Liquid Collective (LsETH): liquid staking rating breakdown
It cut its fee from 15% to 10% — worth crediting, because fees in this sector essentially never go down — and its slashing treasury is funded continuously by mechanism rather than by a discretionary vote, which is structurally the best cover design in the Ethereum set.
It cut its fee from 15% to 10% — worth crediting, because fees in this sector essentially never go down — and its slashing treasury is funded continuously by mechanism rather than by a discretionary vote, which is structurally the best cover design in the Ethereum set.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is “liquid” actually true? | — | 35% | 4 | 4.5 | 7 of 12 | -0.17 |
| Do they tell you what they take? | — | 25% | 3 | 6 | 12 of 12 | -0.75 |
| Net yield against the real ceiling | — | 20% | 8 | 8 | 4 of 12 | 0.00 |
| Custody and slashing | — | 12% | 8 | 8 | 6 of 12 | 0.00 |
| Restaking risk, disclosed | — | 8% | 10 | 10 | 1 of 12 | 0.00 |
Measured 15 July 2026 · weights and method · decided by do they tell you what they take?, worth -0.75 points against the median
Is “liquid” actually true?: 4/10
The question every comparison omits, and the one that has actually cost people money. We take the token’s outstanding value and set it against the depth genuinely available to sell into — on-chain pools, and daily turnover. The ratios are brutal: a token with a billion dollars outstanding and two million dollars of exit is not liquid, it is a building with an emergency exit sized for one person. Backing does not save you. Depth does.
Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 4.5, which places it 7th of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 35% weight that is 0.17 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 2.
Do they tell you what they take?: 3/10
Not the fee percentage — whether the yield they SHOW you is the yield you GET. Some publish the formula and hand you the raw numbers to check. Others advertise a rate that explicitly excludes their commission, and say so only in a support article nobody reads. And the worst simply state a number and never mention a take rate at all, which we then have to derive by dividing.
Scored 3 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 12th of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.75 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 3.
Net yield against the real ceiling: 8/10
Measured against the gross rate the network actually pays, which we derive rather than accept: the protocol APR, before anyone’s cut. Every token is scored on how much of that it gives back to you.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 4th of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 20% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 7.
Custody and slashing: 8/10
Do you hold an asset or an IOU? And when a validator is slashed, what actually covers it — a contractual claim you own, a fund of undisclosed size, or a discretionary vote by token-holders? Note that Solana has no protocol slashing at all, which is a real structural advantage its LSTs are never given credit for.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 6th of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 12% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 7.
Restaking risk, disclosed: 10/10
A liquid staking token must not quietly become a restaked one. We check whether the product takes on EigenLayer-style obligations, and whether that extra risk is quantified anywhere for the holder. A plain LST scores full marks here by simply not doing it.
Scored 10 of 10 against a category median of 10, which places it 1st of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 10.
Other measurements
- slashing treasury size
- not published PUBLISHED
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Do they tell you what they take? | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Jupiter (jupSOL) | 5 | Ahead by 2 on do they tell you what they take?. |
| 9 | Mantle (mETH) | 7 | Ahead by 4 on do they tell you what they take?. |
| 11 | Stader (ETHx) | 5 | Ahead by 2 on do they tell you what they take?. |
| 12 | StakeWise (osETH) | 4 | Ahead by 1 on do they tell you what they take?. |
Questions about this score
What makes Liquid Collective's slashing coverage better than most?
+
It is funded continuously by mechanism rather than by a governance vote after the fact. A treasury that fills automatically is a commitment; a fund that requires a decision to deploy is an intention. In a category where most protection is the second kind, that structural difference is worth more than a slightly better headline rate.