EigenLayer: defi protocols rating breakdown
Restaking · $6.71bn
It secures $6.71bn and it created an entire category, which is why it belongs on a blue-chip page even though it is the youngest protocol here. The idea — reusing staked ETH as security for other services — is genuinely new economic infrastructure, and it has operated at scale without losing user stake.
It secures $6.71bn and it created an entire category, which is why it belongs on a blue-chip page even though it is the youngest protocol here. The idea — reusing staked ETH as security for other services — is genuinely new economic infrastructure, and it has operated at scale without losing user stake.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who can change the contract holding your money | — | 32% | 4 | 6.5 | 8 of 8 | -0.80 |
| Track record, and who paid when it broke | — | 25% | 6 | 7.5 | 7 of 8 | -0.38 |
| Value secured | $6.71bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 20% | 9 | 8.5 | 3 of 8 | +0.10 |
| Can an outsider verify it? | no is maximum restaker loss quantified · sourced · 2026-08-27 | 13% | 6 | 8 | 7 of 8 | -0.26 |
| Chains and integration | — | 10% | 4 | 8 | 8 of 8 | -0.40 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by who can change the contract holding your money, worth -0.80 points against the median
Who can change the contract holding your money: 4/10
Sourced to each protocol’s own documentation: are the contracts immutable, upgradeable behind a timelock, or upgradeable by a multisig that can act immediately. If there is an emergency power — a pause, a freeze, a guardian — we record who holds it and how fast they can use it. Uniswap’s pool contracts cannot be upgraded at all. Most of this page can be changed by a vote, and some of it by a handful of signers.
Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 8th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 32% weight that is 0.80 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Track record, and who paid when it broke: 6/10
Years of continuous operation holding real money, every incident with its date and amount, and whether users were made whole. Age alone is not evidence — plenty of protocols were old on the day they failed — but age combined with an unbroken record of not losing user funds is the strongest signal this category offers.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 7.5, which places it 7th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.38 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 5.
Value secured: 9/10
Total value locked at a stated timestamp, and thirty days of protocol fees as evidence that the value is being used rather than parked. Scale matters here in a specific way: a protocol securing tens of billions has been a standing target for years and has not been taken.
Scored 9 of 10 against a category median of 8.5, which places it 3rd of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 20% weight that is 0.10 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 5.
Can an outsider verify it?: 6/10
Open-source contracts, published audits, public parameter and risk documentation, and whether the numbers a front end shows can be independently recomputed from public data. A protocol that publishes the formula behind its yield is making a checkable claim; one that publishes only the number is not.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 7th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 13% weight that is 0.26 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 6.
Chains and integration: 4/10
Chains with real deployments, and how deeply the protocol is used as infrastructure by others, from public data at a stated timestamp.
Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 8th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.40 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Other measurements
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
Questions about this score
What is the maximum I can lose by restaking on EigenLayer?
+
Nobody publishes a number, including EigenLayer. Your stake secures services whose slashing conditions they define, and since April 2025 a slashed stake can be redistributed to the service that slashed it rather than destroyed — which changes the incentives of whoever operates that service. Underwriting a risk that nobody has quantified is a defensible choice only if you have decided you can lose the position.
Who can change EigenLayer's contracts?
+
A multisig, subject to a timelock, per the protocol's own documentation. That is the most upgradeable arrangement among the blue chips in this rating, and it is a reasonable choice for a young system that may need to fix things — while remaining a small group with authority over $6.71bn.