Liquid staking: provider not chosen

Ketju found no defect that rules it out but has not chosen it among the liquid-staking providers on its chain. A class rule never chooses a client position or amount.

Scope

Liquid staking providers that Ketju compared in a review of each chain. The comparison describes how close substitutes differ. It does not choose a provider or an amount for any client.

The rule

When Ketju finds no defect that rules a provider out, Ketju states that finding in the memo. The provider stays off the approved list until Ketju approves that type of product in a separate review. The client’s purpose and limits then define the candidates, and the advisor chooses any provider and amount.

When the rule applies

• The protocol is a liquid staking provider for a chain whose staking Ketju has found eligible.
• The evidence supports comparing the provider with other tokens that stake the same native asset.

Research

How it works

Liquid staking protocols pool stake and issue a transferable token. Its exchange rate, or its rebasing balance, reflects validator rewards after fees and losses. Providers differ in how they admit validators, set withdrawal credentials, design oracles, hold upgrade powers and trade on secondary markets, even when every token stakes the same native asset.

Who controls it

The comparison names who selects operators, changes fees and modules, controls upgrades and emergency action, and reports validator performance. Ketju judges decentralization by how authority is actually spread among parties that anyone can observe, and it gives brand claims no weight.

Losses and incidents

Every provider carries slashing, validator, contract, oracle and token-liquidity risks. A history with no losses is required, but it is not enough on its own. The memo must also describe who holds control today and every way a holder can sell or redeem.

Withdrawals

Clients may redeem through the protocol under the chain’s withdrawal rules, or sell the liquid token on a secondary market. Ketju compares both routes, including expected queue times, how far the token has traded below its value, and how concentrated the usable exchange liquidity is.

Comparison

The comparison describes providers within one type of staking, and Ketju does not use it as a ranking or a rule for allocation. Differences in validator spread, governance, fees, liquidity and operating history feed the decision. The advisor decides whether one provider, several or none serves a client.

Review triggers

• A provider’s validator spread, governance, liquidity, fees, operating history or withdrawal terms change materially.
• New evidence changes what the token is a claim on, who can change or pause it, how holders could lose money, or how it compares with other providers.

Sources

Each source shows its type, the date Ketju accessed it, and the claims it supports. “Primary” means first-hand or governing material; it does not mean that Ketju verified the source independently.

• Ethereum.org: Pooled staking · primary · accessed 2026-08-14
  Supports: pooled staking, risks, withdrawals
• Solana documentation: Stake programming · primary · accessed 2026-08-14
  Supports: stake pools, operator model
• Lido documentation: Protocol overview · primary · accessed 2026-08-14
  Supports: liquid staking, governance, withdrawals
• Marinade documentation: Liquid staking · primary · accessed 2026-08-14
  Supports: Solana staking, validator delegation, liquidity

Memos under this rule

Each memo listed applies this version of the rule. The depth of research on each protocol varies by memo; where a memo has named sources and fuller research, the memo shows them.