Provider at a glance
- Category
- Restaking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- app.symbiotic.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 76 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Symbiotic
Restaking protocol with a veto layer
Restaking
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 restaking in the published ranking
76
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Symbiotic right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?7/10; the category best is 8
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?7/10, the category best
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?9/10, 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
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 Symbiotic cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Symbiotic?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Symbiotic
Compare all 4- 1EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking4 points above · stronger on slashing surface (8 against 7)80
- 3ether.fi4 points below · weaker on slashing surface (5 against 7)72
- 4Puffer Finance (pufETH)6 points below · weaker on slashing surface (4 against 7)70
For your setup
Find out if Symbiotic fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Symbiotic 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 Symbiotic ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (23.2 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
347+7.625.08#2/7Loading evidence…
267+5.827.07#1/7Loading evidence…
269+7.497.09#1/7Loading 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−4behind EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 74–78 and stays #2
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 Symbiotic’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? 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking+280#2 → #1
How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking+380#2 → #1
Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking+580#2 → #1
What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? 7 → 5 on its ladder · ether.fi passes it−272#2 → #3
How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? 7 → 4 on its ladder · ether.fi passes it−371#2 → #3
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? 9 → 6 on its ladder · ether.fi passes it−371#2 → #3
Smallest climb: “What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?” 7 → 9 passes EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking, #1.
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide? — 7/10, category best 8/10
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one? — 7/10, the category best
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? — 9/10, 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
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- Symbiotic is a $402.9M protocol with a $6.3M ETH restaking book, and its own homepage no longer uses the word. Of $402,888,609 across 398 vaults in its own API on 2026-09-28 (arithmetic, summed by ChainChoice), only $6,297,171 (1.6%) sits in the 55 vaults grouped "eth-restaking"; $282,397,303 (70.1%) sits in "network-exclusive" vaults backing single applications and $100,443,680 more in pre-deposit vaults with zero allocated stake. https://symbiotic.fi/ contains zero occurrences of "restak" — it sells "Collateral Markets" built on Liquid Lane, Credit and Insurance, and DefiLlama files it under Collateral Markets. Buying "Symbiotic" as an ETH restaking venue means buying a corner of a business that has moved on. Worse for a retail depositor, 34 of those 55 ETH vaults carry restricted: true in the vendor's own API — most are gated and not open to you, and the docs confirm "Private vaults accept deposits only from allowlisted addresses." Exposure is also wildly uneven: the second-largest ETH vault, Gauntlet Restaked wstETH ($1,013,103 on 2026-09-28), publishes a strategy that "seeks to allocate to as many networks as possible" and shows 62 network/operator opt-ins across 12 networks — with $0 allocated to every one of them, while the app still advertises 2.19% APR (that yield is the wstETH collateral's own, not a restaking premium). At the other extreme, ether.fi's weETH vault has 100% of its $22,523,837 (2026-09-28) allocated to a single network (Cap) through a single operator (M11 Credit) — one counterparty, no diversification. Three structural traps sit behind that. First, the exit clock is not fixed: the epoch that sets your [E, 2E) withdrawal wait "use[s] the same duration unless the curator later increases it", so a curator can lengthen your exit after you deposit — and the vault docs contradict this by saying the epoch "is set at vault deployment". Second, the veto layer that is this venue's real differentiator is invisible where you deposit: the app says "slashable: true" but the words slasher, resolver, burner and veto appear zero times in its entire 322KB vault API (2026-09-28), so you cannot tell whether your vault uses instant slashing, veto slashing or none without an eth_call the docs do at least tell you how to make. Third, and disclosed only inside a 40-page PDF: your "only recourse" against a curator changing the vault "is to fully withdraw... which may occur without any affirmative notification being given to you by Vault Deployers or us", and Vault Deployers hold "the power to change parameters or upgrade the Vault code wholesale". Score the vault, not the venue — and note the same collateral is committed to several networks at once (on 2026-09-28 six of the 55 ETH vaults had more stake allocated than they hold, and allocated stake was 237.5% of TVL across the BTC vaults, arithmetic from the vendor API).
Competitive position
Where Symbiotic 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#1 / 717.4 of 30 · pool best
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 Symbiotic leads
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?#2 / 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?#1 / 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.
EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking#1 of 7 · score 80 · 4.0 points ahead
Symbiotic leads on
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?9 vs 7
EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?8 vs 7
Largest single reason EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking has no verified pricing for this scenario.
ether.fi#3 of 7 · score 72 · 4.0 points behind
Symbiotic leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?7 vs 5
- How long until I actually have my ETH back on the worst day, not the good one?7 vs 5
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?9 vs 8
ether.fi leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Symbiotic is ahead: published criteria (+9.1 display points).Scenario cost: ether.fi has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Puffer Finance (pufETH)#4 of 7 · score 70 · 6.0 points behind
Symbiotic leads on
- What exactly can be taken from me, and who gets to decide?7 vs 4
- What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it?9 vs 6
Puffer Finance (pufETH) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Symbiotic is ahead: published criteria (+11.2 display points).Scenario cost: Puffer Finance (pufETH) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 76 · gap 4.0Why EigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restaking ranks above Symbiotic
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. Symbiotic is ahead on published criteria (+1.3 in its favour).
DimensionThisEigenLayer (EigenCloud) native restakingGap share
Availability · 23% weight12.014.0−5.2, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight17.416.9+1.3, better
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? · w3478−1.09, worse
What has actually gone wrong here, what did it cost, and did the vendor own it? · w2697+1.66, better
Net7680−4.0
Your scenario
Symbiotic 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 #2 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 7 · 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 9 · 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% (Symbiotic 9/10)Scored by Does the wrapper tell me what it runs on, and is what it tells me still true today? · 14% (Symbiotic 5/10)
- Control failure (Symbiotic 7/10): 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 (Symbiotic 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
- "Vault V2 supports two fee types that are configured directly on the vault: Management fee: a continuous fee charged on vault assets over time. Performance fee: a fee charged on the vault's positive performance." The management fee is "capped at MAX_MANAGEMENT_FEE = 5e16 / 365 days (≈ 5% annually)" and the performance fee is "capped at MAX_PERFORMANCE_FEE = 2e17 (20%)"; "Only addresses with the appropriate permission can update the management fee." Fees are paid in newly minted vault shares, so "the ownership of existing depositors is diluted proportionally" (all https://
docs .symbiotic .fi /integrate /curators /registry-and-fees, fetched 28 September 2026). CRITICAL SCOPE LIMIT — arithmetic, summed by this verifier from https:// app .symbiotic .fi /api /v3 /vaults on 28 September 2026, not a figure the vendor prints: these are VAULT V2 fees, and the 29 type-v2 vaults hold about USD 1.68M of about USD 402.9M across 398 vaults (0.4 percent). Type v1 holds about USD 300.8M (74.7 percent, 334 vaults) and pre-deposit about USD 100.4M (24.9 percent, 35 vaults). ZERO of the 55 eth-restaking vaults are v2. So this page does not describe the fee on any vault an ETH restaking depositor can enter today. The same page concedes a superseded model — "Unlike previous versions, there is no external rewards registry or curator registration" — and that previous model appears on none of the 63 URLs in https:// docs .symbiotic .fi /sitemap .xml. The only vendor statement covering the rest is in the Terms of Use (https:// app .symbiotic .fi /terms _of _use .pdf, "Last Updated Date: 1/23/2025", same 421,140-byte file as August): "Vault Deployers may receive fees from staking or restaking activities, which may be based on Staking Rewards, incentive programs". NO protocol-level deposit or withdrawal fee is DISCLOSED on any vendor page — but this is not the same as none existing: a contract named ProtocolFeeRegistry (0x9983edCD02f57b8b94bD8dE9D18E614dFB964d6D) is still listed on https:// docs .symbiotic .fi /get-started /resources /addresses with no rate. Economics are otherwise set per vault by the curator.Symbiotic — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDSymbiotic — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum
- Markets served
- europe, asia, latam, africa, mena, ca, au
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- CORRECTED — the prior pass reported no terms document exists; it does, and it bars the United States. The footer of https://
symbiotic .fi / links https:// app .symbiotic .fi /terms _of _use .pdf (HTTP 200, 421,140 bytes, 40 pages, "Last Updated Date: 1/23/2025", fetched and read 16 August 2026). Section 2.1 requires the user to represent they are "not a person barred from using Services under the laws of the United States, Cayman Islands, your place of residence, or any other applicable jurisdiction; and (iv) not located in, nor a current resident of, the United States." A separate representation extends the bar to beneficial owners and principals "located or ordinarily resident, organized, established, or domiciled in the United States, the United Kingdom, or any country where use or provision of the Services or related activities is illegal, prohibited, or requires a permit or license" — so UK exposure is barred where you act for a principal, though not for a UK individual acting for themselves. The Points Program terms add that participants must not be "subject to sanctions issued by the US, UK, or EU" or "a citizen or resident of any sanctioned jurisdiction". The operator is "GPRP", offering "Services... from its facilities in the Cayman Islands", with Cayman governing law and confidential CI-MAC arbitration seated in George Town. supportedRegions therefore excludes 'us'; 'global' was wrong. Note the gate is contractual and covers the front end — the terms state "For the avoidance of doubt, the Protocol is not a Service" — so the Ethereum contracts remain permissionless while app access is restricted. Per the pool's regulatory rule, no licence, registration or audit-derived permission is asserted; the document affirmatively disclaims one — "WE ARE NOT AN EXCHANGE, TRUST COMPANY, LICENSED BROKER, DEALER, BROKER-DEALER, INVESTMENT ADVISOR, INVESTMENT MANAGER, OR ADVISER" — so regulatory.licenses stays empty and complianceLevel stays "minimal". A second, non-geographic gate also applies: 140 of 392 vaults, and 34 of the 55 ETH restaking vaults, carry restricted: true in the vendor API, meaning a per-vault allowlist may bar a depositor regardless of country. (PDF quotes rendered in corrected spelling; the file's ti/fi ligatures mangle under text extraction.)
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Symbiotic: 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 76, #2 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:symbiotic:2026.10.18:40c0e4edee69
Are you Symbiotic? 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.