Lido: defi protocols rating breakdown
Liquid staking · $24.4bn
The largest single protocol in DeFi by value secured, at $24.43bn, and one of the very few that publishes the formula behind its own yield rather than just the number — its documentation defines user APR as protocol APR net of the fee, and its API returns the inputs, so a holder can recompute what they are being paid. Five years, no loss of staked ETH.
The largest single protocol in DeFi by value secured, at $24.43bn, and one of the very few that publishes the formula behind its own yield rather than just the number — its documentation defines user APR as protocol APR net of the fee, and its API returns the inputs, so a holder can recompute what they are being paid.
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% | 5 | 6.5 | 7 of 8 | -0.48 |
| Track record, and who paid when it broke | — | 25% | 9 | 7.5 | 3 of 8 | +0.38 |
| Value secured | $24.43bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source$38.60m 30-day protocol fees · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 20% | 10 | 8.5 | 1 of 8 | +0.30 |
| Can an outsider verify it? | yes — formula and inputs are published can you recompute the advertised yield · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 13% | 9 | 8 | 1 of 8 | +0.13 |
| Chains and integration | — | 10% | 6 | 8 | 6 of 8 | -0.20 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by who can change the contract holding your money, worth -0.48 points against the median
Who can change the contract holding your money: 5/10
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 5 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 7th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 32% weight that is 0.48 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: 9/10
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 9 of 10 against a category median of 7.5, which places it 3rd of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.38 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 5.
Value secured: 10/10
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 10 of 10 against a category median of 8.5, which places it 1st of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 20% weight that is 0.30 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?: 9/10
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 9 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 1st of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 13% weight that is 0.13 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 6.
Chains and integration: 6/10
Chains with real deployments, and how deeply the protocol is used as infrastructure by others, from public data at a stated timestamp.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 6th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.20 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Who can change the contract holding your money | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Aave | 6 | Ahead by 1 on who can change the contract holding your money. |
| 3 | Morpho | 9 | Ahead by 4 on who can change the contract holding your money. |
| 5 | Sky (Maker) | 6 | Ahead by 1 on who can change the contract holding your money. |
| 6 | Compound | 7 | Ahead by 2 on who can change the contract holding your money. |
Questions about this score
Is stETH the same as ETH?
+
It represents staked ETH and it trades as its own asset, which is not the same thing. In June 2022 stETH printed a 6.5% discount when a forced seller met a drained pool, and the underlying ETH was never impaired — the token was simply harder to sell than its holders assumed. Depth, not backing, decides what you can exit at.
Can Lido's DAO change how staking works?
+
Yes. The contracts are upgradeable through DAO governance, with emergency committees that can act quickly — appropriate for a protocol securing $24bn of staked ETH, and a real answer to the question of who holds authority here. Lido's mitigation is unusual transparency about the mechanics rather than the absence of the power.