Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
B
Liquid Restaking

Bedrock uniETH

Best for audited protocol with published methodology

Total value locked:$20m at this checkChains:1Audits recorded:2Audit report linked:YesRubric:v2.0 · verified 9 Aug 2026
Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last verified August 9, 2026
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
8.9
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 35%10.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • Single-chain deployment
How this score was built

Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.

Counterparty & contract risk · 35% weight10/10 points · 10.0/10
Cost transparency · 20% weight9/10 points · 9.0/10
Market quality · 15% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight10/10 points · 10.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight10/10 points · 10.0/10

A restaking protocol holding $20m with published audits, offering products across several assets rather than ETH alone.

Our assessment

Bedrock holds $20m with two audits and reports linked, and is unusual in the category for offering restaking across several assets rather than only ETH — including Bitcoin-denominated products.

Restaking beyond Ethereum

Bitcoin has no native staking, so any Bitcoin restaking product must construct the mechanism: wrapping, bridging, or a separate consensus arrangement that pays for security. Each of those adds a component that can fail independently. The yield looks like staking yield and the risk profile is materially different.

Multi-asset means multi-mechanism

Supporting several assets means maintaining several distinct security models, each with its own custody, bridging and slashing arrangements. Users should evaluate the specific product they are entering rather than the protocol as a whole — the ETH product and the Bitcoin product are not the same risk.

Evidence position

Two audits with linked reports is a strong indicator for a protocol at this size, and better than several much larger competitors in this table provide. At $20m, secondary liquidity for the derivative is thin, so plan on redemption rather than sale.

Who it suits

Bedrock fits users who want restaking exposure beyond ETH and will read the mechanism for the specific asset. Users wanting the deepest, best-documented ETH restaking should use Kelp.

Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Bedrock uniETH is safe?

No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published methodology and independently recorded market data. Contract risk is not tested by us.

Where do the TVL and audit figures come from?

A public analytics dataset queried at the verification date, plus the audit reports it links. Both are re-runnable by anyone.

Why do some protocols score zero on audits?

Because no audit report is linked in the public record. The indicator records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit exists.