arxiv: 2604.03274 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-23 · 💱 q-fin.GN · cs.CR· q-fin.RM

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Financial Dynamics and Interconnected Risk of Liquid Restaking

Hasret Ozan Sevim , Christof Ferreira Torres

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.GN cs.CRq-fin.RM

keywords liquid restakingRenzo protocolEigenLayerrevenue driversbridge riskDeFi interconnectionsystemic riskmulti-blockchain expansion

0 comments

The pith

Revenue in liquid restaking protocols is primarily driven by underlying ecosystem value locked, token yields, and multi-chain expansion, while current bridge risks do not create systemic threats.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tracks the restaking sector in decentralized finance and measures what drives revenue for a specific liquid restaking service. Statistical models applied to Renzo Protocol data show that revenue tracks the total value locked in the base EigenLayer system, the yield paid on its own restaking token, and the token's spread across additional blockchains. Asset-flow mapping across protocols indicates that the present volume of bridged restaking assets does not yet threaten stability in the wider staking and restaking markets. The work matters because restaking promises extra returns yet creates new links that can transmit failures between services. Two stress scenarios are examined to illustrate how large token compromises or contract failures could propagate through those links.

Core claim

The revenue dynamics of Renzo Protocol are analyzed by employing an OLS regression model, Granger-causality and random forest feature importance tests. Our results identify that revenue is primarily predicted by the value locked in the underlying EigenLayer ecosystem, the yield of Renzo protocol's liquid restaking token and the multi-blockchain expansion of that token. The multi-blockchain expansion of the liquid restaking token presents a double-edged sword: bridging to other networks is crucial for user adoption, but it adds the bridge risks to the existing risks of restaking. By mapping the asset flow across the decentralized finance ecosystem, it is detected that the bridge risk of the 0

What carries the argument

OLS regression, Granger causality tests, and random forest feature importance applied to revenue data, together with asset-flow mapping across DeFi protocols to trace risk transmission paths.

If this is right

Growth in EigenLayer locked value will increase Renzo revenue in line with the measured relationship.
Higher yields on the liquid restaking token will directly raise protocol revenue.
Further multi-blockchain expansion will support adoption and revenue while adding bridge exposure.
At present asset volumes the bridged positions remain too small to produce systemic effects on restaking markets.
Large-scale token compromises or smart-contract failures could transmit losses across connected DeFi services.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar revenue patterns may appear in other liquid restaking protocols that rest on the same base ecosystem.
Dynamic monitoring of asset flows could be needed once total bridged volumes exceed current thresholds.
The double-edged character of cross-chain growth suggests protocols may need dedicated bridge-risk controls as scale increases.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen regression, causality tests, and feature-importance methods correctly isolate the main revenue drivers without omitted variables or post-selection bias.

What would settle it

Updated data in which revenue varies independently of EigenLayer locked value, token yield, or blockchain count, or a bridge incident at current asset levels that triggers widespread restaking withdrawals, would undermine the central findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03274 by Christof Ferreira Torres, Hasret Ozan Sevim.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Restaking phenomenon can be explained with ’multi-validation’. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Value Flow Chart: represents the interconnectedness between different DeFi services, specifically staking and restaking services. The numbers represent the ETH equivalent amounts as of 4th October 2025 12:00 PM UTC. The figure does not cover the overall decentralized finance ecosystem. However, it covers the top DeFi services and the related protocols that this paper focuses on, to underline the layered r… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Illustration of Scenarios: The diagram shows the chain of dependencies and the cascading effects for two hypothetical scenarios: A potential situation in case of compromised LRTs and a potential smart contract logic failure where LRTs are locked. The diagram is created on the Eraser App. It is important to note that, in both scenarios, the staked ETH underlying liquid staking tokens continue to participat… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: ETH Price, ezETH Price and stETH APY Rate Trends The figure represents the ETH price, ezETH price, and the annual percentage yield (APY) of stETH over time, with raw data for the period between 1st December 2023 and 18th April 2025. Source: CoinMarketCap and DeFiLlama [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Regression Residuals Overtime: The figure plots the baseline regression residuals over time. The residuals fluctuate randomly around zero with no apparent time-dependent structure, suggesting that the model adequately captures the mean behavior of the Renzo Protocol’s Revenue over time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Decentralized finance introduces new business models and use cases as part of digital finance. Restaking has recently emerged as a transformative mechanism in DeFi, promising extra yields but introducing complex and interconnected risks. The paper monitors the current restaking landscape, empirically analyzes the revenue drivers of a liquid restaking protocol, and conducts a technical investigation on the emitted risk arising from the interconnection between liquid restaking and other protocols. The revenue dynamics of Renzo Protocol are analyzed by employing an OLS regression model, Granger-causality and random forest feature importance tests. Our results identify that revenue is primarily predicted by the value locked in the underlying EigenLayer ecosystem, the yield of Renzo protocol's liquid restaking token and the multi-blockchain expansion of that token. The multi-blockchain expansion of the liquid restaking token presents a double-edged sword: bridging to other networks is crucial for user adoption, but it adds the bridge risks to the existing risks of restaking. We investigate the cross-contamination risk between different DeFi services and the liquid restaking protocol. By mapping the asset flow across the decentralized finance ecosystem, it is detected that the bridge risk of the current size of Renzo's liquid-restaking assets does not impose a systemic risk on the current restaking and staking ecosystem. To address the potential consequences of the emphasized interconnection risks, we introduce two hypothetical scenarios and a stress test, assuming a large number of compromised liquid restaking tokens and a smart contract logic failure in a DeFi protocol. Considering the overall liquid-restaking protocols and the growing interconnection, this analysis requires further work to explore the growing complexities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a first-cut empirical map of Renzo revenue drivers and current bridge exposure, but the OLS/Granger/RF results do not isolate causal effects in endogenous crypto series.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that revenue at Renzo tracks EigenLayer TVL, the protocol's own yield, and its multi-chain reach, while the asset-flow sketch suggests today's bridge volumes do not yet create systemic contagion. That is a useful snapshot for anyone watching liquid restaking in real time. The multi-chain finding is presented as double-edged, which matches what practitioners already suspect but had not seen quantified for this protocol. The flow-mapping exercise is concrete enough to be checked against on-chain data, and the two hypothetical stress scenarios at least flag the right failure modes. Those pieces are new relative to the earlier restaking literature cited in the abstract. The work is therefore worth a referee's time for the data freshness alone. The soft spots sit in the econometrics. OLS coefficients and random-forest importances on non-stationary, mutually dependent series need instruments or at least lagged controls for market-wide returns and competitor yields; none are described. Granger tests inherit the same endogeneity problem. The claim that bridge risk is not systemic rests on the completeness of the asset-flow diagram, yet no quantitative thresholds or simulation details are supplied, so the conclusion cannot be stress-tested from the text. The hypothetical scenarios remain illustrative rather than calibrated. A reader who wants to monitor one protocol will find the numbers handy; anyone needing causal identification or generalizable theory will have to wait for follow-up work. I would send it to review with a request for robustness checks on the regressions and a clearer description of the risk-mapping procedure.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper monitors the DeFi restaking landscape and empirically analyzes revenue drivers for the Renzo liquid restaking protocol using OLS regression, Granger causality tests, and random forest feature importance. It concludes that revenue is primarily predicted by EigenLayer TVL, Renzo yield, and multi-blockchain expansion. The paper maps asset flows to assess bridge risks, finds that current Renzo asset sizes do not impose systemic risk on the restaking ecosystem, and introduces two hypothetical stress-test scenarios involving compromised tokens and smart-contract failures.

Significance. If the empirical identification holds after addressing endogeneity and omitted-variable concerns, the work would offer timely insights into revenue dynamics and cross-protocol risk transmission in liquid restaking, a rapidly growing DeFi segment. The multi-method approach (OLS, Granger, RF) and explicit stress scenarios are strengths that could inform both academic and practitioner risk assessment, provided the data and robustness details are supplied.

major comments (3)

[§3] §3 (OLS/Granger/RF analysis): the claim that revenue is 'primarily predicted' by EigenLayer TVL, Renzo yield, and multi-chain expansion rests on regressions and feature-importance rankings applied to likely non-stationary, mutually endogenous crypto time series; no IVs, lagged instruments, market-wide controls, or stationarity diagnostics are reported, leaving reverse causality and multicollinearity unaddressed.
[§4] §4 (bridge-risk mapping): the conclusion that 'the bridge risk of the current size of Renzo's liquid-restaking assets does not impose a systemic risk' is based on an asset-flow map whose completeness, quantitative thresholds, and contagion-simulation details are unspecified, so the 'no systemic risk' statement cannot be verified from the described procedure.
[Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3: data sources, sample periods, robustness checks, error bars, and handling of protocol-specific events or competitor LRT yields are not described, so the central predictive claims remain only partially supported.

minor comments (2)

[§4] Notation for the asset-flow diagram and risk-transmission paths should be clarified with explicit variable definitions and a table of data sources.
Add references to prior empirical DeFi risk papers that use similar Granger/RF methods for comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the thorough and insightful comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript significantly. Below we provide detailed responses to each major comment and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (OLS/Granger/RF analysis): the claim that revenue is 'primarily predicted' by EigenLayer TVL, Renzo yield, and multi-chain expansion rests on regressions and feature-importance rankings applied to likely non-stationary, mutually endogenous crypto time series; no IVs, lagged instruments, market-wide controls, or stationarity diagnostics are reported, leaving reverse causality and multicollinearity unaddressed.

Authors: We acknowledge the validity of these econometric concerns regarding non-stationarity and endogeneity in cryptocurrency time series. Our analysis aimed at identifying key predictive factors using multiple methods, but we agree that more rigorous diagnostics are needed. In the revised version, we have incorporated Augmented Dickey-Fuller and Phillips-Perron stationarity tests, applied appropriate transformations (differencing where series were I(1)), added market-wide controls including BTC and ETH returns, and performed variance inflation factor checks for multicollinearity. Granger causality results are presented with caveats on interpretation in the presence of endogeneity. We have revised the language in the abstract and §3 from 'primarily predicted' to 'strongly associated with' to reflect the predictive rather than strictly causal nature. Unfortunately, suitable instrumental variables were not identifiable from available data, which we now explicitly discuss as a limitation of the study. revision: partial
Referee: [§4] §4 (bridge-risk mapping): the conclusion that 'the bridge risk of the current size of Renzo's liquid-restaking assets does not impose a systemic risk' is based on an asset-flow map whose completeness, quantitative thresholds, and contagion-simulation details are unspecified, so the 'no systemic risk' statement cannot be verified from the described procedure.

Authors: We agree that the methodology in §4 lacked sufficient detail for verification. The revised manuscript expands this section with: (i) explicit description of data sources for asset flows (on-chain queries via Dune Analytics and direct protocol data), (ii) quantitative thresholds (e.g., Renzo assets as percentage of total TVL in bridged protocols, with specific numbers provided), and (iii) details on the contagion simulation, including assumed correlation coefficients, liquidity assumptions, and step-by-step propagation logic. The conclusion is now framed as 'based on current observed sizes and under the modeled scenarios, no immediate systemic risk is indicated,' with clear caveats about model assumptions. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3: data sources, sample periods, robustness checks, error bars, and handling of protocol-specific events or competitor LRT yields are not described, so the central predictive claims remain only partially supported.

Authors: We regret these omissions in the original submission. The revised manuscript includes a new 'Data and Methodology' subsection in §3 detailing: data sources (DefiLlama for TVL and yields, Renzo dashboard and EigenLayer API for protocol-specific metrics, CoinGecko for prices), sample period (from protocol launch in late 2023 through early 2024, with exact dates now specified), robustness checks (alternative lag structures in Granger tests, random forest with different hyperparameters, OLS with robust standard errors), inclusion of error bars in all figures, and handling of events (dummy variables for major protocol updates and inclusion of competitor LRT yields as additional regressors). These additions strengthen the support for the predictive claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical models use external protocol data without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper applies OLS regression, Granger causality, and random-forest importance to observed time series (EigenLayer TVL, Renzo yields, multi-chain TVL) drawn from external protocol metrics. These are standard statistical procedures on independent data sources; no equation or claim reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-citation. The asset-flow risk map is a descriptive enumeration rather than a closed derivation, and the stress-test scenarios are hypothetical rather than derived from the fitted models. No self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is present in the reported methodology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard econometric assumptions and data-fitted parameters from protocol metrics; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

OLS regression coefficients
Fitted to data relating revenue to EigenLayer TVL, token yield, and expansion metrics.

axioms (2)

domain assumption OLS assumptions of linearity, independence, and homoscedasticity hold for the revenue model
Invoked for the regression analysis of revenue drivers.
domain assumption Granger causality tests validly detect predictive relationships in the time series data
Used to analyze revenue dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5596 in / 1441 out tokens · 52111 ms · 2026-05-15T00:48:52.378737+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

OLS regression model, Granger-causality and random forest feature importance tests... revenue is primarily predicted by the value locked in the underlying EigenLayer ecosystem, the yield of Renzo protocol's liquid restaking token and the multi-blockchain expansion
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

By mapping the asset flow across the decentralized finance ecosystem, it is detected that the bridge risk of the current size of Renzo's liquid-restaking assets does not impose a systemic risk

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

https://ethereum.org/staking/ (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

Ethereum Foundation: Staking (2023). https://ethereum.org/staking/ (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2023
[2]

https://docs.eigencloud.xyz/assets/files/EigenLayer WhitePaper-88c47923ca0319870c611decd6e562ad.pdf, (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

EigenLayer Team: EigenLayer: The Restaking Collective (2025). https://docs.eigencloud.xyz/assets/files/EigenLayer WhitePaper-88c47923ca0319870c611decd6e562ad.pdf, (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2025
[3]

arXiv:2404.00644 (2024)

Gogol, K., Velner, Y ., Kraner, B., Tessone, C.: SoK: Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and Emerging Trends in Restaking. arXiv:2404.00644 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00644

work page arXiv 2024
[4]

SSRN Electron

Carre, S., Gabriel, F.: Liquid Staking: When Does It Help?. SSRN Electron. J. (2024). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4961555

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4961555 2024
[5]

SSRN Electron

Carre, S., Gabriel, F.: Efficiency and Security in DeFi Lending. SSRN Electron. J. (2025). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4307207

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4307207 2025
[6]

M., He, Z., Tang, K.: Tokenomics: Dynamic Adoption and Valuation

Cong, L. M., He, Z., Tang, K.: Tokenomics: Dynamic Adoption and Valuation. SSRN Electron. J. (2022). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4059460

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4059460 2022
[7]

J.: A Macro Finance Model for Proof-of-Stake Ethereum

Jermann, U. J.: A Macro Finance Model for Proof-of-Stake Ethereum. SSRN Electron. J. (2023). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4335835

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4335835 2023
[8]

arXiv:2402.17748 (2024)

Xiong, X., Wang, Z., Wang, Q.: Exploring the Market Dynamics of Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs). arXiv:2402.17748 (2024). https://arxiv.org/ abs/2402.17748

work page arXiv 2024
[9]

arXiv:2405.14617 (2024)

Oderbolz, N., Marosv ¨olgyi, B., Hafner, M.: Towards an Optimal Staking Design: Balancing Security, User Growth, and Token Appreciation. arXiv:2405.14617 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14617

work page arXiv 2024
[10]

In: Proc

Chaudhry, F.: Influence of Total Value Locked on the Yield Dynamics of Liquid Restaking Tokens. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp. 1–3. IEEE, Pisa, Italy (2025). doi: 10.1109/ ICBC64466.2025.11114689

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

https:// docs.renzoprotocol.com/docs/introduction/understanding-liquid-restaking (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

Renzo Protocol: Understanding Liquid Restaking (2025). https:// docs.renzoprotocol.com/docs/introduction/understanding-liquid-restaking (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

work page 2025
[12]

arXiv:2404.11745 (2025)

Luo, Y ., Feng, Y ., Xu, J., Tasca, P.: Piercing the Veil of TVL: DeFi Reappraised. arXiv:2404.11745 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11745

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

SSRN Electron

Alexander, C.: Leveraged Restaking of Leveraged Staking: What are the Risks?. SSRN Electron. J. (2024). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4840805

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4840805 2024
[14]

arXiv:2410.23422 (2024)

Li, L.: Mitigating Challenges in Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake Consensus: Evaluating the Impact of EigenLayer and Lido. arXiv:2410.23422 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23422

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

arXiv:2407.21785 (2024)

Durvasula, N., Roughgarden, T.: Robust Restaking Networks. arXiv:2407.21785 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21785

work page arXiv 2024
[16]

arXiv:2503.00170 (2025)

Bar-Zur, R., Eyal, I.: Elastic Restaking Networks. arXiv:2503.00170 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00170

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

arXiv:2401.16353 (2024)

Gogol, K., Kraner, B., Schlosser, M., Yan, T., Tessone, C., Stiller, B.: Empirical and Theoretical Analysis of Liquid Staking Protocols. arXiv:2401.16353 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16353

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security

Moallemi, C., Patange, U.: An Analysis of Fixed-Spread Liquidation Lending in DeFi. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2024 International Workshops (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), pp. 105- 127 (2024). Springer. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4803547

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4803547 2024
[19]

SSRN (2024)

Bertucci, C., Bertucci, L., Gontier Delaunay, M., Gueant, O., Lesbre, M.: Agents’ Behavior and Interest Rate Model Optimization in DeFi Lending. SSRN (2024). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4802776

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4802776 2024
[20]

Granger, C. W. J.: Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica, V ol. 37, No. 3, pp. 424-438 (1969). doi: 10.2307/1912791

work page doi:10.2307/1912791 1969
[21]

Machine Learning , author =

Breiman, L.: Random Forests. Machine Learning, V ol. 45, No. 1, pp. 5-32 (2001). doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324

work page doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 2001
[22]

https://thegraph.com/ explorer (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

The Graph: Explorer – The Graph Network. https://thegraph.com/ explorer (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2025
[23]

https://defillama.com/ (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

DeFiLlama. https://defillama.com/ (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

work page 2026
[24]

https://etherscan.io/ (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

Etherscan. https://etherscan.io/ (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

work page 2026
[25]

https: //coinmarketcap.com/, (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

CoinMarketCap: Cryptocurrency Prices, Charts & Market Cap. https: //coinmarketcap.com/, (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2025
[26]

https://alternative.me/ crypto/fear-and-greed-index/ (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

Alternative.me: Crypto Fear & Greed Index. https://alternative.me/ crypto/fear-and-greed-index/ (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2025
[27]

Phillips, P. C. B. & Perron, P.: Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, V ol. 75, No. 2, pp. 335-346 (1988). doi: 10.2307/ 2336182

work page 1988
[28]

https: //vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/05/21/dont overload.html (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

Buterin, V .: Don’t overload Ethereum’s consensus (2023). https: //vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/05/21/dont overload.html (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2023
[29]

https://beaconcha

Beaconcha.in: Staked ETH – Network Charts (2025). https://beaconcha. in/charts/staked ether (Last Access: 2025/10/09) TABLE V VARIANCEINFLATIONFACTOR(VIF) RESULTS Variable VIF Variable VIF Variable VIF TVL2 1.56 TVL1 1.47 TVL0 1.31 FGI 1.31 Share 1.29 TxFee 1.16 APY 1.12 ETH 1.05 Events 1.05 Premium 1.03 Yield 1.03 Note:All VIF values are below 5, indicat...

work page 2025
[30]

https://ethresear.ch/t/ maximum-viable-security-a-new-framing-for-ethereum-issuance/19992 (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

Ethresear.ch: Maximum Viable Security: A New Fram- ing for Ethereum Issuance (2024). https://ethresear.ch/t/ maximum-viable-security-a-new-framing-for-ethereum-issuance/19992 (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2024
[31]

https://app.eigenlayer.xyz/token (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

Restaked Tokens — EigenLayer. https://app.eigenlayer.xyz/token (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2025
[32]

https://docs.renzoprotocol.com/docs/ products/bridge (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

Renzo Protocol: Products – Bridge. https://docs.renzoprotocol.com/docs/ products/bridge (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2025
[33]

https://lineascan

LineaScan: ezETH Token Contract – Linea Mainnet. https://lineascan. build/token/0x2416092f143378750bb29b79ed961ab195cceea5 (Last Ac- cess: 2026/01/15)

work page 2026
[34]

Ethereum Research (2024)

Neuder, M.: The Risks of LRTs. Ethereum Research (2024). https:// ethresear.ch/t/the-risks-of-lrts/18799 (Last Access: 2025/10/09)

work page 2024
[35]

https://x.com/Balancer/ status/1990856260988670132 (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

Balancer: Nov 3 Exploit Post-Mortem – X. https://x.com/Balancer/ status/1990856260988670132 (Last Access: 2026/01/15)

work page arXiv 2026
[36]

Dune Analytics. https://dune.com/ (Last Access: 2026/01/15) TABLE VII FEATUREIMPORTANCERESULTS Feature Gini Permutation Feature Gini Permutation TVL2 0.2598 0.6106 TxFee 0.0729 0.0853 Yield 0.1364 0.3689 TVL1 0.0630 0.0817 TVL0 0.1246 0.1912 ETH 0.0663 0.0802 Share 0.0910 0.1360 FGI 0.0531 0.0761 APY 0.0729 0.1016 Premium 0.0599 0.0658 Note:The results of...

work page 2026