Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquid Staking
- Entity
- All 3 Lido products
- Official website
- lido.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Lido
Ethereum liquid staking
Liquid Staking
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 11 liquid staking in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $160 commission/yr
Is Lido right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Unstake path8/10, the category best
- Peg stability9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Operator set4/10 here; StakeWise scores 9
- Commission6/10 here; Jito scores 10
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best liquid staking protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will Lido cost you?
$160 commission/yr
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
- Commission on rewards
- 10%
Level with the median of 10 priced liquid staking.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Lido?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Lido
Compare all 4- 1Jito4 points above · stronger on commission (10 against 6)83$64
- 2Marinade2 points above · stronger on commission (10 against 6)81$0.00
- 4StakeWise9 points below · stronger on operator set (9 against 4)70$80
For your setup
Find out if Lido fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Lido 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 liquid staking protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Lido ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (21.8 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
288+7.176.08#1/11Loading evidence…
269+7.495.09#1/11Loading evidence…
264+3.334.010#6/11Loading evidence…
206+3.846.010#4/11Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Marinade, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 77–80 and stays #3
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 Lido’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.
Redemption mechanics 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Marinade+282#3 → #2
Operator decentralisation 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Marinade+282#3 → #2
Commission take-rate 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Marinade+382#3 → #2
Redemption mechanics 8 → 3 on its ladder · StakeWise passes it−570#3 → #4
Peg resilience & exit depth 9 → 3 on its ladder · StakeWise passes it−669#3 → #4
Smallest climb: redemption mechanics 8 → 10 passes Marinade, #2.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Redemption mechanics — 8/10, the category best
- Peg resilience & exit depth — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Operator decentralisation — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Commission take-rate — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Less specialized if decentralization posture is the main priority
- Not the strongest fit if validator-level control matters most
Competitive position
Where Lido 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 / 1120.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#3 / 1116.4 of 30 · best 19.5
Friction#2 / 112.7 of 10 · best 7.3
Trust record#1 / 113.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#2 / 118.3 of 18 · best 9.7
Where Lido leads
- Redemption mechanics#1 / 11
- Peg resilience & exit depth#1 / 11
- Commission take-rate#4 / 11
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.
Marinade#2 of 11 · score 81 · 2.0 points ahead
Lido leads on
- Peg resilience & exit depth9 vs 7
Marinade leads on
- Operator decentralisation7 vs 4
- Commission take-rate10 vs 6
Largest single reason Marinade is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Marinade's figure is the fee alone, plus withdrawal fees and network gas.
Jito#1 of 11 · score 83 · 4.0 points ahead
Lido leads on
- Peg resilience & exit depth9 vs 8
Jito leads on
- Operator decentralisation7 vs 4
- Commission take-rate10 vs 6
Largest single reason Jito is ahead: published criteria (+8.1 display points).Scenario cost: Jito is −$96 against Lido.
StakeWise#4 of 11 · score 70 · 9.0 points behind
Lido leads on
- Redemption mechanics8 vs 6
- Peg resilience & exit depth9 vs 4
- Commission take-rate6 vs 5
StakeWise leads on
- Operator decentralisation9 vs 4
Largest single reason Lido is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: StakeWise is −$80 against Lido.
Against the leader
83 vs 79 · gap 4.0Why Jito ranks above Lido
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 4.0 to within rounding. Lido is ahead on measured data (+3.6 in its favour).
DimensionThisJitoGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.419.5−8.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight8.36.9+3.6, better
Published criterionThisJitoPoints
Peg resilience & exit depth · w2698+0.83, better
Operator decentralisation · w2647−2.50, worse
Commission take-rate · w20610−2.56, worse
Net7983−4.0
Your scenario
What Lido costs on your 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%
Commission on rewards · published rate10%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 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.
$160
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$16010 of 11 rows priced · Lido at the median
Cheapest priced$64 · JitoLido costs +$96 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Jito
1 of 11 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
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 #3 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.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Redemption mechanicsstrength 8 · weight 28Report an error——
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.Peg resilience & exit depthstrength 9 · weight 26Report an error——
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.Operator decentralisationstrength 4 · weight 26Report an error——
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.Commission take-ratestrength 6 · weight 20Report an error——
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
- Verification failure (Lido 4/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Operator decentralisation · 26%
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Redemption mechanics · 28% (Lido 8/10)Scored by Peg resilience & exit depth · 26% (Lido 9/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Insolvency failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Commission take-rate (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "Lido charges a protocol fee (currently 10%) on the rewards accumulated by the staked ETH underlying the protocol." — Lido protocol-fee page, fetched 30 September 2026. Its module table gives stakers "90%" of rewards in every staking module; the other tenth is split between node operators and the DAO in proportions that differ by module. "The protocol fee is waived during periods of negative net rewards, when Consensus Layer penalties exceed earned rewards." Neither the protocol-fee page nor the withdrawals page names a deposit or exit fee: the native exit is the FIFO Withdrawal Queue, where "The maximum withdrawable ETH amount matches the stETH provided for redemption and cannot exceed this amount." Ethereum gas applies.Lido — official page at lido.fi ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDLido — official page at lido.fi ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum staking route with supported liquid-staking integrations across major chains
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Ethereum staking users, Global liquid-staking participants
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Validator design, liquidity usage, and onchain risk depend on protocol mechanics and actual integration path.
- Availability note
- Protocol access is broadly global onchain, but local legal treatment and wallet access still need verification.
Legal entity on file: Lido, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Lido: 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.
9 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 79, #3 of 11. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 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.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt liquid_staking:lido:2026.10.18:519206225f87
Are you Lido? 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.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of Lido , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.