - Protocol Fee (5-15%) |
Integration Complexity for AVS | Direct, native slashing | Requires LST-specific oracle/adapters |
DeFi Composability (e.g., Lending, LP) | ||
Time to Unlock / Withdraw | Days to Weeks (Ethereum queue) | Instant via secondary market, ~1-7 days via protocol |
Custody Model | Self-custody (validator client) | Custodial (protocol) or Non-custodial (DVT-based) |
pros-cons-a
AVS SECURITY BUDGETING
Native Token Staking vs Liquid Staking Tokens
Evaluating the core trade-offs between direct staking and liquid staking derivatives for securing Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like EigenLayer, Babylon, or Hyperliquid.
01
Native Staking: Maximum Security & Simplicity
Direct Slashing Risk: Stakers bear the full, non-custodial slashing risk for AVS faults, creating the strongest possible economic security. This matters for high-value, high-risk AVSs like restaking for new L1s or oracle networks.
Protocol Alignment: Rewards are paid directly in the native token (e.g., ETH, ATOM), ensuring stakers' incentives are perfectly aligned with the underlying chain's long-term health.
02
Native Staking: Capital Inefficiency & Lock-up
Illiquid Capital: Staked tokens are locked and cannot be redeployed in DeFi (e.g., lending on Aave, providing liquidity on Uniswap V3). This creates a significant opportunity cost.
High Barrier to Entry: Minimum staking amounts (e.g., 32 ETH) and technical complexity of running a validator exclude smaller participants, potentially centralizing the AVS operator set.
03
Liquid Staking: Capital Efficiency & Accessibility
Composability: LSTs like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, or Coinbase's cbETH can be used as collateral across DeFi while still securing the AVS. This enables leveraged staking strategies.
Low Barrier to Entry: Users can stake any amount via a liquid staking protocol, democratizing access to AVS rewards and broadening the security provider base.
04
Liquid Staking: Counterparty & Systemic Risk
Smart Contract & Centralization Risk: Security is now dependent on the LST protocol's code and its operator set (e.g., Lido node operators). A failure in Lido or a similar major provider could impact all AVSs secured by its LST.
Yield Dilution: AVS rewards are shared with the LST protocol (taking a fee) and its node operators. The staker receives a derivative of a derivative, adding layers between them and the source of yield.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
LSTs vs Native Staking for AVS Security Budgeting
Key strengths and trade-offs for securing Actively Validated Services (AVS) on EigenLayer and beyond.
01
Native Staking: Capital Efficiency
Direct Security: Staked ETH secures the consensus layer and your AVS simultaneously, maximizing the utility of a single capital deposit. This matters for protocols like EigenDA or Lagrange that require high economic security from the base layer.
02
Native Staking: Protocol Alignment
No Third-Party Risk: Avoids dependencies on LST issuers (Lido, Rocket Pool) and their governance or slashing policies. This matters for sovereign AVS operators who prioritize minimizing external trust assumptions and smart contract risk.
03
Liquid Staking Tokens: Flexibility
Unlocked Liquidity: Use stETH or rETH as collateral in DeFi (Aave, Compound) while securing AVS, enabling capital reuse. This matters for AVS operators who need to manage treasury liquidity or engage in leveraged strategies on platforms like MakerDAO.
04
Liquid Staking Tokens: Composability
Integrated Yield Stack: LSTs are the base asset for restaking pools (EigenLayer, Kelp DAO) and yield-bearing stablecoins (Lybra, Prisma). This matters for AVS builders who want to tap into the $40B+ LST ecosystem for deeper liquidity and user onboarding.
05
Native Staking: Slashing Risk
Concentrated Penalty: A slashing event on your AVS results in direct loss of principal ETH, not just a derivative token. This matters for risk-averse institutional operators where capital preservation is paramount over yield optimization.
06
Liquid Staking Tokens: Counterparty Risk
Smart Contract & Governance Exposure: Adds layers of risk from the LST protocol (e.g., Lido's 30-node operator set, Rocket Pool's oracle committee). This matters for AVS with strict security requirements where additional failure points are unacceptable.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: The clear winner for maximizing utility of staked capital. Strengths: LSTs like Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH, and EigenLayer's restaked LSTs unlock liquidity immediately. This allows AVS operators to simultaneously secure the base layer (e.g., Ethereum) and the AVS while using the LST as collateral in DeFi protocols like Aave or Compound. This creates a flywheel for TVL and enables higher leverage on security budgets. Trade-off: Introduces smart contract risk from the LST issuer and potential depeg scenarios during extreme volatility, adding a layer of systemic dependency.
Native Token Staking for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: Inefficient for active treasury management. Weaknesses: Capital is locked and illiquid, creating a significant opportunity cost. It cannot be redeployed to generate yield or provide protocol-owned liquidity, making it a poor choice for AVSs needing to bootstrap ecosystem growth or manage dynamic budgets.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on allocating security budgets between native staking and liquid staking tokens for AVS (Actively Validated Service) cryptoeconomic security.
Native Token Staking excels at providing direct, non-synthetic security because it locks the underlying asset, creating a direct slashing risk for validators. For example, EigenLayer's mainnet currently secures over $18B in restaked ETH, demonstrating massive validator skin-in-the-game. This direct alignment minimizes systemic risk from derivative de-pegs and provides the most straightforward cryptoeconomic security model for AVSs like AltLayer and Hyperlane.
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) take a different approach by enabling capital efficiency through staking derivatives like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH. This results in a trade-off: you gain higher initial TVL and user accessibility (with LST TVL often 2-3x higher than native restaking pools for newer chains), but introduce a layer of composability risk from the LST's own security and potential de-peg events under extreme market stress.
The key trade-off: If your AVS priority is maximizing direct validator alignment and minimizing derivative risk, choose a Native Staking model. This is critical for high-value, security-sensitive operations. If you prioritize rapid bootstrapping of TVL and maximizing capital efficiency for operators, choose an LST-based approach. For most protocols, a hybrid model—accepting major, battle-tested LSTs like stETH while mandating a core of native stake—often provides the optimal balance of security and growth.
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