Provider at a glance
- Category
- Restaking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- puffer.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 70 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Puffer Finance (pufETH)
Native liquid restaking
Restaking
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 restaking in the published ranking
70
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Puffer Finance (pufETH) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- 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 exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?4/10 here; ether.fi scores 5
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?6/10 here; ether.fi scores 8
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 Puffer Finance (pufETH) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Puffer Finance (pufETH)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Puffer Finance (pufETH)
Compare all 4- 3ether.fi2 points above · stronger on incident record (8 against 6)72
- 5Renzo (ezETH)3 points below · stronger on slashing surface (5 against 4)67
- 6Swell (rswETH)4 points below · stronger on slashing surface (5 against 4)66
For your setup
Find out if Puffer Finance (pufETH) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Puffer Finance (pufETH) 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 this rank
Why Puffer Finance (pufETH) ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.4 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
344+4.355.08#7/7Loading evidence…
267+5.827.07#1/7Loading evidence…
266+4.997.09#5/7Loading 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−2behind ether.fi, #3
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–72 and stays #4
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 Puffer Finance (pufETH)’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? 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes ether.fi+274#4 → #3
How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes ether.fi+273#4 → #3
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes ether.fi+273#4 → #3
Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes ether.fi+373#4 → #3
What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? 4 → 2 on its ladder · Renzo (ezETH) passes it−266#4 → #6
How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? 7 → 5 on its ladder · Renzo (ezETH) passes it−267#4 → #5
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? 6 → 4 on its ladder · Renzo (ezETH) passes it−267#4 → #5
Smallest climb: “What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?” 4 → 6 passes ether.fi, #3.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- 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
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Puffer times and prices its exit better than almost anything in this category, and that is exactly what makes the silence next to it worth reading. Before depositing, open https://blog.puffer.fi/posts/puffer-sets-a-higher-standard-of-security-for-every-eth-staked (07/23/2026, the vendor's own flagship security document) and notice what it does not say. It bounds your downside at "up to 2% of all ETH staked on Ethereum were slashed in the same window" — that is an Ethereum-consensus bound, and it says nothing about the second, opt-in layer you are being paid to take. Puffer is clear about the first-loss layer: the operator's 2 ETH bond is burned before your principal is touched, stated on the docs and in that post. What no page Puffer controls will tell you is the second layer — no AVS is named, no restaking operator is named, no slasher is identified, no maximum restaking-layer loss is stated, and nothing says whether an AVS-layer slash is burned or paid to a named recipient. The two lines you meet first — "Industry-first anti-slashers and cryptoeconomics protect your ETH" (/restake) and "Slash Protection: first-of-its-kind anti-slashing hardware support" (docs) — are operator-side hardware, not depositor-side slashing terms. Two further things to check before you size a position: the docs assert a "daily withdrawal limit" (protocol/nlrt) whose value is published nowhere, and the 1% instant-exit fee is described by the vendor's own launch post as "configurable by the DAO". You are buying a named platform, EigenLayer, and an unnamed venue on top of it.
Competitive position
Where Puffer Finance (pufETH) 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#6 / 713.1 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 Puffer Finance (pufETH) leads
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?#1 / 7
- Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today?#1 / 7
Where it trails
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?#7 / 7
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?#5 / 7
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.
ether.fi#3 of 7 · score 72 · 2.0 points ahead
Puffer Finance (pufETH) leads on
- 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 exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?5 vs 4
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?8 vs 6
Largest single reason ether.fi is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: ether.fi has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Renzo (ezETH)#5 of 7 · score 67 · 3.0 points behind
Puffer Finance (pufETH) leads onNo scored criterion
Renzo (ezETH) leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?5 vs 4
Largest single reason Puffer Finance (pufETH) is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Renzo (ezETH) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Swell (rswETH)#6 of 7 · score 66 · 4.0 points behind
Puffer Finance (pufETH) leads on
- Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today?5 vs 2
Swell (rswETH) leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?5 vs 4
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?7 vs 6
Largest single reason Puffer Finance (pufETH) is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Swell (rswETH) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 70 · gap 10.0Why EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking ranks above Puffer Finance (pufETH)
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 10.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisEigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restakingGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.116.9−9.9, 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 criterionThisEigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restakingPoints
What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? · w3448−4.35, worse
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? · w2667−0.83, worse
Net7080−10.0
Your scenario
Puffer Finance (pufETH) 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 #4 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 4 · 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 6 · 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% (Puffer Finance (pufETH) 6/10)Scored by Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? · 14% (Puffer Finance (pufETH) 5/10)
- Control failure (Puffer Finance (pufETH) 4/10): 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 (Puffer Finance (pufETH) 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
- Withdrawal, 1-step (instant): "This option allows you to receive your WETH immediately." and "These instant withdrawals are made possible by Puffer's liquidity vault, but include a 1% fee on the withdrawn amount. The collected fee is directed to the protocol treasury, where it will later be used to fund in-protocol improvements and buybacks of the PUFFER token." Withdrawal, 2-step (standard): "this option allows you to convert your pufETH into WETH without paying any fees. This mode ensures the Protocol will have enough liquidity to cover the withdrawal, although it might take around 14 days to complete." Minimum: "This withdrawal mode has a minimum withdrawal amount of 0.01 pufETH." (all https://
docs .puffer .fi /yield /stakers /withdraw, fetched 28 September 2026). THE 1% IS NOT FIXED AND ITS DESTINATION IS PUBLISHED TWO WAYS: the vendor's launch post for this feature, https:// blog .puffer .fi /posts /pufeth-withdrawals-enhancing-flexibility-and-security-in-puffer-lrt-d 03dee863585 (published 10/16/2024, fetched 28 September 2026), states "The fee is configurable by the DAO and is burned, increasing pufETH value for all holders" — DAO-configurable, and burned to holders — against the docs page's treasury-and-buybacks destination. Both pages are live. The recurring fee on rewards is NOT quantified anywhere: https:// docs .puffer .fi /yield /protocol /rewards (fetched 28 September 2026) says only "The treasury is allocated a portion as a protocol fee".Puffer Finance (pufETH) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDPuffer Finance (pufETH) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- ethereum, base, bnb-chain, arbitrum, zircuit, apechain, soneium, berachain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Permissionless Ethereum smart-contract protocol with no geo-gate published. https://
www .puffer .fi /terms-of-service (re-loaded 16 August 2026) contains no named prohibited-jurisdiction list — only a generic undertaking not to use the Services in any way that violates any applicable "federal, state, local, or international law or regulation, including, without limitation, any applicable sanctions laws, export control laws, securities or other financial regulatory laws, anti-money laundering laws, or privacy laws" (verified character-exact). Bucketed as global on that basis; no licence or registration is asserted in any jurisdiction.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Puffer Finance (pufETH): 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 70, #4 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:puffer:2026.10.18:40c0e4edee69
Are you Puffer Finance (pufETH)? 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.