LIVELive Market
15 services rated

Best Liquid Staking Protocols

LST issuers ranked on decentralisation, peg behaviour and withdrawal design.Every score below is the weighted mean of the rubric marks, not an editor's gut feel.

How we score this category

Full methodology →
Validator decentralisation
How operators are chosen, how many there are, and what share of the network the protocol controls.
25%
Contract security
Audit depth, time in production, upgrade keys and the size of the bug bounty.
20%
Peg & liquidity
Secondary-market depth and how the token behaved in past stress events.
20%
Withdrawal design
Whether redemption is permissionless, how long the queue runs, and what happens when everyone exits at once.
15%
Fees
Protocol cut of staking rewards and any additional operator layer.
10%
Transparency
Public operator lists, real-time reserve data and honest disclosure of governance powers.
10%
8.7
Rank 1 · Strong

The only major LST where anyone can become an operator, and the one that treats decentralisation as a constraint rather than a slogan.

Validator decentralisation
9.5
Contract security
9.0
Peg & liquidity
8.0
Withdrawal design
9.0
Fees
6.5
Transparency
9.5
~14% node commission plus 5% protocol fee on rewardsSince 2021Read full review →
8.5
Rank 2 · Strong

The Solana LST that actively spreads stake toward smaller validators, at some cost to its own market share.

Validator decentralisation
9.0
Contract security
8.5
Peg & liquidity
7.5
Withdrawal design
8.5
Fees
8.5
Transparency
9.0
~6% of rewardsSince 2021Read full review →
8.3
Rank 3 · Strong

Solana's dominant LST, paying out MEV revenue that ordinary staking leaves on the table, at a genuinely low fee.

Validator decentralisation
7.5
Contract security
8.5
Peg & liquidity
8.5
Withdrawal design
8.5
Fees
9.0
Transparency
8.0
~4% of rewardsSince 2022Read full review →
8.3
Rank 4 · Strong

The most liquid, most integrated LST in existence, and the one whose size is a standing argument about Ethereum's decentralisation.

Validator decentralisation
6.0
Contract security
9.0
Peg & liquidity
10.0
Withdrawal design
9.0
Fees
8.0
Transparency
8.5
10% of staking rewardsSince 2020Read full review →
8.2
Rank 5 · Strong

Vault-based staking that lets you pick the operator and the fee — the most flexible architecture in the category, with the least liquidity.

Validator decentralisation
9.0
Contract security
8.5
Peg & liquidity
6.5
Withdrawal design
8.5
Fees
8.0
Transparency
9.0
Set per vault, typically 5–10%Since 2021Read full review →
7.3
Rank 6 · Solid

Liquid staking built to institutional standards, including the compliance screening that makes it unusable for anyone who wanted permissionless.

Validator decentralisation
6.5
Contract security
8.5
Peg & liquidity
6.0
Withdrawal design
8.0
Fees
7.5
Transparency
8.5
~10% of rewardsSince 2022Read full review →
7.2
Rank 7 · Solid

A well-audited LST underwritten by a very large treasury, and effectively an extension of one ecosystem's balance sheet.

Validator decentralisation
6.0
Contract security
8.0
Peg & liquidity
7.0
Withdrawal design
8.0
Fees
7.5
Transparency
7.5
~10% of rewardsSince 2023Read full review →
7.2
Rank 8 · Solid

Liquid staking across many chains with a permissionless operator pool on Ethereum, spread thinner than the single-chain specialists.

Validator decentralisation
7.5
Contract security
7.0
Peg & liquidity
6.5
Withdrawal design
7.5
Fees
7.5
Transparency
7.5
~10% of rewardsSince 2021Read full review →
7.2
Rank 9 · Solid

A capable mid-sized LST that has bet its future on restaking, which adds yield and a second layer of risk.

Validator decentralisation
7.0
Contract security
7.5
Peg & liquidity
6.5
Withdrawal design
7.5
Fees
7.5
Transparency
7.5
~10% of rewardsSince 2022Read full review →
7.1
Rank 10 · Solid

The dominant Avalanche LST, deeply integrated into the chain's DeFi and limited by the same chain's activity.

Validator decentralisation
6.5
Contract security
7.5
Peg & liquidity
6.5
Withdrawal design
7.5
Fees
7.5
Transparency
7.5
~10% of rewardsSince 2021Read full review →
7.0
Rank 11 · Solid

The main liquid staking option for Polkadot and Kusama, operating in an ecosystem whose liquidity has shrunk around it.

Validator decentralisation
7.5
Contract security
7.0
Peg & liquidity
5.5
Withdrawal design
7.5
Fees
7.0
Transparency
7.5
~10–15% of rewardsSince 2019Read full review →
6.9
Rank 12 · Mixed

Competitive yields engineered through the Frax ecosystem, with a validator set and governance that are anything but open.

Validator decentralisation
5.5
Contract security
7.5
Peg & liquidity
7.0
Withdrawal design
7.5
Fees
7.5
Transparency
7.0
~10% of rewardsSince 2022Read full review →
6.4
Rank 13 · Mixed

A regulated, audited wrapper around Coinbase's own validators, charging a quarter of your rewards for the privilege.

Validator decentralisation
4.0
Contract security
8.5
Peg & liquidity
7.5
Withdrawal design
7.0
Fees
3.5
Transparency
8.0
25% of rewardsSince 2022Read full review →
6.3
Rank 14 · Mixed

Large, liquid and entirely dependent on one exchange — a custodial staking product wearing an LST's clothes.

Validator decentralisation
3.5
Contract security
7.5
Peg & liquidity
8.0
Withdrawal design
6.5
Fees
7.5
Transparency
5.5
~10% of rewardsSince 2023Read full review →
6.2
Rank 15 · Mixed

Broad multi-chain coverage from a firm whose 2022 key compromise let an attacker mint a trillion tokens.

Validator decentralisation
6.0
Contract security
5.5
Peg & liquidity
5.5
Withdrawal design
7.0
Fees
7.5
Transparency
6.5
~10% of rewardsSince 2017Read full review →

How OBOL rates liquid staking protocols

A liquid staking token is a claim on staked collateral, wrapped in a smart contract, secured by validators you did not choose. Each of those layers can fail independently, so decentralisation of the operator set carries the most weight here — a protocol that routes a large share of a network's stake through a permissioned operator list is a risk to the chain and a correlated risk to its own holders.

Peg behaviour is scored on history, not theory. Every LST trades at a discount when exit queues lengthen and leverage unwinds; the question is how deep the discount went, how long it lasted, and whether redemption remained available throughout.

Withdrawals are the whole design

Before Ethereum enabled withdrawals, LSTs were an exercise in trust. Now the question is mechanical: can you redeem directly from the protocol without permission, how long is the queue, and does the contract prioritise anyone ahead of you. Protocols where exit depends on secondary-market liquidity rather than redemption score materially lower.

Fees compound quietly

A ten per cent protocol fee on staking rewards sounds small against a headline yield. Over a multi-year holding period, layered on top of an operator commission, it is the difference between matching the network rate and trailing it. We score the total leakage, not the headline number.

FAQ

Is liquid staking riskier than staking directly?
Yes. You add smart-contract risk, governance risk and market risk on top of validator risk. What you get for that is liquidity and no minimum — a fair trade for many, but not a free one.
Why do LSTs trade below the value of the assets behind them?
Because exiting takes time. When the withdrawal queue lengthens or leveraged positions unwind, holders who want out immediately sell into the secondary market, and the discount is the price of that immediacy.
Does using a smaller LST help decentralisation?
Yes, at the cost of contract maturity and exit liquidity. Spreading across two protocols is a reasonable compromise for larger positions.