Bedrock (uniETH) Review

uniETH is Bedrock's liquid staking token for Ethereum. In the liquid staking ranking it now scores 6.6 out of 10 on five equally weighted criteria, up from 5.0, after a re-check of Bedrock's documentation, its contract repository and the staking contract on 1 November 2026. The rise comes from one criterion: the contract repository that Bedrock's own docs link to carries an open-source licence. The fee and audit marks hold steady. Exits still come in 32 ETH units, and the operators behind the validators are not identified.

How Bedrock scores in liquid staking

Each criterion is marked 0 to 10 and carries the same 20% weight. The basis is desk research of primary sources, not a test deposit.

The arithmetic: (8 + 6 + 2 + 10 + 7) / 5 = 33 / 5 = 6.6.

What changed: licence and code openness rose from 2 to 10. The July 2026 review could not confirm a contract repository with a licence file. Bedrock's smart contracts page now points to one, and its GPL-3.0 licence meets the same standard as Stader's GPL-3.0 repository, which also scores 10. The other four marks are unchanged because the fee, exit, operator and audit pages read the same as in July.

Strongest criteria: open code and a stated fee

Licence & code openness (10). The rubric reads the licence file on the protocol's contract repository, and a recognised open-source licence scores highest. Bedrock's uniETH contracts page links to a public repository under GNU GPL version 3. Its README gives the deployed mainnet addresses, including the staking contract that reports the exchange ratio, so the code can be matched to what holders use. One caveat sits outside the mark. The linked repository is a fork of RockX-SG/stake, which was last updated in December 2025, while the fork was last updated in July 2024. A reader comparing source with deployed contracts should check both.

Commission clarity (8). The 10% figure is stated, along with what it applies to: block rewards, transaction fees and MEV. That is more specific than a single headline rate. Of 1 ETH in rewards, 0.1 ETH goes to the protocol and 0.9 ETH lifts the uniETH ratio. The missing points reflect the open item Bedrock itself flags: no rate is set yet for restaking fees.

Audit disclosure (7). The uniETH audit is linked and the firm named, which meets the category's definition of disclosure. It sits below Stader, Origin and Mantle (9 each) because one firm, PeckShield, covers uniETH and nothing is dated after February 2024. Bedrock's recent audits cover Bitcoin products, not uniETH.

Weakest criteria: a disclosure gap and an exit design

Operator decentralisation (2). This is the bottom mark for a disclosure gap, not a finding that operators are poor. The docs describe a validator cluster but name no operator, give no validator count and set out no way for outsiders to join. The staking contract reported 10,208 ETH staked on 1 November 2026, about 319 validators' worth, but who runs them is not stated. A named permissioned set would score higher, as Mantle's five named operators do at 6.

Exit & redemption (6). The terms are stated, which keeps this mark mid-scale, but the design limits who can redeem. Native redemption works only in whole 32 ETH units and takes roughly 9 to 17 days in total. A holder with 5 ETH, or 40 ETH, must swap some or all of the position at market price through an aggregator the docs do not name. That price can differ from the 1.1451 ETH per uniETH ratio the contract reported on 1 November. Ankr, at 9, publishes an instant route with a stated 0.5% fee alongside its standard exit.

What the score does not cover

• Eligibility. Bedrock's terms of use exclude users in the United States and its territories, China, Singapore and FATF high-risk jurisdictions. No criterion scores availability, but US readers cannot use the product.
• Upgrade control. The contracts are behind a proxy admin and the restaking contract is upgradeable. The docs do not say who controls upgrades or whether a timelock applies.
• Incidents. In September 2024 Bedrock's uniBTC vault was exploited, according to the security firm Dedaub. Dedaub's account does not mention uniETH, and no criterion scores incident history.
• Restaking. uniETH is restaked through EigenLayer, which adds that protocol's own risk. Restaking designs are compared in the liquid restaking ranking.
• Yield. The rubric does not mark the reward rate. For how commission and exit costs reduce a quoted rate, see staking returns after costs.

Bedrock vs Mantle, Puffer and Ankr

At 6.6, Bedrock ties Liquid Collective in the liquid staking ranking. The methodology breaks ties alphabetically, so on the 1 November 2026 marks Bedrock is listed sixth of ten, just ahead of Liquid Collective and below Mantle at 8.2 and Puffer at 7.8. The peer marks below are as published on that date.

Mantle leads Bedrock by 1.6, gaining on exit, operators and audits and matching it on licence. Puffer leads by 1.2, gaining on exit, operators and audits, though it publishes no fee percentage. Against Ankr, Bedrock gives up three points on exit and one on operators and gains eight on licence. Peer entries are re-checked on their own schedules, so these comparisons hold for the check date.

Who this rating suits

The score is most useful to a holder outside the excluded jurisdictions who wants a stated fee and contract code they can read under an open licence. It is less suited to anyone who needs to redeem amounts that are not multiples of 32 ETH at the contract ratio, or who wants to know which operators run the validators. The rating describes published terms on one date; it is not a recommendation to stake and does not assess any individual's circumstances.