Provider at a glance
- Category
- Restaking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- renzoprotocol.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 67 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Renzo (ezETH)
EigenLayer liquid restaking token
Restaking
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 restaking in the published ranking
67
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Renzo (ezETH) 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?5/10 here; the category best is 8
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?6/10 here; Swell (rswETH) scores 7
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Canada, Australia.
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 Renzo (ezETH) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Renzo (ezETH)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Renzo (ezETH)
Compare all 4- 4Puffer Finance (pufETH)3 points above · weaker on slashing surface (4 against 5)70
- 6Swell (rswETH)1 point below · stronger on incident record (7 against 6)66
- 7Kelp DAO (rsETH)4 points below · weaker on worst case exit (3 against 7)63
For your setup
Find out if Renzo (ezETH) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Renzo (ezETH) 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 Renzo (ezETH) ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.5 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
345+5.445.08#3/7Loading 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−3behind Puffer Finance (pufETH), #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 65–69 and ranks #5–#6
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 Renzo (ezETH)’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? 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Puffer Finance (pufETH)+271#5 → #4
How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Puffer Finance (pufETH)+270#5 → #4
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Puffer Finance (pufETH)+270#5 → #4
Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Puffer Finance (pufETH)+470#5 → #4
What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? 5 → 4 on its ladder · Swell (rswETH) passes it−165#5 → #6
How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? 7 → 6 on its ladder · Swell (rswETH) passes it−165#5 → #6
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? 6 → 5 on its ladder · Swell (rswETH) passes it−165#5 → #6
Smallest climb: “What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?” 5 → 7 passes Puffer Finance (pufETH), #4.
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? — 5/10 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
- Read the withdrawals page and the AVS page together, because they answer opposite questions with opposite quality. Renzo publishes every leg of its exit, attributed, and its empty-buffer wait - "if empty, the expected wait time is between 10-15 days" - but nowhere across the 211,688-byte full export of its own documentation (2026-09-28) does it name a single AVS your ezETH actually secures, state a maximum slash, identify who holds the slashing key, or say where slashed principal goes ("slasher", "veto", "resolver" and "operator set" each appear zero times). You would be accepting an unbounded, unnamed slashing surface in exchange for an itemised exit estimate whose 9-10 day beacon leg reflects current conditions, not a worst case: Ethereum's exit queue passed 46 days in September 2025 (CoinDesk, 2025-09-16). Note also that the 7-day "buffer has assets" figure sits below EigenLayer's own 14-day floor printed two lines above it: the buffer covers that gap, and the buffer is exactly what empties in the rush that would make you want out. On disclosure culture, weigh this: when ~$5.39M of ezETH was drained from Balancer pools on 3 Nov 2025, Renzo's blog published a promotional buyback announcement two days later and has never mentioned the exploit on any editorial page. And check what you are buying into - on 2026-09-09 Renzo Protocol renamed itself Renzo Finance and launched a Hyperliquid basis trade; its old homepage is now a one-line splash, the rebrand post and new docs never mention ezETH or restaking, and /restake still 308-redirects to /stake.
Competitive position
Where Renzo (ezETH) 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#5 / 712.0 of 20 · best 14.0
Published criteria#3 / 713.9 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 Renzo (ezETH) leads
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?#3 / 7
- 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 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.
Swell (rswETH)#6 of 7 · score 66 · 1.0 point behind
Renzo (ezETH) 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 has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?7 vs 6
Largest single reason Renzo (ezETH) is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Swell (rswETH) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Puffer Finance (pufETH)#4 of 7 · score 70 · 3.0 points ahead
Renzo (ezETH) leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?5 vs 4
Puffer Finance (pufETH) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Puffer Finance (pufETH) is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Puffer Finance (pufETH) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Kelp DAO (rsETH)#7 of 7 · score 63 · 4.0 points behind
Renzo (ezETH) leads on
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?7 vs 3
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?6 vs 5
- Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today?5 vs 4
Kelp DAO (rsETH) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Renzo (ezETH) is ahead: published criteria (+9.1 display points).Scenario cost: Kelp DAO (rsETH) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 67 · gap 13.0Why EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking ranks above Renzo (ezETH)
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 13.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisEigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restakingGap share
Availability · 23% weight12.014.0−5.2, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight13.916.9−7.8, 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? · w3458−3.26, worse
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? · w2667−0.83, worse
Net6780−13.0
Your scenario
Renzo (ezETH) 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #5 to #6 across one-point re-runs
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 5 · 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% (Renzo (ezETH) 6/10)Scored by Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? · 14% (Renzo (ezETH) 5/10)
- Control failure (Renzo (ezETH) 5/10): 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 (Renzo (ezETH) 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
- Renzo's ezETH page (https://
docs .renzoprotocol .com /docs /products /staking-suite /ezeth .md, fetched 28 September 2026) states: "Renzo passes 100% of any EigenLayer rewards" and "Renzo charges a 10% fee on rewards generated via restaking. The fees are split 50/50 between protocol reserves (treasury) and Renzo node operators." No deposit fee is published there. The instant-withdrawal fee is published only as a formula, with no rate: users pay "a variable fee that changes based on the withdrawal buffer size", set between a "Minimum Fee (Basis Points)" and a "Maximum Fee (Basis Points)" (https:// docs .renzoprotocol .com /docs /services /instant-withdrawals .md, fetched 28 September 2026). L2 native restaking adds a bridge fee of "Up to 5 basis points" and a time-discount fee of 9 bps for ETH and WETH and 4 bps for wstETH (https:// docs .renzoprotocol .com /docs /integrations /l2-native-restaking .md, fetched 28 September 2026).Renzo (ezETH) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDRenzo (ezETH) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Linea, Solana, Arbitrum, Zircuit, Mode, Base, Optimism, Blast, Fraxtal, BNB Chain, Monad, Sei
- Markets served
- europe, asia, latam, africa, mena, ca, au
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Deliberately NOT "global" and explicitly NOT "us". Renzo's own Terms of Service (https://
docs .renzoprotocol .com /docs /legal /terms-of-service .md, re-read 16 August 2026) states: "NOTICE ON PROHIBITED USE – US AND OTHER RESTRICTED PERSONS: THE SERVICES ARE NOT OFFERED TO AND MAY NOT BE USED BY: PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO RESIDE IN, ARE CITIZENS OF, ARE LOCATED IN, ARE INCORPORATED IN, OR HAVE A REGISTERED OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (COLLECTIVELY, “US PERSONS”)", and separately "The Services are not authorized for use in certain other jurisdictions, such as the United States of America". The same notice extends the ban to "ANY RESTRICTED TERRITORY, AS DEFINED BELOW" - but that phrase appears exactly once in the document and no definition follows, so the vendor's non-US exclusion list is never actually published. The country list quoted in an earlier draft is NOT in this Terms of Service: it comes from the separate token-distribution terms, https:// docs .renzoprotocol .com /docs /legal /terms-of-service-rez-claim .md and https:// docs .renzoprotocol .com /docs /legal /terms-of-service-eigen-claim .md, which each state "You are not eligible to participate in the Token Distribution if you are located in, or a resident of the United States, US, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Ukraine, Syria or if you are a Prohibited Person (as defined below)" - a restriction on the airdrop, not on ezETH use. Listed buckets are therefore permissionless access minus the vendor's own stated exclusions; sanctioned-state exclusions inside mena/europe still apply. No licence, registration or authorisation is asserted for this product and none was read on any register - regulatory.licenses stays empty and complianceLevel stays "minimal".
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Renzo (ezETH): 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 67, #5 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:renzo:2026.10.18:40c0e4edee69
Are you Renzo (ezETH)? 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.