Origin Ether (OETH): liquid staking rating breakdown
It charges the highest fee here — 20% of yield, double Lido’s — and it comes second, because it is the only protocol in this entire study that treats liquidity as its own responsibility rather than somebody else’s problem. It runs a market-maker that actively maintains a deep pool: about $22m of sellable depth against a $72m token, a ratio of roughly 30%. Every other token here is between 0.05% and 4%. In a category where four fully-backed tokens have now cratered for lack of depth, paying 20% for a market that actually exists is arguably the fairest deal on the page — and it looks terrible in a fee-only comparison table, which is exactly why fee-only comparison tables are useless.
It charges the highest fee here — 20% of yield, double Lido’s — and it comes second, because it is the only protocol in this entire study that treats liquidity as its own responsibility rather than somebody else’s problem.
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% | 10 | 4.5 | 1 of 12 | +1.93 |
| Do they tell you what they take? | 20% of yield fee · published · 2026-07-15 · source | 25% | 7 | 6 | 4 of 12 | +0.25 |
| Net yield against the real ceiling | 2.336 net yield · sourced · 2026-07-15 · source | 20% | 8 | 8 | 4 of 12 | 0.00 |
| Custody and slashing | — | 12% | 7 | 8 | 8 of 12 | -0.12 |
| Restaking risk, disclosed | — | 8% | 10 | 10 | 1 of 12 | 0.00 |
Measured 15 July 2026 · weights and method · decided by is “liquid” actually true?, worth +1.93 points against the median
Is “liquid” actually true?: 10/10
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 10 of 10 against a category median of 4.5, which places it 1st of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 35% weight that is 1.93 points above 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?: 7/10
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 7 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 4th of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.25 points above 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: 7/10
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 7 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 8th of 12 among liquid staking on this criterion. At a 12% weight that is 0.12 points below the median contribution 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
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Is “liquid” actually true? | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Sanctum (INF) | 9 | Behind by 1 on is “liquid” actually true?. |
| 3 | Marinade (mSOL) | 5 | Behind by 5 on is “liquid” actually true?. |
Questions about this score
Why does Origin charge double Lido's fee?
+
Because it is paying for something Lido leaves to the market: a maintained secondary market for its own token. About 30% of OETH is genuinely sellable against stETH's 0.66%, and that depth costs money to provide. In a fee-only comparison it looks like the worst option here; on the metric that has actually cost people money, it is the best.
What is fee stacking and does it affect OETH?
+
Yes, and it should be priced. OETH is backed partly by other liquid staking tokens that have already paid their own fee — typically 10% — before Origin takes 20% of what remains. Compounded, that can be roughly 28% of gross rewards gone. The depth you are buying is real; so is the double cut.