Abstract

Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs) represent a seminal innovation within blockchain ecosystems, particularly within the burgeoning landscape of decentralized finance (DeFi). By decoupling the act of staking from the liquidity constraints traditionally imposed, LSDs effectively address the pervasive issue of capital inefficiency inherent in conventional Proof of Stake (PoS) mechanisms. This comprehensive research paper undertakes an extensive analysis of LSDs, meticulously dissecting their fundamental purpose, intricate operational mechanisms, multifarious associated risks, and the complex regulatory considerations that increasingly shape their adoption and trajectory. Through a detailed, multi-faceted examination, this study aims to comprehensively elucidate the pivotal role of LSDs in dramatically enhancing capital efficiency, fostering greater liquidity, and promoting broader participation across a diverse array of blockchain platforms.

1. Introduction: The Evolution of Staking and the Genesis of Liquid Staking Derivatives

The advent and rapid evolution of blockchain technology have ushered in a new era of decentralized consensus mechanisms, moving beyond the energy-intensive Proof of Work (PoW) model. Among these, Proof of Stake (PoS) has emerged as a dominant paradigm, lauded for its enhanced energy efficiency, superior scalability potential, and capacity for greater decentralization compared to its predecessor. In PoS systems, network participants, known as validators or delegators, commit their native tokens (stake) to secure the network, validate transactions, and propose new blocks, thereby actively contributing to the network’s integrity and security. In return for this commitment and service, they are rewarded with newly minted tokens, transaction fees, or a combination thereof. This foundational mechanism underpins the security and operational continuity of numerous modern blockchain networks, including significant transitions such as Ethereum’s shift to PoS with ‘The Merge’.

However, traditional staking, while beneficial for network security and offering passive income opportunities, inherently introduces a significant limitation: illiquidity. Participants are typically required to lock their staked assets for predetermined periods, which can range from days to months, rendering these assets inaccessible and unusable for other financial activities within the broader DeFi ecosystem. This ‘opportunity cost’ of locked capital represents a substantial drag on overall capital efficiency, preventing investors from leveraging their assets for further yield generation, collateralization in lending protocols, or participation in decentralized exchanges (DEXs). The inability to dynamically allocate staked capital across various DeFi primitives translates into suboptimal returns and reduced financial flexibility for users.

It is precisely to mitigate this critical limitation that Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs) have been conceptualized and developed. LSDs are innovative financial instruments designed to restore liquidity to staked assets, thereby simultaneously enhancing capital efficiency and user flexibility. By providing a liquid, tradable representation of staked tokens, LSDs enable participants to capture staking rewards without sacrificing the ability to engage with the vibrant and diverse DeFi landscape. This transformative capability positions LSDs as a cornerstone innovation, unlocking latent value within PoS ecosystems and driving a more dynamic and interconnected decentralized financial paradigm.

2. Understanding Liquid Staking Derivatives: A Deep Dive into Mechanism and Purpose

Liquid Staking Derivatives are not merely tokens; they are sophisticated financial instruments that bridge the gap between staking for network security and participating in the broader DeFi ecosystem. Their fundamental design allows for a simultaneous engagement in both activities, fundamentally redefining capital utilization in PoS networks.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2.1 Definition and Core Purpose

At its core, an LSD is a tokenized representation of staked assets. When a user stakes their native tokens (e.g., ETH) through an LSD protocol, they receive an equivalent amount of a derivative token (e.g., stETH, rETH). This derivative token is typically issued on a 1:1 basis relative to the underlying staked asset, meaning it aims to maintain a price peg to the native asset. The crucial distinction is that while the underlying native tokens remain locked in the PoS consensus layer to earn staking rewards, the issued LSD token is liquid and freely tradable within the DeFi ecosystem.

The primary purpose of LSDs is twofold: firstly, to resolve the capital inefficiency problem inherent in traditional staking by restoring liquidity to staked assets; and secondly, to enhance the composability of these assets within the broader DeFi landscape. By transforming illiquid staked assets into liquid, fungible tokens, LSDs enable users to:

• Earn Staking Rewards: Users continue to accrue rewards from the underlying staked assets through the LSD protocol.
• Maintain Liquidity: The derivative token can be freely traded on decentralized exchanges, sold, or transferred at any time, bypassing the typical lock-up and unbonding periods of native staking.
• Engage in DeFi Composability: LSDs can be deposited into lending protocols as collateral, supplied to liquidity pools for yield farming, used as trading pairs, or integrated into other complex DeFi strategies, thereby generating additional layers of yield on top of the base staking rewards. This ‘stacking’ of yields is a significant draw for DeFi participants.
• Democratize Staking: LSD protocols often aggregate stakes from numerous users, allowing smaller holders who might not meet minimum staking requirements (e.g., 32 ETH for an Ethereum validator) to participate in staking and earn rewards.

This innovative approach unlocks substantial value, fostering a more vibrant and efficient DeFi ecosystem where capital is perpetually active and multi-purposed.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2.2 Intricate Mechanism of Operation

The operation of an LSD protocol involves several sophisticated layers, primarily orchestrated by smart contracts, interacting with both the underlying blockchain’s consensus layer and the broader DeFi environment.

2.2.1 User Staking and Token Issuance

The journey begins when a user decides to stake their native tokens (e.g., ETH) through an LSD platform (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool). The user sends their tokens to a smart contract controlled by the LSD protocol. In exchange, the protocol immediately mints and transfers an equivalent amount of its specific liquid staking derivative token (e.g., stETH) to the user’s wallet. This process is generally seamless and takes only a few moments.

Crucially, the user’s native tokens are not held directly by the LSD protocol in a single wallet. Instead, they are typically pooled and then either delegated to a network of professional validators managed by the protocol (as in Lido’s model) or used to bond new validators (as in Rocket Pool’s permissionless model). These validators are responsible for performing the core PoS duties: proposing and attesting blocks, participating in consensus, and adhering to network rules.

2.2.2 Types of Liquid Staking Derivatives

LSD tokens typically fall into two main categories based on how they reflect accrued staking rewards:

• Rebasing Tokens (e.g., stETH before wrapping): These tokens automatically update their balance in the user’s wallet daily (or at regular intervals) to reflect the accrued staking rewards. If a user holds 10 stETH and the network yields 0.01% daily, their balance might automatically become 10.001 stETH. While intuitive, this rebasing mechanism can pose challenges for integration with some DeFi protocols that expect a static token balance.
• Reward-Bearing Tokens (e.g., wstETH, rETH): These tokens do not rebase. Instead, their underlying value against the staked asset continuously appreciates over time. For instance, 1 rETH might initially be worth 1 ETH, but after a year of staking rewards, it might be redeemable for 1.05 ETH. The number of rETH tokens in the user’s wallet remains constant, but their redeemable value grows. This design is generally more compatible with existing DeFi primitives as it avoids fluctuating token balances, and users can often ‘wrap’ rebasing tokens into a reward-bearing equivalent (e.g., stETH to wstETH).

2.2.3 Validator Management and Reward Distribution

The LSD protocol manages the entire staking process with the underlying PoS network. This includes selecting and managing validators, monitoring their performance, distributing the pooled ETH to them, and collecting the staking rewards. A portion of these rewards is typically taken by the protocol as a fee for its services (e.g., validator operations, protocol development), and the remainder is distributed proportionally to the holders of the LSD tokens. The distribution mechanism depends on whether the LSD is rebasing or reward-bearing.

2.2.4 Redemption Process (Unstaking)

When a user wishes to redeem their original native tokens, they typically initiate an ‘unstake’ request through the LSD protocol. This process is generally subject to the underlying blockchain’s unbonding period, meaning it can take several days or weeks for the staked assets to become available again. The LSD protocol manages this withdrawal from the PoS network and then returns the original native tokens to the user, burning the corresponding LSD tokens. Some protocols may offer ‘instant unstaking’ options, but these usually involve a small fee to incentivize liquidity providers who fill the request from their own native token holdings, effectively bypassing the unbonding period for the user.

2.2.5 Smart Contracts and Oracles: The Pillars of Trust

The entire mechanism is underpinned by a robust suite of audited smart contracts. These contracts govern the pooling of assets, the issuance and burning of LSD tokens, the management of validators, and the distribution of rewards. Transparency and immutability of these contracts are paramount to user trust.

Furthermore, many LSD protocols rely on decentralized oracle networks (e.g., Chainlink) to provide accurate, real-time data regarding staking reward rates, validator performance, and most critically, the price peg between the LSD and its underlying asset. Oracles ensure that the value reported by the LSD token accurately reflects the value of the staked asset plus accrued rewards, maintaining the integrity of the system.

3. Capital Efficiency in the Decentralized Financial Landscape: A Paradigm Shift

The concept of capital efficiency is paramount in finance, dictating how effectively capital generates returns. In traditional financial markets, dormant capital represents lost opportunity. This principle is amplified within the high-velocity, interconnected world of DeFi, where every unit of capital has the potential to generate multiple layers of yield.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3.1 The Illiquidity Challenge of Traditional Staking in Depth

Traditional PoS staking, while foundational for network security, imposes significant constraints that lead to suboptimal capital allocation. These constraints manifest as several critical challenges:

3.1.1 Opportunity Cost of Locked Capital

When assets are locked in a staking contract, they become inert for other financial activities. In a dynamic DeFi ecosystem, this represents a substantial opportunity cost. Users cannot deploy these locked assets as collateral for loans, provide liquidity to decentralized exchanges, participate in yield farming strategies, or engage in arbitrage opportunities. Each of these activities carries the potential for additional returns, meaning that traditional staking effectively caps the potential earnings from staked capital to only the base staking reward.

3.1.2 Market Volatility Risk and Inflexibility

Cryptocurrency markets are notoriously volatile. Locking assets for extended periods means that investors are unable to react swiftly to adverse market movements. If the price of the staked asset begins to decline sharply, users cannot unstake and sell their holdings without incurring significant unbonding period delays, often lasting days or even weeks. This enforced illiquidity exacerbates risk exposure, as users are unable to de-risk or reallocate their portfolios in response to changing market conditions. Conversely, they also miss opportunities to capitalize on sudden upward movements by using their staked assets.

3.1.3 Staking Period Limitations and Unbonding Queues

Beyond fixed lock-up periods, many PoS networks implement unbonding queues. This mechanism, particularly visible on networks like Ethereum after ‘The Merge’, means that even after initiating an unstake request, there can be a waiting period—often variable and dependent on network congestion and the number of other unstake requests—before the assets are finally returned. This adds another layer of unpredictability and illiquidity, further hindering effective capital management.

3.1.4 Barrier to Entry and Centralization Tendencies

Many PoS networks have high minimum staking requirements (e.g., 32 ETH for a solo Ethereum validator). This effectively excludes smaller retail investors from direct participation, potentially leading to centralization of staking power among a few large entities or exchanges. While staking pools address this to some extent, they often don’t provide the liquidity benefits that LSDs do.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3.2 LSDs as a Transformative Solution: Unlocking Capital and Enhancing Composability

Liquid Staking Derivatives directly confront and systematically resolve these capital efficiency challenges, ushering in a new era of capital flexibility and optimized resource allocation within DeFi.

3.2.1 Unlocking Static Capital for Dynamic Use

LSDs transform static, illiquid staked assets into dynamic, liquid ones. By issuing a tradable derivative token, LSDs allow users to effectively bypass the illiquidity constraints of native staking. The staked asset remains locked, earning its base rewards, while its liquid representation can be freely moved and utilized across the DeFi landscape. This means capital is no longer dormant but perpetually active, fulfilling multiple roles simultaneously.

3.2.2 Amplifying Composability within DeFi

One of the most powerful aspects of LSDs is their enhanced composability. Composability, often referred to as ‘money legos,’ is the ability of different DeFi protocols and assets to seamlessly interact and build upon one another. LSDs serve as foundational building blocks, allowing for:

• Lending and Borrowing: Users can deposit LSDs (e.g., stETH, rETH) into decentralized lending protocols (e.g., Aave, Compound) as collateral to borrow other assets (stablecoins, native tokens) for further investment, leveraging, or consumption. This allows users to retain their staking exposure while accessing additional capital.
• Liquidity Provision (LPing): LSDs can be paired with other tokens (e.g., ETH, stablecoins) to create liquidity pools on decentralized exchanges (DEXs). Users who provide liquidity earn trading fees and often additional yield farming rewards, effectively earning a third layer of yield (staking rewards + lending interest/borrowing + LP fees).
• Yield Aggregation: LSDs can be integrated into yield optimizers (e.g., Yearn Finance, Beefy Finance) which automatically deploy users’ LSDs into the most profitable strategies across various DeFi protocols, maximizing compounded returns with minimal user intervention.
• Derivatives and Structured Products: More complex financial instruments can be built on top of LSDs, such as options, futures, or structured products, offering advanced hedging and speculation opportunities.

This multi-layered utility dramatically increases the overall yield potential and financial utility of staked assets, making them far more attractive than their illiquid, traditionally staked counterparts.

3.2.3 Bolstering Network Security and Participation

By lowering the barriers to entry and making staking more appealing through liquidity and enhanced yield opportunities, LSDs incentivize a broader base of users to participate in staking. This increased participation leads to a more decentralized validator set and a higher total value staked (TVS) on the network, which, in turn, strengthens the network’s security against potential attacks. A more robust and distributed validator base makes the network more resilient and censorship-resistant.

3.2.4 Democratizing Access to Staking Rewards

LSD protocols effectively ‘fractionalize’ the high minimum staking requirements. By pooling assets from numerous smaller contributors, they enable individuals with even modest holdings to participate in staking and earn a share of the rewards, previously only accessible to large institutional players or wealthy individuals. This democratization broadens access to passive income streams and further decentralizes wealth distribution within PoS ecosystems.

In essence, LSDs have transformed staking from a passive, illiquid commitment into an active, dynamic component of a sophisticated DeFi investment strategy, driving unprecedented levels of capital efficiency and innovation.

4. Risks and Challenges Associated with Liquid Staking Derivatives

While Liquid Staking Derivatives offer compelling advantages, their complex architecture and reliance on interconnected DeFi protocols introduce a unique set of risks that users and investors must thoroughly understand and account for.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4.1 Smart Contract Risks

The entire LSD ecosystem operates on immutable smart contracts. These self-executing agreements are the backbone of the pooling, issuance, redemption, and reward distribution mechanisms. However, this reliance on code creates several vulnerabilities:

• Vulnerabilities and Bugs: Despite rigorous audits, smart contracts can contain undiscovered bugs or logical flaws. A critical vulnerability could be exploited by malicious actors, leading to the loss or theft of staked assets. The immutable nature of deployed smart contracts means that once an exploit occurs, it is often irreversible, and funds may be permanently lost. Historically, DeFi has seen numerous high-profile exploits resulting in substantial financial losses.
• Governance Attacks: Many LSD protocols are governed by Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). If a significant portion of governance tokens falls into malicious hands or if governance mechanisms are poorly designed, an attacker could propose and pass changes to the protocol’s parameters, potentially leading to asset manipulation or theft.
• Upgradability Risks: While immutability is a feature, some protocols design their smart contracts to be upgradeable. While this allows for fixes and feature enhancements, it also introduces a potential point of centralized control or a vector for malicious upgrades if the governance or upgrade mechanism is compromised.
• Reliance on External Protocols: LSD protocols often integrate with other DeFi protocols (e.g., lending platforms, DEXs). A vulnerability in a third-party protocol that interacts with an LSD could have cascading effects, exposing the LSD protocol and its users to indirect risks.

Mitigation strategies include comprehensive, multi-party smart contract audits by reputable firms, bug bounty programs to incentivize white-hat hackers, formal verification methods, and transparent, well-designed governance frameworks with appropriate checks and balances.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4.2 De-Peg Risk

The value proposition of an LSD is heavily predicated on its ability to maintain a ‘peg’ to its underlying staked asset, typically on a 1:1 basis. A ‘de-peg’ occurs when the market price of the LSD deviates significantly from the price of the native staked asset, leading to potential losses for holders.

• Factors Causing De-Pegging:

  • Market Sentiment and Confidence: Negative news, rumors, or a general loss of confidence in the LSD protocol (e.g., concerns about validator performance, governance issues) can trigger panic selling, driving down the LSD’s price below its peg.
  • Liquidity Crises: During periods of extreme market stress or ‘flight to safety,’ demand for the underlying native asset (e.g., ETH) may surge, while liquidity for the LSD (e.g., stETH) may dry up on DEXs. If there isn’t sufficient liquidity in LSD/native token pools, arbitrageurs cannot effectively maintain the peg, leading to wider price discrepancies.
  • Large Unstaking Events: If a large number of users simultaneously try to unstake their native tokens through the protocol, and the protocol’s instant withdrawal liquidity is insufficient, it can create selling pressure on the LSD token as users choose to sell it on the open market at a discount rather than wait for the unbonding period.
  • Protocol Insolvency/Malfeasance: Although rare, if the underlying staked assets are compromised or mismanaged by the protocol (e.g., due to slashing, poor validator selection, or even malicious intent), the market’s trust in the LSD’s redeemability will erode, causing a severe de-peg.
  • Oracle Failures: If the oracles responsible for reporting the value of the underlying assets or the LSD token provide incorrect data, it can lead to mispricing and contribute to a de-peg.

• Historical Context: The de-peg of stETH from ETH during the Celsius crisis and broader market downturn in 2022 is a prominent example. While stETH was ultimately redeemable for ETH at par after Ethereum’s Merge, its market price plummeted to as low as ~0.93 ETH per stETH due to a combination of market fear, a large entity selling off holdings, and liquidity constraints, causing significant losses for those who sold during the de-peg or were liquidated on leveraged positions.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4.3 Slashing Penalties

In PoS systems, validators are incentivized to act honestly and efficiently. Malicious behavior (e.g., double-signing blocks) or prolonged periods of inactivity (e.g., offline validators) can result in ‘slashing,’ where a portion of the staked assets is confiscated by the network as a penalty. When users stake their assets through an LSD protocol, they are indirectly exposed to the slashing risks associated with the underlying validators managed by that protocol.

• Types of Slashing Events:

  • Inactivity Slashing: Validators failing to perform their duties (e.g., attesting blocks) for an extended period.
  • Equivocation/Double Signing: Validators signing two different blocks or attestations for the same slot, indicating malicious intent or severe misconfiguration.

• LSD Protocol’s Role and Mitigation: Reputable LSD protocols implement robust measures to minimize slashing risks. This includes:

  • Diversified Validator Sets: Distributing staked assets across numerous, geographically diverse, and professional validators to reduce the impact of a single validator’s failure.
  • Monitoring and Alerting Systems: Real-time monitoring of validator performance to quickly identify and address potential issues.
  • Slashing Insurance/Treasury Funds: Some protocols maintain a treasury or provide insurance mechanisms to cover potential slashing losses, partially or fully, protecting users from direct financial impact. However, the extent of this coverage can vary.

Despite these efforts, the risk of slashing cannot be entirely eliminated, and users should understand their exposure to this fundamental PoS mechanism.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4.4 Centralization Risks

The success and adoption of LSDs, particularly on large networks like Ethereum, have inadvertently introduced concerns about centralization within the PoS ecosystem.

• Dominance of Large Providers: A few large LSD providers (e.g., Lido Finance for Ethereum) have accumulated a significant percentage of the total staked ETH. If one entity controls a disproportionately large share of staked capital, it raises concerns about potential single points of failure, governance capture, or even censorship resistance. For instance, if a large LSD provider were to comply with a subpoena to censor transactions or validators, it could undermine the network’s decentralization.
• Validator Set Centralization: While some LSD protocols utilize a distributed network of independent node operators (like Rocket Pool), others might rely on a more concentrated set of professional validators. This can lead to a ‘cartelization’ of validator power, where a small number of entities control a large portion of block production and attestations.
• Impact on Network Decentralization: The core tenet of blockchain is decentralization. If LSDs, while solving liquidity issues, inadvertently lead to a concentration of staking power, it could undermine the long-term health and security of the underlying blockchain network.

These concerns are actively debated within the crypto community, with ongoing efforts to foster more decentralized LSD solutions and encourage a wider distribution of staking power.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4.5 Oracle Risks

Many LSD protocols rely on external data feeds, oracles, to determine the real-time value of the LSD relative to its underlying asset, to track staking rewards, and to inform protocol parameters. If these oracles are compromised, manipulated, or provide inaccurate data, it can lead to:

• Incorrect Peg Calculations: Distorting the perceived value of the LSD, potentially causing users to make misinformed trading decisions or leading to liquidations in DeFi protocols that use the LSD as collateral.
• Improper Reward Distribution: Affecting the fair distribution of staking rewards to LSD holders.
• Exploits: Malicious oracle manipulation can be a vector for price manipulation attacks, allowing attackers to profit at the expense of the protocol or its users.

Decentralized and robust oracle networks with multiple data sources and strong security models are crucial for mitigating this risk.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4.6 Systemic Risk and Interconnectedness

LSDs are powerful tools for composability, but this very strength also introduces systemic risk. As LSDs become widely adopted as collateral, liquidity, and base assets across numerous DeFi protocols, a failure or significant de-peg in a major LSD could trigger a cascade of liquidations and defaults across the entire ecosystem. This interconnectedness means that an issue with one foundational component could have far-reaching and detrimental consequences for the broader DeFi market, potentially leading to widespread instability.

Investors must conduct thorough due diligence on any LSD protocol, considering its smart contract security, validator decentralization, track record, and the overall market conditions, alongside understanding these inherent risks.

5. Regulatory Considerations and Evolving Market Dynamics

The rapid innovation inherent in Liquid Staking Derivatives has outpaced the development of clear and comprehensive regulatory frameworks globally. This regulatory ambiguity, coupled with intense market competition, defines much of the current landscape for LSDs.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5.1 The Evolving Regulatory Landscape

Regulators worldwide are grappling with how to classify and oversee digital assets, and LSDs present a particularly nuanced challenge due to their hybrid nature. The primary regulatory questions revolve around whether LSDs should be classified as:

• Securities: If an LSD is deemed to meet the criteria of a security (e.g., the ‘Howey Test’ in the US, which considers an ‘investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others’), it would subject LSD issuers and platforms to stringent securities laws, including registration requirements, disclosure obligations, and investor protection regulations. The ‘managerial efforts of others’ element, particularly from professional validators or protocol developers, is a key point of contention.
• Commodities: Some argue LSDs might function more like commodities, akin to raw materials that are bought and sold based on supply and demand, with staking rewards being a form of yield generated by a commodity.
• Utility Tokens: If the primary purpose of the LSD is to grant access to a service or network utility, it might be classified as a utility token, generally subject to lighter regulation.
• Financial Derivatives: The ‘derivative’ aspect of LSDs could lead regulators to classify them under existing financial derivatives frameworks, requiring compliance with rules governing futures, options, or swaps.

5.1.1 Jurisdictional Variations

• United States (SEC): The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has adopted an aggressive stance, implying many crypto assets, including potentially staking services and their derivatives, could be unregistered securities. Clarity is still lacking, leading to uncertainty for protocols operating within or serving US customers.
• European Union (MiCA): The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation in the EU aims to provide a unified framework, distinguishing between asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other crypto-assets. LSDs will likely fall under specific classifications depending on their exact structure and purpose, bringing clearer (though still potentially burdensome) compliance requirements.
• Asia and Other Regions: Jurisdictions like Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE are often seen as more crypto-friendly but are also developing bespoke regulatory regimes. Others, like China, maintain outright bans or severe restrictions. The lack of a harmonized global approach creates a complex compliance environment for LSD protocols operating internationally.

5.1.2 Implications for Adoption

• Institutional Adoption: Regulatory uncertainty is a significant deterrent for traditional financial institutions. Clear regulatory guidance, even if stringent, is often preferred over ambiguity, as it provides a framework for compliance and risk management. Without it, institutional participation in LSDs remains limited.
• AML/KYC: If LSD protocols are deemed financial service providers, they may be required to implement Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) procedures, which could conflict with the decentralized, permissionless ethos of many DeFi projects. This could lead to a bifurcation of services, with regulated offerings for institutional players and permissionless ones for retail, or geographical restrictions.
• Innovation vs. Compliance: Regulators face the challenge of fostering innovation while protecting investors. Overly burdensome regulations could stifle the growth of LSDs, while insufficient oversight could expose users to unacceptable risks.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5.2 Market Adoption and Competitive Landscape

Despite regulatory headwinds, the market for LSDs has experienced explosive growth, driven by their compelling capital efficiency benefits. This growth has, in turn, fueled intense competition among providers.

5.2.1 Growth Drivers

• Mainnet Launches and Transitions: The successful transition of Ethereum to PoS was a monumental catalyst for LSD growth, creating a massive addressable market.
• Increasing TVL (Total Value Locked): As more capital flows into PoS networks, the demand for liquid staking solutions naturally increases.
• DeFi Interoperability: Growing sophistication and integration of LSDs across lending, borrowing, and DEX protocols further drive their utility and adoption.
• Institutional Interest: While hindered by regulation, the fundamental yield-bearing nature of staking combined with liquidity is highly attractive to institutional investors seeking diversified income streams in crypto.

5.2.2 Competitive Dynamics

• First-Mover Advantage: Platforms like Lido Finance, having established a significant market share early, benefit from strong network effects and deep liquidity for their LSDs (e.g., stETH). Their dominance sets a high barrier to entry for new competitors.
• Differentiated Offerings: Newer entrants and challengers differentiate themselves through various means:
  • Decentralization: Protocols like Rocket Pool emphasize permissionless node operation and a more decentralized validator set as a core value proposition.
  • Fee Structures: Varying fee models for staking rewards, instant unstaking, etc.
  • Integration with specific ecosystems: LSDs tailored for particular L1s or L2s (e.g., Solana, Polygon, Avalanche, Cosmos).
  • Novel Features: Integration with unique DeFi strategies, advanced risk management features, or innovative tokenomics.
• Emergence of Native Liquid Staking: Some blockchain protocols are exploring or implementing native liquid staking solutions directly into their consensus layer, potentially reducing the need for third-party protocols or increasing competition.
• DAO Governance: The shift towards decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) governing LSD protocols is a significant trend, allowing token holders to vote on key parameters, fees, and future development, aligning incentives and promoting community engagement.
• Multi-Chain Expansion: Successful LSD protocols are expanding their offerings to multiple blockchain networks, seeking to capture market share across a broader ecosystem. This requires robust cross-chain infrastructure and careful management of security risks.

The future of LSDs will likely be shaped by a delicate balance between regulatory clarity, technological innovation, and competitive pressures, all while striving to maintain the core principles of decentralization and security that underpin the blockchain ethos.

6. Key Players and Ecosystem Examples

The Liquid Staking Derivatives landscape is dynamic and competitive, with various protocols vying for market share across different blockchain ecosystems. Examining some prominent examples illustrates the diverse approaches and impacts of LSDs.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6.1 Ethereum Ecosystem: The Flagship of LSDs

Ethereum, being the largest PoS network by market capitalization and Total Value Locked (TVL), is the undisputed leader in the LSD space. Its ‘Merge’ transition from PoW to PoS created a massive demand for liquid staking solutions.

6.1.1 Lido Finance (stETH, wstETH)

Lido Finance is by far the largest liquid staking protocol on Ethereum and several other chains. Users deposit ETH (or other supported assets) into Lido, which then stakes these assets with a network of professional, whitelisted validators. In return, users receive stETH (staked ETH) at a 1:1 ratio. stETH is a rebasing token, meaning its balance in a user’s wallet updates daily to reflect accrued staking rewards. For broader DeFi compatibility, stETH can be wrapped into wstETH (wrapped stETH), which is a non-rebasing, reward-bearing token whose value appreciates relative to ETH over time.

• Dominance: Lido’s substantial market share (often exceeding 70% of liquid staked ETH) has led to discussions about potential centralization risks within the Ethereum ecosystem. While Lido itself is a DAO, the concentration of staking power through a single protocol raises concerns about potential single points of failure or influence over network governance.
• Validator Set: Lido uses a curated set of professional node operators, which offers reliability but has also been a point of discussion regarding decentralization.
• Composability: stETH/wstETH are highly integrated across the Ethereum DeFi ecosystem, serving as collateral on major lending platforms (e.g., Aave, Compound), providing liquidity on DEXs (e.g., Curve), and being utilized in various yield farming strategies.

6.1.2 Rocket Pool (rETH)

Rocket Pool offers a more decentralized and permissionless approach to liquid staking. Instead of whitelisted validators, Rocket Pool allows anyone to run a ‘mini-node’ by staking a smaller amount of ETH (e.g., 8 ETH) alongside 24 ETH from the protocol’s deposit pool. In return for staking their ETH and running a node, node operators earn a commission on the staked ETH, along with additional rewards in Rocket Pool’s native token, RPL.

• Decentralization: rETH (Rocket Pool ETH) is designed to be more decentralized, as it relies on a permissionless network of individual node operators rather than a centrally managed set. This distributed validator set contributes to a more resilient network.
• Reward-Bearing Token: rETH is a reward-bearing token, meaning its value increases relative to ETH over time. Users holding rETH watch its redeemable ETH value grow, making it highly compatible with DeFi.
• Slashing Mitigation: Rocket Pool implements a robust system to incentivize good validator behavior and has a portion of the node operator’s RPL collateral that can be slashed to cover potential ETH losses, offering a layer of protection for rETH holders.

6.1.3 Frax Finance (frxETH)

Frax Finance, known for its algorithmic stablecoin FRAX, entered the liquid staking arena with frxETH (Frax Ether). Its approach is notable for its integration with the broader Frax ecosystem.

• Mechanism: Users stake ETH for frxETH. frxETH then accrues staking rewards, similar to other LSDs. A key feature is the ‘sfrxETH’ (staked Frax ETH) vault, where users can stake their frxETH to earn additional protocol fees on top of the base staking rewards, further enhancing yield.
• Ecosystem Integration: frxETH benefits from deep liquidity and integration within the Frax ecosystem, including its own stablecoin and lending markets.
• Decentralization Efforts: Frax has also focused on distributing its validator set and offers a permissionless validator model to promote decentralization.

6.1.4 Coinbase Wrapped Staked ETH (cbETH)

Issued by the centralized exchange Coinbase, cbETH represents Coinbase’s staked ETH. While not a decentralized protocol, it is a significant player due to Coinbase’s large user base.

• Centralized Nature: Unlike decentralized LSDs, cbETH is issued by a centralized entity. Users staking through Coinbase effectively delegate custody and validator management to the exchange.
• Liquidity and Tradability: cbETH provides liquidity for Coinbase users’ staked ETH, allowing them to trade or use it outside of Coinbase.
• Custodial Risk: Holders of cbETH are exposed to Coinbase’s operational and regulatory risks, as well as counterparty risk, which is a key distinction from decentralized LSDs.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6.2 Other Blockchain Ecosystems and Emerging LSDs

The LSD trend extends far beyond Ethereum, with many other PoS networks adopting similar solutions to enhance capital efficiency.

6.2.1 Solana (Marinade Finance, Jito)

Solana’s high-throughput PoS network also features thriving LSD protocols. Marinade Finance (mSOL) and Jito (JitoSOL) are prominent examples. Both protocols allow users to stake SOL, receive a liquid token (mSOL or JitoSOL), and participate in Solana’s DeFi ecosystem. JitoSOL, in particular, focuses on capturing Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) rewards in addition to base staking rewards, offering potentially higher yields.

6.2.2 Cosmos (Persistence, Quicksilver)

Within the Cosmos ecosystem, protocols like Persistence (pSTAKE) and Quicksilver offer liquid staking solutions for various Cosmos SDK chains. These allow users to stake native tokens (e.g., ATOM, OSMO) and receive liquid representations that can be used across the interconnected Cosmos IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) network, leveraging cross-chain composability.

6.2.3 Avalanche (BENQI Liquid Staking)

BENQI (sAVAX) provides liquid staking for Avalanche’s native token, AVAX. Users stake AVAX to receive sAVAX, which can then be used in Avalanche’s vibrant DeFi landscape, contributing to the network’s security and capital efficiency.

These examples underscore the broad applicability and increasing necessity of liquid staking solutions across diverse blockchain architectures, each adapting the core LSD concept to its specific network dynamics and community needs.

7. Case Study: Infrared Finance and Berachain’s Proof of Liquidity

To further illustrate the practical implementation and impact of LSDs, a detailed examination of Infrared Finance within the context of the innovative Berachain ecosystem provides valuable insights into how these derivatives address specific blockchain consensus mechanisms and foster ecosystem growth.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7.1 Overview of Berachain’s Proof of Liquidity (PoL)

Berachain introduces a novel consensus mechanism called Proof of Liquidity (PoL), which fundamentally distinguishes it from traditional PoS systems. Unlike standard PoS where validators simply stake native tokens to secure the network, Berachain’s PoL requires validators to provide liquidity to specific decentralized exchange (DEX) pools on the network. In essence, validators contribute to the network’s security and its economic vitality by actively participating in its liquidity layer. This mechanism aims to:

• Align Incentives: By tying network security directly to liquidity provision, PoL aligns the incentives of validators with the overall health and utility of the DeFi ecosystem on Berachain.
• Bootstrapped Liquidity: It ensures that the network has deep and robust liquidity from its inception, reducing slippage and improving trading efficiency.
• Native Yield: Validators earn rewards not just from securing the network but also from providing liquidity, creating a more dynamic and integrated reward structure.

The native gas token of Berachain is BERA, and its governance token is BGT (Bera Governance Token). A unique aspect of BGT is that it is non-transferable; it cannot be freely traded on exchanges. This design choice is intended to prevent governance capture and encourage long-term participation. However, the non-transferable nature of BGT creates an immediate capital inefficiency problem similar to traditional illiquid staking: users holding BGT cannot directly leverage it in other DeFi protocols, despite its governance power and potential for yield from underlying liquidity incentives.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7.2 Infrared Finance’s Strategic Position within Berachain

Infrared Finance positions itself as a critical infrastructural layer for Berachain, specifically designed to address the unique illiquidity challenges presented by BeraChain’s PoL and the non-transferable BGT token. Infrared offers liquid staking solutions for both BGT and BERA, through its derivative tokens iBGT and iBERA, respectively. This makes Infrared not just an LSD provider, but an essential component for maximizing capital utility within Berachain’s innovative framework.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7.3 Mechanism and Offerings: iBGT and iBERA

Infrared Finance’s solution is tailored to the nuances of Berachain’s PoL and BGT’s non-transferability:

7.3.1 iBGT: Liquid Governance

• Addressing BGT’s Non-Transferability: When users acquire BGT (e.g., through providing liquidity on Berachain’s native DEX or bribing mechanisms), they can deposit it into Infrared Finance. In return, Infrared issues iBGT, a transferable, liquid derivative token that represents the staked BGT. This transforms BGT from a static, non-transferable governance asset into a dynamic, liquid one that can be used across Berachain’s DeFi.
• Delegated Governance: Users holding iBGT effectively delegate their BGT governance power to Infrared Finance. Infrared, in turn, can use the pooled BGT to participate in Berachain’s governance, directing rewards from various liquidity pools. This allows iBGT holders to indirectly influence governance and benefit from the aggregated yield generated by Infrared’s strategic governance decisions.
• Yield Generation: iBGT holders accrue the underlying rewards from the BGT’s participation in PoL governance, along with potential additional yield generated by Infrared’s strategies.

7.3.2 iBERA: Liquid Staking for Gas Token

• Standard Liquid Staking: Users can stake their native BERA tokens with Infrared Finance, receiving iBERA in return. Similar to stETH or rETH, iBERA represents the staked BERA and allows users to earn staking rewards while maintaining liquidity.
• Validator Infrastructure: Infrared Finance operates its own validator infrastructure on Berachain. When users stake BERA, Infrared’s validators use this pooled BERA to secure the network and earn staking rewards, which are then passed back to iBERA holders (after deducting protocol fees).
• DeFi Utility: iBERA can be used as collateral for lending, supplied to liquidity pools, or integrated into other DeFi applications on Berachain, providing capital efficiency for the network’s gas token.

Both iBGT and iBERA are typically backed 1:1 by their underlying assets, with their value reflecting the base asset plus accrued rewards (likely following a reward-bearing model for broader DeFi compatibility).

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7.4 Impact on the Berachain Ecosystem

Infrared Finance’s liquid staking solutions are not merely additive; they are transformative for the Berachain ecosystem, directly addressing core architectural considerations:

• Enhanced Capital Efficiency for PoL: Infrared unlocks the capital trapped in BGT and BERA, allowing participants in Berachain’s PoL to maximize their returns. By transforming illiquid governance power (BGT) and staked gas tokens (BERA) into liquid assets, Infrared significantly boosts the overall capital efficiency of the network.
• Increased Network Participation: By making BGT and BERA more useful and flexible, Infrared incentivizes more users to acquire and stake these tokens, thus deepening liquidity in PoL and strengthening network security. More BGT participation means more active governance, and more BERA staking means a more robust validator set.
• Deeper Liquidity and Composability: iBGT and iBERA serve as fundamental building blocks within the Berachain DeFi landscape. They enable the creation of new liquidity pools, lending markets, and other financial primitives that would otherwise be impossible or severely limited due to the illiquid nature of the underlying assets. This fosters a more interconnected and vibrant DeFi environment on Berachain.
• Improved Governance Engagement: While BGT is non-transferable, iBGT allows more users to gain liquid exposure to Berachain’s governance without directly holding the static BGT. This can potentially lead to broader, albeit indirect, participation in the network’s decision-making process through delegation to protocols like Infrared.
• Synergistic Relationship with PoL: Infrared Finance’s offerings are not just an add-on; they are symbiotic with Berachain’s PoL. The PoL mechanism requires liquidity, and Infrared provides a mechanism to make that liquidity more efficient and attractive. This creates a positive feedback loop: as Infrared makes BGT and BERA more useful, more users participate in PoL, leading to greater liquidity and security for Berachain, which in turn enhances the value and utility of Infrared’s LSDs.

In summary, Infrared Finance represents a crucial innovation for Berachain, effectively turning its unique consensus mechanism’s potential limitations into strengths by ensuring liquidity and capital efficiency across its native tokens.

8. The Future of Liquid Staking Derivatives

The trajectory of Liquid Staking Derivatives suggests continued innovation, addressing existing challenges, and expanding their utility across the decentralized financial landscape.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

8.1 Innovation Trends

• Cross-Chain LSDs and Interoperability: As the blockchain ecosystem becomes increasingly multi-chain, there will be a growing demand for LSDs that can be seamlessly moved and utilized across different networks. Projects focusing on bridging LSDs securely and efficiently between chains will be critical.
• Advanced Yield Strategies: The integration of LSDs into more sophisticated and automated yield optimization strategies will continue to evolve. This includes dynamic re-balancing across different lending protocols, options strategies, and even integration into structured products designed for institutional investors.
• Programmable Staking: The development of more flexible and programmable staking interfaces could allow for customized staking parameters, enabling users to fine-tune their risk-reward profiles.
• Integration with Real-World Assets (RWAs): As the tokenization of real-world assets progresses, LSDs could potentially be used as collateral or yield-generating components within RWA-backed financial products, bridging traditional finance with DeFi.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

8.2 Addressing Centralization Concerns

The issue of centralization, particularly the dominance of single LSD providers, remains a significant concern. Future developments will likely focus on:

• Decentralized Validator Sets: Further emphasis on protocols that promote permissionless and decentralized node operator participation, similar to Rocket Pool’s model, to ensure a broader distribution of staking power.
• Distributed Governance Models: Enhancements to DAO governance structures to prevent capture and ensure truly decentralized decision-making processes for major LSD protocols.
• Diversification of LSD Providers: Community and developer efforts to encourage the adoption of a diverse range of LSD protocols across different chains to prevent any single entity from gaining undue influence.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

8.3 Improved Risk Management and Security

As the value locked in LSDs grows, so does the imperative for robust risk management:

• Enhanced Smart Contract Security: Continuous advancements in formal verification, advanced auditing techniques, and real-time monitoring will be crucial to mitigate smart contract risks.
• On-Chain Insurance: The development of more comprehensive and decentralized on-chain insurance protocols specifically tailored to cover smart contract exploits, de-pegging events, and slashing risks for LSDs.
• Robust Oracle Solutions: Continued investment in decentralized and tamper-proof oracle networks will be essential for maintaining the integrity of LSD pricing and reward distribution.
• Stress Testing and Risk Modeling: More sophisticated risk modeling and stress testing frameworks will be developed to assess the systemic risks associated with LSDs and their interconnectedness within DeFi.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

8.4 Regulatory Clarity

While progress has been slow, increasing regulatory clarity is inevitable and necessary for the long-term sustainable growth of LSDs. This will likely involve:

• Harmonization of Global Standards: Efforts by international bodies to develop more consistent regulatory approaches to digital assets, including LSDs, reducing jurisdictional arbitrage.
• Tailored Regulatory Frameworks: The creation of specific regulatory categories and rules for different types of digital assets, recognizing the unique characteristics of LSDs.
• Compliance Tools: The development of on-chain compliance tools and identity solutions that can help LSD protocols meet regulatory requirements without compromising core decentralized principles.

Ultimately, the future of LSDs hinges on their ability to continually innovate, effectively manage inherent risks, and adapt to an evolving regulatory environment, all while staying true to the ethos of decentralization and open finance. Their foundational role in maximizing capital efficiency ensures their continued relevance and growth in the broader blockchain ecosystem.

9. Conclusion

Liquid Staking Derivatives represent a profoundly transformative advancement within blockchain technology, providing an elegant and effective solution to the long-standing challenge of illiquidity inherent in traditional Proof of Stake mechanisms. By enabling users to stake their assets for network security while simultaneously retaining the critical ability to deploy those assets in other decentralized finance activities, LSDs have dramatically enhanced capital efficiency, stimulated liquidity, and fostered greater participation in network consensus mechanisms across a multitude of blockchain platforms.

This detailed examination has elucidated the sophisticated operational mechanisms of LSDs, demonstrating how they leverage smart contracts and often decentralized validator networks to bridge the gap between staking rewards and DeFi utility. The issuance of liquid, tradable derivative tokens fundamentally alters the landscape of capital allocation, allowing for unprecedented composability and yield-stacking opportunities within the crypto ecosystem.

However, the benefits conferred by LSDs are juxtaposed with a distinct set of inherent risks that demand meticulous consideration. These include the ever-present smart contract vulnerabilities, the potential for de-pegging of the derivative token from its underlying asset due to market dynamics or protocol-specific issues, and the exposure to slashing penalties associated with validator performance. Furthermore, the growing dominance of certain LSD providers introduces valid concerns regarding centralization, which could, if unchecked, undermine the very decentralization ethos upon which blockchain technology is built. The reliance on external oracles and the systemic risks arising from the interconnectedness of DeFi protocols also warrant continuous vigilance and robust risk management strategies.

The regulatory environment surrounding LSDs remains nascent and fragmented, presenting both challenges and opportunities. The lack of unified global frameworks creates uncertainty, particularly for institutional adoption, yet ongoing efforts towards regulatory clarity are essential for the long-term sustainable growth and integration of LSDs into mainstream finance. Concurrently, the competitive landscape is driving continuous innovation, with protocols differentiating themselves through enhanced decentralization, novel features, and expansion into new blockchain ecosystems.

Case studies, such as Infrared Finance’s strategic role within Berachain’s unique Proof of Liquidity model, vividly illustrate how LSDs can be specifically tailored to address the distinct challenges of innovative consensus mechanisms, unlocking capital and fostering ecosystem growth. Looking ahead, the future of LSDs is poised for further advancements in cross-chain functionality, refined risk management, and the potential for deeper integration with both traditional and emerging financial paradigms.

In conclusion, Liquid Staking Derivatives are not merely a fleeting trend but a foundational innovation that redefines capital utilization in PoS networks. Their profound impact on capital efficiency and liquidity positions them as a cornerstone of the evolving DeFi landscape. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of their benefits, coupled with a diligent and proactive approach to managing their associated risks, and adapting to the dynamic regulatory and market forces, will be paramount to harnessing their full potential and ensuring their sustained, secure, and decentralized growth within blockchain ecosystems.

References

1. Aave Protocol Documentation. (n.d.). Aave V3 Staked ETH. Retrieved from https://docs.aave.com/developers/v/2.0/guides/staked-eth
2. Berachain Documentation. (n.d.). Proof of Liquidity. Retrieved from https://docs.berachain.com/protocol/proof-of-liquidity
3. Chainlink Labs. (n.d.). What is an Oracle in Blockchain?. Retrieved from https://chainlinklabs.com/education/blockchain-oracles
4. Coinbase. (n.d.). cbETH (Coinbase Wrapped Staked ETH). Retrieved from https://www.coinbase.com/asset/cbeth
5. CoinMarketCap. (n.d.). Liquid Staking Derivatives Definition. Retrieved from https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/glossary/liquid-staking-derivatives
6. CoinGecko. (2023). The Future of Liquid Staking Derivatives | CoinGecko Virtual Meetup #24. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2ikSPKIQdU&utm_source=openai
7. Curve Finance. (n.d.). stETH/ETH Pool. Retrieved from https://curve.fi/steth
8. DefiLlama. (2025). Infrared Finance. Retrieved from https://defillama.com/protocol/infrared-finance
9. Ethereum Foundation. (n.d.). Staking on Ethereum. Retrieved from https://ethereum.org/en/staking/
10. Frax Finance. (n.d.). Frax Ether (frxETH). Retrieved from https://frax.finance/frax-ether
11. HTX Exchange. (2025). Infrared Finance (IR) | Know Everything about The Cryptocurrency. Retrieved from https://www.htx.com/tokens/ir/
12. Infrared Finance. (2025). Infrared Raises $16 Million To Launch First Liquidity Staking Protocol On Berachain. Retrieved from https://infrared.finance/blog/infrared-raises-usd16-million
13. Jito Network. (n.d.). JitoSOL. Retrieved from https://www.jito.network/jitosol/
14. Lido Finance. (n.d.). Lido for Ethereum. Retrieved from https://lido.fi/ethereum
15. Marinade Finance. (n.d.). mSOL (Liquid Staking Solana). Retrieved from https://marinade.finance/liquid-staking/
16. Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation. (n.d.). European Parliament Legislative Observatory. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-crypto-assets
17. Messari. (2025). What is Infrared Finance?. Retrieved from https://messari.io/project/infrared-finance/profile
18. Openware. (2023). The Technical Mechanics of LSDs: How Liquid Staking Tokens Work. Retrieved from https://www.openware.com/news/articles/the-technical-mechanics-of-lsds-how-liquid-staking-tokens-work
19. Persistence. (n.d.). pSTAKE Finance. Retrieved from https://pstake.finance/
20. Quicksilver Protocol. (n.d.). Liquid Staking for Cosmos. Retrieved from https://quicksilver.zone/
21. Rocket Pool. (n.d.). Decentralised Ethereum Staking. Retrieved from https://rocketpool.net/
22. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (n.d.). The Howey Test. Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2017-131.html
23. The Block. (2025). Berachain liquid staking protocol Infrared raises $14 million in Series A token round. Retrieved from https://www.theblock.co/post/344455/berachain-infrared-series-a-token-round
24. The Financial Express. (2023). Can Liquid Staking Derivatives ensure liquidity enhancement for investors?. Retrieved from https://www.financialexpress.com/business/blockchain-can-liquid-staking-derivatives-ensure-liquidity-enhancement-for-investors-3173186/
25. Yearn Finance. (n.d.). Yearn Products. Retrieved from https://yearn.finance/products