ether.fi (eETH / weETH) Review
MIT-licensed, three-way reward split published
of 10
ether.fi splits staking rewards 90% to stakers, 5% to node operators and 5% to the protocol, offers both a rebasing eETH and a value-accruing weETH, and licenses its contracts under MIT. Its slashing and audit disclosures could not be verified.
No money changes hands. This is a non-commercial project: no advertising, no sponsored placements, and no affiliate or referral links. Links to the services below earn us nothing. Every overall score is the plain average of the criteria shown on the page, so you can check the arithmetic yourself — see our rating methodology and how the site is funded.
Fee
90% stakers / 5% operators / 5% protocol
Receipt token
eETH rebasing; weETH wrapped, value-accruing
Restaked into
EigenLayer, native restaking
Withdrawal
No fixed lock; protocol-level waiting periods, liquidity-dependent
Licence
MIT
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (8.0 + 3.0 + 6.0 + 9.0 + 2.0) ÷ 5 = 5.6.
Pros
- Reward split published: 90% stakers, 5% node operators, 5% protocol
- Two token forms: eETH rebasing and weETH wrapped and value-accruing
- Native restaking on EigenLayer at the protocol level
- MIT licence on the smart contracts, stated in the repository
Cons
- Slashing conditions and any insurance could not be verified from a fetched official page
- No audit page could be fetched and no firm is verified
- Withdrawal has protocol-level waiting periods, subject to available liquidity
A clear reward split and a clean licence
ether.fi publishes its three-way split — 90% to stakers, 5% to node operators, 5% to the protocol — and offers both a rebasing eETH and a wrapped, value-accruing weETH, so a holder can choose the token behaviour that suits them. The contracts are MIT-licensed, stated directly in the repository.
Withdrawal without a fixed lock
The help documentation states there is no fixed lock period, but protocol-level waiting periods apply, and redemption without the standard delay depends on ether.fi holding available liquid ETH in the contract.
What could not be verified
The GitBook pages covering slashing and audits returned 404 on direct access, so the additional slashing conditions, any insurance, and the audit record could not be confirmed from a fetched official page. For a restaking product the slashing disclosure is the criterion that matters most, and being unable to read it holds the risk and audit scores down — stated here rather than assumed.
How it compares
Eigenpie (mLRT)
Isolated per-LST restaking, little else documented
Karak
Nine-day withdrawal with a slashing window, docs blocked
EigenLayer
The restaking layer itself, opt-in slashing stated
Symbiotic
Twelve named auditors and a stated risk framework
Swell Restaking (rswETH)
Value-accruing rswETH, no licence file
Kelp DAO (rsETH)
10% fee and a delayed-open licence
YieldNest (ynETH)
BSD-licensed with slashing stated plainly
Mellow
Six named auditors on a Symbiotic-and-EigenLayer vault
Renzo (ezETH)
Fee split and withdrawal delays published in full
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.ether.fi — staking whitepaper (reward split) — checked
- 2.ether.fi — weETH help article (withdrawal) — checked
- 3.ether.fi — smart contracts (MIT) — checked
Frequently asked questions
How are ether.fi rewards split?
90% to stakers, 5% to node operators and 5% to the protocol, per the ether.fi whitepaper.
What is the difference between eETH and weETH?
eETH is rebasing; weETH is the wrapped, non-rebasing version whose value accrues over time.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.