Provider at a glance
- Category
- Restaking
- Official website
- eigencloud.xyz
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking
Native restaking on EigenLayer
Restaking
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 restaking in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?8/10, the category best
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?7/10, the category best
- Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today?5/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?7/10 here; Symbiotic scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best restaking protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking
Compare all 4- 2Symbiotic4 points below · stronger on incident record (9 against 7)76
- 3ether.fi8 points below · stronger on incident record (8 against 7)72
- 4Puffer Finance (pufETH)10 points below · weaker on slashing surface (4 against 8)70
For your setup
Find out if EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best restaking protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (22.6 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 3 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
348+8.705.08#1/7Loading evidence…
267+5.827.07#1/7Loading evidence…
267+5.827.09#3/7Loading evidence…
145+2.245.05#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+4over Symbiotic, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 80 and stays #1
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? 8 → 6 on its ladder · Symbiotic passes it−279#1 → #2
How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? 7 → 4 on its ladder · Symbiotic passes it−378#1 → #2
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? 7 → 4 on its ladder · Symbiotic passes it−378#1 → #2
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? — 8/10, the category best
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? — 7/10, the category best
- Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? — 5/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The 17.5-day figure is not your escape hatch, and this is the one thing to read before committing. ALLOCATION_CONFIGURATION_DELAY (126000 blocks) is the delay before an operator can CHANGE their notice period — it is not the notice you get. The window that actually protects you is ALLOCATION_DELAY, which EigenLayer's own reference table says is set by the operator and on which "The protocol provides no constraints", and which its contract documentation says "operators can choose to configure this delay however they want - including setting it to 0." Two further paths give you no notice at all: delegating to an operator who is already allocated makes "all funds of the `staker` … immediately slashable" on the spot, and an AVS adding a strategy to an existing operator set makes "any existing allocations to that strategy instantly slashable." So the security of your ETH here is a property of the operator you choose, not of the protocol you deposit into — and no vendor page enumerates the live operator sets: the app that would is returning HTTP 500 today, and the ecosystem page that might substitute now lists AI-agent demos with not one occurrence of the word AVS. The compensating fact, and the reason native restaking is the more conservative way to use this platform: native ETH is the one strategy an AVS cannot point at a redistribution address. "Native ETH and EIGEN are not yet eligible for redistribution" — so your worst case is that the ETH is destroyed, never that it is paid to whoever chose to slash you. Budget more than 24 days for a full exit, not the 8-17 days one docs page still advertises off a superseded 7-day escrow; its own legs come to about 24 days with the 14-day escrow, before an exit queue it says "has never exceeded 7 days" but which passed 46 days in September 2025 (CoinDesk); the escrow is 14 days, published on four other vendor pages and confirmed onchain.
Competitive position
Where EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 714.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#2 / 716.9 of 30 · best 17.4
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking leads
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?#1 / 7
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?#1 / 7
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?#3 / 7
- Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today?#1 / 7
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Symbiotic#2 of 7 · score 76 · 4.0 points behind
EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?8 vs 7
Symbiotic leads on
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?9 vs 7
Largest single reason EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Symbiotic has no verified pricing for this scenario.
ether.fi#3 of 7 · score 72 · 8.0 points behind
EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?8 vs 5
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?7 vs 5
ether.fi leads on
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?8 vs 7
Largest single reason EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: ether.fi has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Puffer Finance (pufETH)#4 of 7 · score 70 · 10.0 points behind
EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?8 vs 4
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?7 vs 6
Puffer Finance (pufETH) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking is ahead: published criteria (+9.9 display points).Scenario cost: Puffer Finance (pufETH) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
80 vs 76 · gap 4.0Why EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking ranks above Symbiotic
DimensionThisSymbioticGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.012.0+5.2, better
Published criteria · 35% weight16.917.4−1.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisSymbioticPoints
What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? · w3487+1.09, better
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? · w2679−1.66, worse
Net8076+4.0
Your scenario
EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking is not priced for this scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?strength 8 · weight 34Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?strength 7 · weight 26Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?strength 7 · weight 26Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today?strength 5 · weight 14Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? · 26% (EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking 7/10)Scored by Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? · 14% (EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking 5/10)
- Control failure (EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking 8/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? · 34%
- Exit failure (EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking 7/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Insolvency failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- EigenLayer publishes no deposit, withdrawal or management fee for native restaking on any restaker-facing page. It DOES publish the fee taken from rewards, in plain language, on its rewards concept pages (Layr-Labs/eigencloud-docs, the un-gated source of the Cloudflare-gated docs.eigencloud.xyz, fetched 28 September 2026): "Operators can [set their per-AVS fee rate](../../operators/howto/configurerewards/set-rewards-split.md) on AVS Rewards to any amount from 0% to 100%. The default split is 10%." (concepts/rewards/rewards-concept.md), and "By default, Operators earn a 10% split on Rewards. The rest of the reward is claimable by the Operator's delegated Stakers." (concepts/rewards/rewards-split.md). The same 10% default is stated for programmatic incentives (concepts/rewards/pi-split.md). Note one internal contradiction: concepts/rewards/rewards-claiming-faq.md still says "Operators get a fixed 10% portion rewards, though this is subject to change in a future release to be variable", which the 0–100% concept page has already superseded. The contract docs add a mechanical restatement — "The split lookup chain is: operator set split → global default split → 10% fallback." (docs/core/RewardsCoordinator.md in Layr-Labs/eigenlayer-contracts) — and mention an unquantified EigenLayer-level charge, "Takes the protocol fee (if the submitter is opted in for protocol fees)", without ever stating its rate. Checked 2026-09-28: nothing under docs/eigenlayer/restakers/ states a rate; the fee disclosure lives one directory over in concepts/rewards/. Native restaking is otherwise gas-cost bearing: "the web app will batch up to 80 validators per proof transaction batch." (restakers/restaking-guides/0-restaking-user-guide/native-restaking/README.md).EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDEigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- ethereum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- CORRECTED — the earlier "no geographic restriction is published or implied" was false and rested on grepping only the restaker and concept doc sections, not the legal section. The protocol layer is genuinely open: native restaking is executed by interacting with permissionless Ethereum mainnet contracts and by running a beacon-chain validator, neither of which is gated by residence, and no jurisdiction, OFAC or restricted-territory language appears anywhere in the restaker or concept documentation. But the INTERFACE is scoped. The EigenCloud Terms of Service (Last Revised 15 December 2025) bars any "Prohibited Person" — anyone on a US SDN / Denied Persons / Entity List, or "located or organized in any U.S. embargoed countries or region any country or region that has been designated by the U.S. Government as 'terrorist supporting'" — from the Websites and App, adds US export-control terms, states "The Services are operated by us in the United States", and reserves the right to block a user from "restaking assets or withdrawing previously Staked Assets" through the App. That is standard US sanctions scoping rather than a country-by-country geoblock, so the bucket stays `global`. The binding practical constraint is operational, not geographic: the vendor warns that "Running your own EigenPod for native restaking is an advanced task that requires operating and maintaining Ethereum validator infrastructure", which puts this product out of reach of the buyer who wants a token they can simply hold.
Legal entity on file: EigenLayer, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 80, #1 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt restaking:eigenlayer:2026.10.18:40c0e4edee69
Are you EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.