TL;DR
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
Ether.fi plans to remove its last structural link to EigenLayer this quarter, after making restaking optional and reducing the share of its assets restaked to under 1%. CoinDesk reports that restaking generated $99,977 in fees in the week before Sept. 8, while five leading liquid restaking token protocols recorded lower combined gross profit in the second quarter of 2026 than three quarters earlier. The data point to weak revenue for the sector, though the source material does not establish the financial position of every restaking business.
Ether.fi plans to remove its final structural link to EigenLayer this quarter, as the liquid staking provider retreats from restaking amid weak yields and concerns about added risk. CoinDesk reports that protocol documentation showed less than 1% of ether.fi assets remained restaked in August; the move is part of a broader downturn in revenue across major liquid restaking tokens.
Ether.fi removed restaking from weETH, its widely used liquid token, in August. The token now represents ordinary liquid staking, while users seeking restaking must opt into a separate token built on Symbiotic, a competing platform. Protocol documentation said the remaining EigenPod withdrawal credentials were due to be removed by year-end.
Chief Executive Mike Silagadze told CoinDesk that ether.fi’s decision reflected risk and a lack of meaningful yield. The figures cited in the report offer a wider measure of the sector’s economics: on Sept. 8, DefiLlama’s restaking category held $10.02 billion and generated $99,977 in fees over the preceding week. Its liquid staking category held $51.87 billion and generated $27.35 million in fees over that same period.
The five largest remaining liquid restaking tokens named in the report—Renzo, Kelp, Swell, Puffer Finance and Bedrock—recorded $953,350 in combined gross profit in the second quarter of 2026. The same group recorded $2.18 million three quarters earlier. The report says Puffer recorded $21,590 for the quarter and Swell $22,370.
Restaking Revenue Falls Behind
The figures suggest that restaking has not produced the additional income its early pitch promised at a scale that could sustain the sector’s growth. Restaking was designed to let ETH already staked to secure Ethereum also secure other services, such as oracles and data availability networks. Those services were expected to pay for that security, giving depositors a second source of yield.
CoinDesk’s comparison shows how small reported fees were relative to the capital in the restaking category. It also reports that ordinary liquid staking generated roughly 53 times more fees per dollar secured in the cited week. That is a snapshot of category fees, not proof that every provider has the same costs, revenue mix or profitability.
The difference matters to users because liquid restaking tokens combine a staking position with extra protocol and software dependencies. A token’s use as collateral can spread risk into lending markets, as the Kelp bridge incident illustrated. When the added yield is limited, users and providers may have less reason to accept those additional dependencies.
From Growth to Lower Returns
EigenLayer’s restaking model drew substantial deposits in 2024. CoinDesk reports that EigenLayer held $19.7 billion at its peak and that liquid restaking tokens grew more than 1,000% in their first six weeks. Those figures describe an earlier period of rapid expansion; they do not show current returns.
The model depended on other services paying to use restaked ETH’s security. According to the report, those payments did not cover the underlying staking return plus a premium for taking on another layer of risk. Deposit points programs, which had subsidized participation, wound down through 2025. Then slashing went live in April 2025, making penalties for operator misconduct a real possibility. The report says no extra yield emerged to compensate for that downside.
The sector’s reported revenue also needs careful interpretation. CoinDesk says Kelp recorded $460,600 in EIGEN token rewards as gross revenue and the same amount as cost of revenue, because the tokens went directly to depositors. It says Puffer and Swell accounted for staking rewards in a similar way. In those examples, the rewards did not become protocol profit; the report attributes protocol earnings to fees on the underlying staking activity.
“There were no meaningful yield opportunities in restaking and there was some perceived risk from stakers, so we decided it made sense to exit.”
— Mike Silagadze, ether.fi chief executive, speaking to CoinDesk
Risk Beyond the Restaking Layer
The Kelp incident involved a cross-chain bridge, rather than a failure of EigenLayer’s restaking mechanism, according to the report. On April 18, an attacker exploited the bridge and created 116,500 rsETH, valued at about $293 million, without ETH backing. The attacker deposited the tokens on Aave and borrowed real ether against them. CoinDesk says about $6 billion left Aave in the following days and estimates potential bad debt at $123 million to $230 million.
The source says no ETH was slashed and no restaking mechanism broke in that incident. The loss instead involved the token wrapper and bridge. The precise eventual bad debt, recovery and lasting effect on users are not established in the supplied material. Nor do the category fee totals or five protocols’ gross profit figures disclose the full operating costs or financial results of every provider.
CoinDesk’s supplied report excerpt ends while describing a shift toward curated lending vaults. It does not provide the rest of that account, so the scale of any movement from restaking into dollar-based lending strategies cannot be established here.
Ether.fi’s Remaining Changes
Ether.fi’s remaining structural connection to EigenLayer is expected to be removed by the end of 2026, according to the report. The company had already taken restaking out of weETH and made participation through its separate Symbiotic-based token optional. The report does not give a more specific date for completing the withdrawal-credential change.
For the sector, the next useful indicators will be whether services buying restaked security generate enough fees to support provider economics, and whether users continue to deposit despite slashing and wrapper risks. CoinDesk says Aave revised its collateral listing standards in May to consider cybersecurity and technical architecture alongside price volatility. Further data on protocol revenue, costs, user deposits and any bad debt from the Kelp incident would help show how the market is responding.
Key Questions
What is ether.fi changing?
Ether.fi removed restaking from weETH in August and plans to remove its last structural connection to EigenLayer this quarter. Users seeking restaking must opt into a separate token built on Symbiotic, according to the report.
How much did restaking generate in fees?
DefiLlama’s restaking category generated $99,977 in fees over the week before Sept. 8, while holding $10.02 billion, as reported by CoinDesk. That is a category-level figure for one week, not a complete measure of protocol profit.
Did the Kelp exploit break EigenLayer?
The report says the April 18 exploit targeted Kelp’s cross-chain bridge. It says no restaking mechanism broke and no ETH was slashed in the incident. The attacker created unbacked rsETH and used it as collateral on Aave.
Are liquid restaking tokens profitable?
The five largest remaining tokens named in the report recorded $953,350 in combined gross profit in the second quarter of 2026, down from $2.18 million three quarters earlier. The figures do not establish the net profitability of every protocol or disclose all costs.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
