Native Restaking excels at providing protocols with direct, sovereign access to Ethereum's economic security. By integrating directly with EigenLayer, protocols like EigenDA and Lagrange can design custom slashing conditions and validator sets, enabling deep technical integration and fine-tuned security parameters. This direct relationship allows for protocol-specific cryptoeconomic design, but requires significant in-house expertise to manage node operations, slashing logic, and validator coordination.
LABS
Comparisons
Native Restaking for Protocols vs LRTs for Users: Target Audience
A technical comparison for decision-makers evaluating direct EigenLayer integration versus liquid restaking token strategies for protocol security and user yield.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Restaking Strategy Fork
A foundational comparison of two dominant restaking strategies, framing the core architectural and operational trade-offs for protocol builders.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) take a different approach by abstracting complexity for end-users and providing capital efficiency. Protocols like Ether.fi, Renzo, and Kelp DAO issue a liquid token (e.g., eETH, ezETH) representing a user's restaked position. This creates a highly composable asset that can be deployed across DeFi (e.g., lending on Aave, providing liquidity on Balancer), but introduces an intermediary layer between the protocol and the base security, adding points of failure and reliance on the LRT's operator set and withdrawal queue management.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security customization, protocol sovereignty, and direct cryptoeconomic alignment, choose Native Restaking. If you prioritize user accessibility, rapid bootstrapping of TVL, and leveraging existing DeFi composability, choose an LRT-based strategy. The decision fundamentally shapes your protocol's go-to-market, security model, and integration roadmap.
tldr-summary
NATIVE RESTAKING FOR PROTOCOLS vs LIQUID RESTAKING TOKENS FOR USERS
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
A direct comparison of the two primary models for accessing Ethereum's cryptoeconomic security. Choose based on your role and technical requirements.
01
Protocols: Direct Security Integration
Direct AVS Relationship: Protocols like EigenLayer, EigenDA, and AltLayer integrate natively with restakers, receiving security directly from the Ethereum validator set. This matters for Actively Validated Services (AVSs) requiring maximum slashing guarantees and minimal trust assumptions.
Direct
Slashing Enforcement
Native
AVS Integration
02
Protocols: Capital Efficiency & Control
Unbundled Capital: Native restaking allows protocols to tap into the ~$50B+ staked ETH without issuing a new liquid token. This matters for protocol architects who want to avoid the complexity and market risks of managing a secondary token (LRT) while maximizing the utility of locked capital.
$50B+
Addressable ETH
03
Users: Instant Liquidity & Composability
Zero Lock-up: Users receive liquid tokens (e.g., Kelp's rsETH, Renzo's ezETH, Puffer's pufETH) representing their staked position, enabling immediate use in DeFi (Aave, Curve, Pendle). This matters for retail users and DeFi degens who prioritize capital flexibility over direct protocol integration.
High
DeFi Composability
04
Users: Simplified Access & Yield Stacking
One-Click Exposure: LRTs abstract the complexity of selecting and managing AVS allocations. Platforms like Ether.fi and Swell handle operator delegation and reward distribution. This matters for passive restakers seeking to easily stack ETH staking yield + AVS rewards without operational overhead.
Automated
AVS Allocation
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Native Restaking vs Liquid Restaking Tokens
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for protocol architects and users.
| Metric / Feature | Native Restaking | Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) |
|---|---|---|
Primary User | Protocols (e.g., EigenLayer AVSs) | End Users & DeFi Protocols |
Capital Efficiency | ||
Liquidity Provided | Locked in native staking | Unlocked via LRT (e.g., ezETH, rsETH) |
Yield Source | AVS Rewards + Staking Rewards | AVS Rewards + Staking Rewards + DeFi Yield |
Integration Complexity for Protocols | Direct, requires AVS setup | Indirect, via LRT liquidity pools |
Time to Redeem Underlying Assets | ~7 days (unstaking period) | Instant (via DEX liquidity) |
Key Risk Exposure | Slashing, AVS failure | Slashing, AVS failure, LRT protocol risk |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Strategic Scenarios: When to Choose Which
Native Restaking for Protocol Architects
Verdict: The default choice for building sovereign security layers. Strengths: Direct access to Ethereum's validator set via EigenLayer enables you to build Actively Validated Services (AVS) with cryptoeconomic security. You control the slashing conditions, reward distribution, and upgrade paths. This is essential for protocols like AltLayer, EigenDA, or NearDA that require a dedicated, high-trust security budget. Trade-offs: Requires significant protocol overhead to manage operator sets, delegation, and slashing logic. You are competing for stake in the broader EigenLayer marketplace.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) for Protocol Architects
Verdict: A powerful liquidity primitive, but not for core security. Strengths: Integrating an LRT like ether.fi's eETH, Renzo's ezETH, or Kelp's rsETH provides instant liquidity and composability for your users. Ideal for DeFi apps where the LRT is used as collateral (e.g., in Aave, Curve) rather than as the security backbone of your network. Trade-offs: You inherit the centralization and slashing risks of the LRT provider's operator set. Your protocol's security is now a derivative.
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFFS
Native Restaking vs. Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs)
For protocol architects, the choice between direct integration and leveraging LRTs defines security, composability, and go-to-market strategy. Here are the key pros and cons.
01
Native Restaking: Pros
Direct Security & Control: Protocols like EigenLayer AVSs (e.g., EigenDA, Omni Network) have a direct, non-custodial slashing relationship with validators, ensuring maximum economic security derived from the Ethereum stake. This matters for high-value, trust-minimized services like data availability layers or new consensus protocols.
$18B+
EigenLayer TVL
02
Native Restaking: Cons
Complex Integration & Bootstrapping: Requires deep technical integration with restaking middleware (EigenLayer contracts) and active operator recruitment. Bootstrapping a new AVS is a significant operational hurdle, competing for attention in a crowded market of 100+ active AVSs.
03
Liquid Restaking Tokens: Pros
Rapid Liquidity & User Adoption: Integrating LRTs (e.g., ether.fi's eETH, Renzo's ezETH, Kelp's rsETH) provides instant access to a large, liquid pool of restaked capital. This matters for DeFi protocols (like Pendle, Aave) seeking immediate TVL growth and composability without building a validator set.
$10B+
Total LRT TVL
04
Liquid Restaking Tokens: Cons
Indirect Security & Protocol Risk: Security is mediated by the LRT provider's operator set and governance. This introduces counterparty and slashing centralization risks (e.g., reliance on ether.fi's 100+ node operators). Matters for protocols where the security guarantee must be cryptographically verifiable and non-custodial.
pros-cons-b
NATIVE RESTAKING vs LIQUID RESTAKING TOKENS
Liquid Restaking Tokens: Pros and Cons for Integration
A technical breakdown for protocol architects deciding between direct EigenLayer integration or building on LRTs like Ether.fi, Renzo, or Kelp DAO.
01
Native Restaking: Protocol Control
Direct AVS slashing and rewards: Protocols like EigenDA or Eoracle interact directly with your staked ETH, enabling custom slashing conditions and reward distribution. This is critical for high-security, bespoke Actively Validated Services (AVS) that require fine-grained economic security guarantees.
02
Native Restaking: Capital Efficiency
Maximizes yield for dedicated users: Stakers earn both Ethereum consensus rewards and AVS rewards without a middleman fee (e.g., LRT protocol's 10-20% cut). This is optimal for protocols targeting sophisticated, capital-heavy users who prioritize raw yield over liquidity, such as institutional validators.
03
Liquid Restaking Tokens: Instant Liquidity & Composability
Unlocks DeFi levers immediately: Tokens like eETH (Ether.fi) or ezETH (Renzo) can be used as collateral on Aave, used in Pendle yield strategies, or deposited in Curve pools on day one. This is essential for protocols whose users demand liquidity (e.g., lending markets, yield aggregators) to bootstrap TVL quickly.
04
Liquid Restaking Tokens: Simplified User Onboarding
Abstracts AVS complexity: Users deposit ETH and receive a single, yield-bearing token. The LRT protocol (e.g., Kelp DAO's rsETH) manages AVS operator selection and reward aggregation. This is ideal for consumer-facing dApps that need a frictionless, one-click restaking experience to attract mainstream users.
05
Native Restaking: Integration Overhead
High development and maintenance cost: Requires deep integration with EigenLayer's smart contracts and operator set, ongoing management of slashing conditions, and direct staker communication. This is a significant burden for lean teams and can delay time-to-market by months.
06
Liquid Restaking Tokens: Counterparty & Depeg Risk
Introduces protocol dependency: Your protocol's security now relies on the LRT's operator set and governance. Events like the Renzo ezETH depeg incident highlight smart contract and liquidity risks. This adds a layer of systemic risk unsuitable for maximalist security applications.
NATIVE RESTAKING VS LIQUID RESTAKING TOKENS
Technical Deep Dive: Security and Integration Complexity
For protocol architects and CTOs, the choice between integrating native restaking or LRTs is a fundamental architectural decision with major implications for security, complexity, and user experience. This analysis breaks down the core trade-offs.
Native restaking provides the strongest, most direct security. By integrating directly with EigenLayer, a protocol taps into the full economic security of the Ethereum validator set (e.g., 4+ million ETH). LRTs, like Kelp's rsETH or Renzo's ezETH, add a smart contract layer between the validator and the protocol, introducing a dependency on the LRT protocol's security and slashing management. For a protocol where security is the paramount non-negotiable, native integration is superior.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Strategic Recommendations for Builders
Choosing between native restaking and LRTs depends on your protocol's core need for sovereignty versus your users' demand for liquidity.
Native Restaking excels at providing protocols with direct, sovereign access to Ethereum's security and a customizable economic layer. For example, EigenLayer's mainnet has secured over $18B in TVL, enabling AVSs like EigenDA to bootstrap cryptoeconomic security without launching a new token. This direct integration allows for fine-tuned slashing conditions and deeper protocol integration, as seen with AltLayer's restaked rollups. The trade-off is that it requires your users to lock ETH in a relatively illiquid, complex staking contract.
Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) take a different approach by abstracting complexity for the end-user. Protocols like Ether.fi's eETH, Renzo's ezETH, and Kelp's rsETH wrap a user's restaked position into a liquid, yield-bearing asset. This results in superior capital efficiency and composability for users, who can then deploy their LRTs across DeFi (e.g., as collateral on Aave or in Pendle yield vaults). The trade-off is that your protocol becomes one step removed from the underlying security, relying on the LRT provider's middleware and facing potential fragmentation across different LRT standards.
The key trade-off is sovereignty vs. liquidity and adoption. If your priority is maximizing security integration, custom slashing, and protocol-level control, choose a native restaking strategy and build for sophisticated stakers. If you prioritize user accessibility, faster bootstrapping of TVL, and seamless DeFi composability, integrate support for major LRTs like eETH or ezETH to tap into a larger, more liquid capital base.
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