YieldNest (ynETH) Review
Open BSD code backed by a long list of dated audits
of 10
YieldNest scores 6.8 in liquid restaking for ynETH, on a BSD 3-Clause licence, dated audits and an explanation of how AVS slashing works that has thinned since the last check. Its main weakness is cost: a protocol fee and a withdrawal fee are documented, but neither rate is published. The score rests on desk research of YieldNest's documentation and code, checked November 1, 2026.
Overall score
6.8 = (4 + 7 + 6 + 9 + 8) / 5; third of nine in liquid restaking
Protocol fee
Basis-point setting in RewardsDistributor; current rate not published
Withdrawal delay
Longer of beacon-chain exit or EigenLayer's 50,400 blocks (about 7 days)
Licence
BSD 3-Clause, yieldnest-protocol repository
Audits listed
ChainSecurity, Zokyo, Composable Security, NFR Audits (2024 to 2025)
Evidence checked
YieldNest docs and GitHub, November 1, 2026; desk research only
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (4.0 + 7.0 + 6.0 + 9.0 + 8.0) ÷ 5 = 6.8.
Pros
- Protocol code released under the BSD 3-Clause open-source licence (licence mark 9)
- Dated audit reports from ChainSecurity, Zokyo, Composable Security and NFR Audits for 2024 and 2025, plus an Immunefi bounty
- Documentation explains that AVSs define their own slashing conditions and lists unintended slashing as an evaluation risk
- Withdrawal flow specified step by step, including the 50,400-block EigenLayer delay and two faster exit routes
Cons
- Protocol fee is a basis-point contract setting with no published current rate (commission mark 4)
- Withdrawal fee is recorded in each claim NFT, but its size is not stated
- Native exit takes roughly a week or more, and requests cannot be cancelled once made
- Slashing explanation now sits only in pages labeled legacy, with no insurance described (slashing mark cut from 8 to 7)
How YieldNest scores in liquid restaking
This entry rates ynETH, YieldNest's native-ETH restaking token on EigenLayer, in our liquid restaking ranking. The basis is desk research of YieldNest's own documentation and code repository, checked on November 1, 2026. Nothing here comes from depositing or withdrawing. The category uses five criteria, each marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally, as set out in our ratings methodology.
| Criterion | What the documentation shows | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Commission clarity | A protocol fee is taken from staking and AVS rewards, and its basis-point rate is a contract setting. No current percentage is published. A withdrawal fee is written into each claim NFT, with its size unstated. | 4 |
| Slashing & risk disclosure | Explains that AVSs set their own slashing conditions and that breaching them leads to asset slashing. Lists unintended and subjective slashing among the AVS evaluation risks. This now sits only in pages labeled legacy, and no insurance is described. | 7 |
| Exit & redemption | A non-cancellable queue with a claim NFT. The beacon-chain exit and EigenLayer's 50,400-block delay (about 7 days) run in parallel, and selling on a DEX is the faster route out. | 6 |
| Licence & code openness | The protocol repository is under the BSD 3-Clause licence. | 9 |
| Audit disclosure | Dated reports from ChainSecurity, Zokyo, Composable Security and NFR Audits for 2024 and 2025, plus an Immunefi bug bounty. | 8 |
The overall score is the plain average: (4 + 7 + 6 + 9 + 8) ÷ 5 = 34 ÷ 5 = 6.8. On the current peer scores, that places YieldNest third of nine services in the category, behind Renzo (7.6) and ether.fi (7.2). One mark changed at this check. Slashing & risk disclosure fell from 8 to 7, because the plain statement of additional AVS slashing conditions that supported the 8 no longer appears in the documentation. What remains is a mechanism-level explanation in pages labeled "legacy" technical specifications. That puts it level with peers that explain network-defined slashing without a direct user-facing warning.
Strongest criteria: licence, audits and slashing
Licence & code openness (9)
The LICENSE file in the yieldnest-protocol GitHub repository is the BSD 3-Clause licence, "Copyright (c) 2023, YieldNest." This is a standard permissive open-source licence, so anyone can read, reuse and fork the contracts behind ynETH. That is why the mark sits near the top of the scale.
Audit disclosure (8)
The audits page lists a full-system review by ChainSecurity dated April 15, 2024, and a second ChainSecurity ynETH/ynLSDe review dated August 9, 2024. Zokyo reviews follow in May 2024, December 2024, January 2025 and February 2025, the last covering the ynETH and ynLSDe upgrade for EigenLayer slashing. Composable Security reviewed the MAX LRT, ynBTCk and ynBNBx code in January 2025, and NFR Audits produced 2025 reports on vault and strategy code. YieldNest also runs an Immunefi bug bounty and names Hypernative for monitoring. Two points keep the mark at 8 rather than higher. Several 2025 entries, including the April 28, 2025 ynETH slashing upgrade, are posted without an auditor's name. And the reports are file attachments, not a table that maps each report to the deployed contract versions.
Slashing & risk disclosure (7)
YieldNest's AVS evaluation pages explain the mechanism in plain terms. A restaker or node operator who acts against an AVS's slashing conditions faces asset slashing, and each AVS is free to define those conditions. The evaluation checklist names "risks of unintended slashing" and "subjective conditions for slashing" among the criteria used to vet AVSs. The YieldNest Risk Team page, which says the team is operated by LlamaRisk, lists slashing risk from code errors among the risks it assesses. That is still more than most peers in this ranking publish about restaking-specific risk.
It is no longer an 8, for three reasons. The earlier plain sentence warning that AVSs can impose additional slashing conditions on restaked ETH is gone. The remaining explanation sits inside a section the documentation labels "legacy" technical specifications, not on the ynETH product page. And the security page presents the topic as "Minimized Slashing Risk". A holder has to look for the explanation, and no insurance or loss-coverage arrangement is described.
Weakest criteria: fees and exit
Commission clarity (4): a deficiency, not a gap in our checking
The documentation shows that a fee exists and where it lives, but not its size. The technical specification says the protocol takes "a protocol fee from the total Ethereum staking and AVS restaking rewards." The roles page shows that the Security Council multisig sets the fee receiver and the fee in basis points in the RewardsDistributor contract. The withdrawal page says each claim NFT records "the amount of the withdrawal fee," but gives no rate. A holder therefore cannot work out the net reward rate from the documents alone and would have to read the contract on a block explorer. Our guide to staking returns after costs explains why that missing number matters.
Exit & redemption (6)
The redemption flow is fully described. A withdrawal request moves ynETH into the WithdrawalQueueManager and mints a claim NFT. The request cannot be cancelled. The wait is the longer of the beacon-chain exit and EigenLayer's minWithdrawalDelayBlocks of 50,400 blocks, about 7 days. The page itself estimates about 8.5 days for a full validator withdrawal sweep. The alternatives are swapping ynETH on a DEX, which YieldNest warns can be costly through slippage, or selling the claim NFT to a buyer willing to wait. The mark stays in the middle because the native exit takes a week or more and has no cancel option. Part of the page still says ynETH withdrawals are waiting for an EigenLayer upgrade, so the text has not kept pace with the live flow.
What the score does not cover
- Yield. Quoted or realized APY is not a criterion. The ynETH page's 12.5% figure is labeled an assumption for an example.
- Admin control. A 3-of-5 Security Council multisig can upgrade any contract and set the fee, and the roles page lists no timelock. This matters to holders but is not one of the five marks.
- Other YieldNest products. MAX vaults such as ynETHx and the BTC and BNB strategies are not scored here.
- Contract safety. Audit disclosure measures what is published, not whether the code is free of flaws. An audit is not insurance.
YieldNest vs Renzo, ether.fi and Symbiotic
Renzo (ezETH) leads the category at 7.6. The difference from YieldNest comes from fees and exit: Renzo marks 9 on commission clarity and 9 on exit, against YieldNest's 4 and 6. YieldNest scores higher on slashing disclosure (7 against 6) and licence openness (9 against 5). ether.fi, second at 7.2 after its own re-scoring, matches YieldNest's weakness on commission clarity (3 against 4). It leads on slashing disclosure (8), exit (7) and audits (10), and trails slightly on licence (8 against 9). EigenLayer and Symbiotic follow at 6.6, both with 7 for slashing disclosure.
Who this rating suits
The score suits ETH holders who weigh restaking risk disclosure, open code and a visible audit record most heavily, and who can accept a week-long native exit. It is a weaker match for anyone who needs to know the exact fee before depositing. It is a reading of published documents, not a recommendation to restake.
How it compares
Renzo (ezETH)
Fee split and withdrawal delays published layer by layer
ether.fi (eETH / weETH)
A long audit record and plain slashing disclosure
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.YieldNest docs: ynETH — checked
- 2.YieldNest docs: ynETH withdrawals — checked
- 3.YieldNest docs: legacy technical specifications (protocol fee) — checked
- 4.YieldNest docs: intro to AVS/network evaluation (slashing conditions) — checked
- 5.YieldNest docs: AVS evaluation — checked
- 6.YieldNest docs: YieldNest Risk Team — checked
- 7.YieldNest docs: audits and security measures — checked
- 8.YieldNest docs: roles and multisigs — checked
- 9.YieldNest: protocol LICENSE (BSD 3-Clause) — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does YieldNest score 6.8?
It is the plain average of five equally weighted marks: 4 for commission clarity, 7 for slashing and risk disclosure, 6 for exit and redemption, 9 for licence and code openness and 8 for audit disclosure. They total 34, and 34 divided by 5 is 6.8.
What holds the YieldNest score back?
Mostly fee disclosure. YieldNest documents that it takes a protocol fee from rewards and charges a withdrawal fee, but it publishes neither rate. The exit mark of 6 also reflects a native withdrawal that takes about a week or more and cannot be cancelled.
What changed since the previous scoring?
Slashing and risk disclosure fell from 8 to 7, taking the overall score from 7.0 to 6.8. The sentence warning that AVSs can impose additional slashing conditions is no longer in the docs, and the remaining explanation sits in legacy pages. The other four marks are unchanged. The check was desk research only.
How does YieldNest compare with Renzo and ether.fi?
Renzo ranks first at 7.6, helped by marks of 9 for commission clarity and exit, where YieldNest has 4 and 6. ether.fi is second at 7.2. It shares YieldNest's weak fee disclosure (3) but leads on slashing disclosure (8 against 7), exit (7 against 6) and audits (10 against 8).
Does the score account for who controls the YieldNest contracts?
Not directly. The roles page shows that a 3-of-5 Security Council multisig can upgrade contracts and set the fee, with no timelock listed. That is relevant to risk but sits outside the five criteria used in this category.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.