Skip to content

YieldNest (ynETH) Review

BSD-licensed with slashing stated plainly

of 10

YieldNest states outright that AVSs can impose additional slashing conditions on restaked ETH, releases ynETH under BSD 3-Clause, and names four auditors. Its protocol fee and withdrawal fee are described as dynamic and embedded, without a published percentage.

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

Dynamic protocol fee; percentage not published

Receipt token

ynETH, value-accruing, auto-compounding

Slashing

AVSs can impose additional slashing conditions — stated

Withdrawal

Beacon queue plus EigenLayer 7-day delay; embedded fee, percentage not stated

Licence

BSD 3-Clause

Scores

Commission clarity
4.0
Slashing & risk disclosure
8.0
Exit & redemption
6.0
Licence & code openness
9.0
Audit disclosure
8.0

Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (4.0 + 8.0 + 6.0 + 9.0 + 8.0) ÷ 5 = 7.0.

Pros

  • States plainly that AVSs can impose additional slashing conditions on restaked ETH or ERC20 tokens
  • BSD 3-Clause licence — a recognised open-source licence
  • Four auditors named with reports: Zokyo, Chain Security, Composable Security and NFR Audits
  • ynETH is value-accruing and auto-compounding, non-custodial, with an Immunefi bug bounty

Cons

  • The protocol fee is described as a dynamic structure with no fixed percentage published
  • A withdrawal fee is embedded in the claim NFT but the percentage is not specified
  • Exit depends on the beacon-chain queue plus EigenLayer's 7-day delay

The slashing sentence a restaking product should have

YieldNest states that AVSs are able to impose additional slashing conditions on the validator's restaked ETH or other ERC20 tokens. That single sentence — naming the extra risk restaking introduces rather than burying it under yield figures — is what this rubric weights most heavily, and it lifts the risk score well above protocols that stay quiet on the subject.

Open source and audited

ynETH is BSD 3-Clause, a recognised open-source licence, with reports named from Zokyo, Chain Security, Composable Security and NFR Audits, and a non-custodial design backed by an Immunefi bug bounty.

The fees are the gap

The protocol fee is described only as a dynamic structure per product, and a withdrawal fee is embedded in the claim NFT without a stated percentage. A holder cannot work out the cost from the documentation, which is why the commission score is low despite the strong risk and code disclosure.

How it compares

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. 1.YieldNest — ynETH strategy (fee, token, slashing) — checked
  2. 2.YieldNest — withdrawals — checked
  3. 3.YieldNest — LICENSE (BSD 3-Clause) — checked
  4. 4.YieldNest — audits and security — checked

Frequently asked questions

Does YieldNest disclose restaking slashing risk?

Yes. It states that AVSs can impose additional slashing conditions on the validator's restaked ETH or other ERC20 tokens.

What does YieldNest charge?

A dynamic protocol fee whose percentage is not published, plus a withdrawal fee embedded in the claim NFT that is also unstated.

Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.