ClayStack ETH
Best for independently tracked protocol
How it rates
- Accounting methodology published
- No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
- Single-chain deployment
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.
- Not metIndependent audit report linked publicly
No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - Not met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - MetAccounting methodology published in the dataset
Methodology published.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - Not metApplication reachable at a public address
Not reachable at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth
- Not metApplication reachable without an account
Not reachable at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - Met
- Not metFee or reward model documented publicly
Not available at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - Not metNo account required to reach the application
Not reachable at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth
- MetTotal value locked published independently
TVL $3m at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- MetListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - Not met
- MetChains and category disclosed
Category Liquid Restaking, 1 chain(s).
defillama.com/protocol/claystack-eth - Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
A small liquid restaking protocol holding $3m, with the thinnest published evidence base in this category.
Our assessment
ClayStack holds $3m and scores lowest of the fifteen restaking protocols in this comparison. No audit report was retrievable at a public address, and the transparency and documentation indicators returned very little.
Small and unaudited is the weakest combination
A large protocol without published audits at least attracts constant adversarial testing, and survival is weak evidence. A small one has neither the review nor the scrutiny. Both of the things that could give a depositor confidence are absent, and that is materially worse than either gap alone.
Restaking risk applies in full
Being small does not reduce slashing exposure. The stake still secures services whose slashing conditions have not been tested under stress, and the protocol has fewer resources to respond if something goes wrong. The yield does not compensate for a risk nobody has priced.
What the score records
An absence of published material, not evidence of wrongdoing. Publishing an audit report, documented mechanics and operator information at stable addresses would change this score substantially.
Who it suits
On published evidence, readers wanting restaking exposure should use Kelp, Bedrock, Eigenpie or Swell. ClayStack suits users already active in its ecosystem who have reviewed the contracts themselves.
Frequently asked
Does this score mean ClayStack ETH 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.