Every restaking protocol tells you slashing is a risk. Puffer built its architecture around making it hard to happen. Node operators run a secure-signer enclave that enforces anti-slashing rules at the hardware level, so the most common causes of penalty — double-signing after a botched migration or a duplicated key — are prevented rather than insured against.
Lower bonds, broader participation
Because the hardware reduces slashing risk, Puffer requires a smaller bond from node operators than comparable protocols. That opens validation to people who cannot post a full validator's worth of collateral, which improves decentralisation in a category that otherwise concentrates around professional operators.
The unproven part
The safety argument depends on the enclave working as specified and on operators running it honestly. Trusted execution environments have had vulnerabilities disclosed in other contexts, and the model has not been stress-tested by a determined attacker at scale. It is a well-reasoned design rather than a demonstrated one.
Economics and liquidity
The fee is around 5%, below the category norm, which partly offsets the thin restaking yield. pufETH liquidity is well behind weETH, so exits at size depend on the withdrawal queue.
Who should use it
Restakers who find the anti-slashing thesis convincing and want a lower fee, and small operators who want to run validators without a full bond. Those prioritising exit liquidity should use ether.fi.