Native Restaking excels at minimizing direct protocol fees and maintaining full control over validator economics. By staking ETH directly with EigenLayer, you pay only the base Ethereum gas fees for operations and a small, predictable protocol fee (e.g., 10-15% of operator rewards). This model is transparent and cost-effective for large, long-term stakers who prioritize minimizing recurring expenses and don't require immediate liquidity for their staked assets.
LABS
Comparisons
Native Restaking Fee Structure vs LRT Fee Structure: Cost
A technical breakdown of the cost structures for native restaking on EigenLayer versus using Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) like ether.fi, Renzo, or KelpDAO. This analysis focuses on fee transparency, total cost of ownership, and trade-offs for institutional decision-makers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Cost Decision in Restaking
Choosing between native restaking and Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) fundamentally comes down to a trade-off between direct cost control and capital efficiency.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) like those from Ether.fi, Kelp DAO, or Renzo take a different approach by adding a management layer. This introduces an extra fee (e.g., a 10% commission on rewards) but unlocks significant value. The primary trade-off is paying for a service that provides instant liquidity via a tradable token (e.g., ezETH, rsETH), automated operator delegation, and access to points programs, transforming locked capital into a productive DeFi asset.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing absolute cost and maintaining direct control over your validator set and slashing conditions, choose Native Restaking. If you prioritize maximizing capital efficiency by using your staked ETH as collateral across DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, or Pendle while outsourcing operator management, choose an LRT protocol despite the additional fee layer.
tldr-summary
Native Restaking vs. LRTs
TL;DR: Key Cost Differentiators
Direct fee comparison between native EigenLayer restaking and Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) like Ether.fi, Renzo, and KelpDAO.
01
Native Restaking: Direct Fee Control
No intermediary fees: You pay only EigenLayer's base operator delegation fees (typically 5-20% of rewards). This is the most capital-efficient path for large, sophisticated stakers managing >1000 ETH. You avoid LRT protocol fees entirely.
5-20%
Operator Fee
02
Native Restaking: Higher Complexity Cost
Operational overhead: Requires active management of operator selection, slashing risk, and AVS allocations. The 'cost' is engineering time and security diligence, which can be significant for teams without dedicated DevOps. Tools like EigenPie help but add another layer.
High
Management Overhead
03
LRTs: Predictable, All-In Fee
Single, transparent fee layer: Protocols like Ether.fi (5% fee on rewards) and Renzo (10% fee) bundle operator delegation, AVS strategy, and token liquidity into one cost. This simplifies budgeting and is ideal for teams prioritizing developer time over marginal yield optimization.
5-10%
Typical LRT Fee
04
LRTs: Hidden Opportunity Cost
Liquidity premium sacrifice: While LRTs like ezETH or weETH provide instant DeFi composability, their yields are often lower than optimally managed native restaking. You pay for convenience with reduced APY, especially noticeable at scale (>10,000 ETH). This is the trade-off for using LRTs in Aave or Curve.
0.5-2%
Estimated APY Gap
HEAD-TO-HEAD COST COMPARISON
Fee Structure Feature Matrix: Native Restaking vs LRTs
Direct comparison of fee mechanics, costs, and value capture for restaking strategies.
| Metric / Feature | Native Restaking (e.g., EigenLayer) | Liquid Restaking Tokens (e.g., Kelp DAO, Renzo) |
|---|---|---|
Direct Protocol Fee (on Rewards) | 0% | 5-15% |
Gas Cost for Entry/Exit | $50-150+ | $10-30 |
Fee Recipient | Protocol Treasury | LRT Protocol + Node Operators |
Yield Splitting (Staking vs Points) | Not Applicable | |
Withdrawal Delay (Unstaking) | ~7 days | Instant (via secondary market) |
Additional Yield Sources | Ethereum Consensus + AVS Rewards | Ethereum + AVS + DeFi Lending/Farming |
pros-cons-a
COST COMPARISON
Native Restaking Fee Structure: Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of fee models between direct EigenLayer restaking and using Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs).
01
Native Restaking: Lower Direct Fees
No protocol-level commission: EigenLayer's native restaking currently charges no fees for AVS slashing or delegation. The primary costs are Ethereum gas fees for staking/unstaking and AVS opt-ins. This matters for large, sophisticated operators managing their own node infrastructure, maximizing their yield from AVS rewards.
02
LRTs: Predictable, All-In Cost
Single, transparent fee layer: LRT protocols like Ether.fi (eigenPOD), Renzo, and Kelp DAO charge a 10-15% commission on AVS rewards. This fee covers node operation, delegation management, and LRT issuance. This matters for users who prioritize convenience, liquidity, and a hands-off approach, trading a portion of potential yield for operational simplicity.
03
Native Restaking: Hidden Complexity Costs
Operational overhead is the real cost: While protocol fees are low, native restakers bear the full cost of node maintenance, AVS monitoring, slashing risk management, and capital efficiency loss (locked ETH). This matters for protocols or DAOs that lack dedicated DevOps teams and cannot afford the technical debt of managing a secure validator set.
04
LRTs: Opportunity Cost of Liquidity
Liquidity premium comes at a price: The value of an LRT (e.g., ezETH, rsETH) can trade at a premium or discount to its underlying restaked assets, introducing a variable cost. Protocols like Pendle Finance create markets around this, but it adds a layer of financial complexity. This matters for users who require absolute capital preservation and cannot tolerate potential de-pegs from the underlying restaked position.
pros-cons-b
Native Restaking vs. Liquid Restaking Tokens
LRT Fee Structure: Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of cost structures for native restaking on EigenLayer versus using Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) like ether.fi, Renzo, or Kelp DAO.
01
Native Restaking: Lower Direct Costs
Zero protocol fees: Directly restaking with EigenLayer incurs no additional percentage-based fees on staking rewards. You pay only the Ethereum network gas fees for transactions (deposit, withdrawal). This matters for large, long-term holders (e.g., DAO treasuries, whales) where even a 1-2% fee represents significant capital leakage over time.
0%
Protocol Fee
02
Native Restaking: Operational Complexity
Manual management overhead: You are responsible for managing validator keys, monitoring slashing conditions, and executing withdrawals. This requires technical expertise and constant vigilance. This matters for teams without dedicated DevOps or security engineers, as the cost of a mistake (slashing) can far exceed any LRT fee.
03
LRTs: Automated Yield Optimization
Fee-for-service model: LRTs like ether.fi (5% fee on EigenLayer points) or Renzo (10% fee on ezPoints) charge a performance fee but automate AVS (Actively Validated Service) strategy selection and reward compounding. This matters for passive investors and DeFi users who want exposure to restaking yields without managing underlying node operations or AVS research.
5-15%
Typical Fee Range
04
LRTs: Liquidity & Composability Premium
Unlocking capital efficiency: LRTs (e.g., eETH, ezETH, rsETH) can be used as collateral across DeFi (Aave, Curve, Pendle) while earning restaking yields. The fee you pay funds protocol development and liquidity incentives. This matters for leveraged strategies and protocols needing a liquid, yield-bearing asset, where the opportunity cost of locked capital outweighs the fee.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Native Restaking for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: Superior for high-value, active strategies. Strengths: Direct access to EigenLayer's native yield and points. No middleman fees mean you capture 100% of the underlying rewards from Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like EigenDA or AltLayer. This is critical for large-scale operators (e.g., whales, DAO treasuries) where basis points matter. The cost is a direct function of Ethereum gas for operations.
LRTs for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: Ideal for passive, composable yield. Strengths: While LRTs (e.g., ether.fi's eETH, Renzo's ezETH, Kelp's rsETH) charge a fee (typically 5-20% of rewards), they unlock superior capital efficiency elsewhere. Your staked capital is tokenized, enabling its use as collateral across DeFi (Aave, Curve, Pendle) simultaneously. This leverage often outweighs the fee drag for users seeking yield stacking. The cost is the protocol fee plus any gas for minting/redemption.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
Choosing between native restaking and LRTs is a direct trade-off between predictable, low-level costs and premium-priced, managed convenience.
Native Restaking excels at minimizing direct protocol-level fees because you interact directly with the core Ethereum staking infrastructure. The primary costs are the Ethereum network's gas fees for depositing and withdrawing, plus the validator's commission (typically 5-15%). For example, a solo staker using EigenLayer's native restaking might pay only a one-time gas fee of ~$50 to deposit 32 ETH, with no ongoing protocol cut from their staking rewards. This model offers maximum yield transparency and control.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) take a different approach by adding a management and liquidity layer. This results in a clear trade-off: you pay premium fees for convenience, liquidity, and risk bundling. Protocols like Ether.fi, Renzo, and Kelp DAO charge fees on top of the underlying validator commissions—often a 10-20% performance fee on restaking rewards and sometimes deposit/withdrawal fees. In return, you get a liquid token (e.g., eETH, ezETH) for DeFi composability and automated management of operator selection and reward distribution.
The key trade-off is cost structure versus complexity and liquidity. If your priority is maximizing net yield and you have the technical capacity to manage validator operations and direct integrations, choose Native Restaking. If you prioritize liquidity, user experience, and a hands-off approach, accepting layered fees for instant exit and DeFi utility, choose Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs). For large institutional deployments, native restaking's predictable, low-fee model is often optimal, while LRTs are better suited for users and protocols seeking frictionless exposure and composability.
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