ether.fi (eETH / weETH) Review
A long audit record and plain slashing disclosure
of 10
ether.fi (eETH / weETH) scores 7.2/10 in liquid restaking after a re-score from current sources, carried by nine named audit firms, a plain slashing page with named cover, and two documented exit routes. It no longer publishes the fee it takes, and eETH and weETH are no longer restaked after the 2026 EigenLayer wind-down. Basis: desk research, 1 November 2026.
Score
7.2/10: (3 + 8 + 7 + 8 + 10) / 5, re-scored from 5.6
Restaking status
EigenLayer wound down; under 1% restaked in Aug 2026; weETHs is opt-in
Instant exit fee
0.3% (30 bps), read from EtherFiRedemptionManager on 1 Nov 2026
Licence
MIT per README and file headers; no root LICENSE file
Audits
Nine named firms; 31 staking reports, Feb 2023 to Aug 2026
Slashing cover
Nexus Mutual, up to 15,000 ETH of validator slashing penalties
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (3.0 + 8.0 + 7.0 + 8.0 + 10.0) ÷ 5 = 7.2.
Pros
- Audits: nine named firms; the staking registry holds 31 dated reports, plus an Immunefi bounty
- Slashing page quantifies validator-level penalties and names Nexus Mutual cover up to 15,000 ETH
- Exit: an instant route with a 0.3% fee readable on-chain, plus a fee-free queued withdrawal
- Licence: MIT stated in the README and in the header of each core contract
Cons
- Commission: no current page states the reward split or the protocol fee rate
- eETH and weETH no longer carry restaking exposure; the EigenLayer position was wound down in 2026
- Instant exit depends on buffer liquidity and a rate limit; queued withdrawals have no stated time
- The README links a LICENSE file that is missing from the repository root
ether.fi's eETH and its wrapped form weETH score 7.2 out of 10 in liquid restaking, re-scored from current sources on 1 November 2026, up from 5.6. Readers should know one change before reading the marks. ether.fi has wound down its EigenLayer restaking, so eETH and weETH are now plain liquid staking tokens assessed against restaking criteria.
Status: eETH and weETH are no longer restaked
ether.fi's eETH and weETH page now says the tokens "do not include" restaking rewards or EigenLayer AVS slashing exposure. ether.fi reported that less than 1% of protocol assets remained restaked in August 2026. It planned to remove the rest by the end of the third quarter and to remove its EigenPod withdrawal credentials in the fourth. The Certora report in its audit registry dated 25 August 2026 is titled "EL Deprecation". Restaking survives only as an opt-in product, weETHs, which restakes on Symbiotic and carries its own slashing, counterparty and liquidity risks.
How ether.fi scores in liquid restaking
| Criterion | Finding (checked 1 Nov 2026) | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Commission clarity | The current staking, whitepaper, FAQ and help pages state no reward split or fee rate. In the code, the protocol fee is an amount the oracle reports at each rebase and mints to a fee recipient; no rate is fixed. | 3 |
| Slashing & risk disclosure | A dedicated slashing page says EigenLayer slashing no longer applies and quantifies Ethereum validator slashing. It states that no ether.fi validator has been slashed and cites Nexus Mutual slashing cover of up to 15,000 ETH. The weETHs page lists that product's slashing and counterparty risks. | 8 |
| Exit & redemption | Two routes. An instant redemption is rate-limited and needs buffer liquidity, with a 0.3% exit fee read from the contract on 1 November 2026. A queued withdrawal has no fee and no published processing time. | 7 |
| Licence & code openness | The README says the repository is MIT-licensed, and the source files carry MIT headers. The LICENSE file the README links to was not present in the repository root on 1 November 2026. | 8 |
| Audit disclosure | The audit page names nine firms, including Certora, CertiK, Halborn, Nethermind and Zellic. The staking registry holds 31 reports from February 2023 to August 2026, and there is a bug bounty on Immunefi. | 10 |
The arithmetic: (3 + 8 + 7 + 8 + 10) / 5 = 36 / 5 = 7.2.
What changed: audit disclosure rose from 2 to 10 and slashing disclosure from 3 to 8, because both pages can now be read and both are detailed. Exit rose from 6 to 7 now that the instant route and its fee are documented. Commission fell from 8 to 3 because the 90/5/5 reward split the old mark relied on is no longer published anywhere. Licence fell from 9 to 8 because the linked LICENSE file is missing.
Strongest criteria: audits and slashing disclosure
Audit disclosure (10) matches the category's top standard: many named firms, each report public and dated. The audit page names nine firms and links two registries. The staking registry alone lists 31 reports, including Certora's review of the June 2026 security upgrade.
Slashing & risk disclosure (8) reflects a plain statement of what is and is not at risk. For eETH and weETH the page says the only slashing risk is at the Ethereum validator level. It puts the upfront penalty at about 0.008 ETH on a 32 ETH validator since the Pectra upgrade, and it names a cover arrangement. Cover is limited to its own terms and does not guarantee principal. Restaking slashing is disclosed where it now lives, on the weETHs page. The mark stops short of the top because ether.fi's operator record is its own claim, and the cover's terms are set by Nexus Mutual rather than published by ether.fi.
Weakest criterion: commission is no longer stated
Commission clarity (3) is a real deficiency. The staking contracts take a protocol fee: the oracle reports an amount at each rebase, and it is minted to a fee recipient. But no current ether.fi page gives the rate or says how it is split. A holder can see only the net yield the app displays. That is weaker than a published figure, and slightly stronger than a protocol that states no fee at all, because the fee mechanism is visible in the code.
Exit & redemption (7) and licence (8) are both high but not top. The instant route depends on buffer liquidity and a rate limit, and the queued route has no stated time. The MIT licence is declared in the README and in each core file's header, but the LICENSE file the rubric reads from is missing.
What the score does not cover
- Staking yield, ETHFI incentives or points.
- ether.fi's other products: the Cash card, Liquid vaults, Borrow and the weETHs restaking vault.
- Incidents. ether.fi's incident log records a precautionary pause of all Liquid vaults for about a day after the 18 April 2026 Kelp rsETH bridge exploit; it says weETH stayed fully backed. It also records an 11 September 2026 exploit of a legacy Veda withdrawal queue that cost some Liquid-token holders about $40,000. ether.fi says those holders are being reimbursed in full and that no vault or protocol-held assets were affected.
- Hands-on use. The basis is desk research from ether.fi's documentation, its repository and an on-chain read of the redemption contract.
Our guide to staking returns after costs sets out how fees and exit terms reduce what a staker keeps.
ether.fi vs Renzo and YieldNest
Peer figures are the scores published on the liquid restaking ranking on 1 November 2026. Renzo (7.6) finishes 0.4 points ahead, almost entirely on commission: Renzo publishes a 10% fee and its split, earning 9 against ether.fi's 3. Renzo also leads on exit (9 against 7). ether.fi leads on slashing disclosure (8 against 6), licence (8 against 5) and audits (10 against 9).
YieldNest (6.8) finishes 0.4 points behind. YieldNest is a point ahead on commission and licence, and ether.fi leads on slashing disclosure (8 against 7), exit (7 against 6) and audits (10 against 8).
Who this rating suits
The score is useful to someone comparing what liquid staking and restaking tokens disclose about risk, audits and exits. Anyone choosing eETH or weETH for restaking exposure should note that the tokens no longer carry it, and that ether.fi does not publish the fee it takes. Nothing here is a recommendation to stake, restake or hold any token.
How it compares
Renzo (ezETH)
Fee split and withdrawal delays published layer by layer
YieldNest (ynETH)
Open BSD code backed by a long list of dated audits
EigenLayer
A long audit record and plain slashing disclosure
Symbiotic
Audit disclosure and documented slashing mechanics
Mellow
Audit disclosure: dated reports from six firms on one page
Kelp DAO (rsETH)
A long audit record and two published exit routes
Swell Restaking (rswETH)
A 10% reward fee that matches the live contract setting
Eigenpie (mLRT)
A published fee and three linked audits; exits paused
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.ether.fi docs — weETH / eETH (restaking status) — checked
- 2.ether.fi docs — staking — checked
- 3.ether.fi whitepaper — Ethereum staking — checked
- 4.ether.fi docs — weETHs (Super Symbiotic) — checked
- 5.ether.fi docs — slashing risk — checked
- 6.ether.fi docs — audits — checked
- 7.ether.fi docs — integration guide (instant and queued redemption) — checked
- 8.ether.fi Help Center — weETH (no fixed lock) — checked
- 9.ether.fi — smart contracts repository (README, MIT) — checked
- 10.ether.fi — staking audit registry — checked
- 11.Etherscan — EtherFiRedemptionManager — checked
- 12.ether.fi docs — incident: Kelp rsETH bridge exploit (18 Apr 2026) — checked
- 13.ether.fi docs — incident: legacy AtomicQueue exploit (11 Sep 2026) — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does ether.fi score 7.2?
It is the plain average of five equally weighted marks: 3 for commission, 8 for slashing disclosure, 7 for exit, 8 for licence and 10 for audits. Its audit record and slashing page carry the score; the unpublished fee holds it back.
Why did ether.fi's score change from 5.6?
The audit and slashing marks were set when those pages could not be read; both are now detailed, so they rose to 10 and 8. Exit rose to 7 with the instant route documented. Commission fell from 8 to 3 because the reward split is no longer published, and licence fell to 8 over the missing LICENSE file.
Are eETH and weETH still liquid restaking tokens?
No. ether.fi's documentation says they do not include restaking rewards or EigenLayer slashing exposure, and the remaining EigenLayer position is being wound down. Restaking is now offered separately through the opt-in weETHs vault on Symbiotic.
How much does it cost to exit ether.fi?
The instant redemption route charged 0.3% when read from the contract on 1 November 2026. It works only while buffer liquidity and a rate limit allow. The queued withdrawal has no fee but no published processing time.
How does ether.fi compare with Renzo and YieldNest?
Renzo's published score is 7.6, ahead mainly because it publishes its fee. YieldNest's is 6.8; ether.fi leads it on slashing disclosure, exit and audits.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.