Eigenpie
Best for independently tracked protocol
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- No accounting methodology published at this check
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.
- MetIndependent audit report linked publicly
Audit report linked from the public protocol dataset.
github.com/peckshield/publications/blob/master/audit_reports/PeckShield- - Met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/eigenpie - Not metAccounting methodology published in the dataset
No methodology published at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/eigenpie - MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.eigenlayer.magpiexyz.io
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.eigenlayer.magpiexyz.io - MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/eigenpie - Not met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
www.eigenlayer.magpiexyz.io - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.eigenlayer.magpiexyz.io
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Met
- MetListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/eigenpie
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/eigenpie - MetAudit documentation linked
Linked publicly.
github.com/peckshield/publications/blob/master/audit_reports/PeckShield- - Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- MetAudit links reachable
Linked publicly.
github.com/peckshield/publications/blob/master/audit_reports/PeckShield- - Not met
- Met
A restaking protocol issuing a separate token per underlying staking derivative, holding $4m across two chains with published audits.
Our assessment
Eigenpie holds $4m across two chains with two audits and reports linked. Its design choice is isolation: rather than pooling every staking derivative into one restaked token, it issues a separate token for each underlying asset.
Why isolation is the right instinct here
A pooled restaking token means every holder is exposed to every underlying derivative — a failure in the smallest one is shared by all. Issuing separate tokens lets a user take exposure only to the underlying they actually chose. Given that restaking already compounds risk, not compounding it further is sound design.
The cost is fragmentation
Each token has its own market, and each market is smaller than a pooled one would be. At $4m total across many tokens, individual liquidity is minimal. That is the direct trade-off for isolation, and at this scale it bites.
Evidence position
Two audits with linked reports is stronger than most of this category provides. Restaking's dominant risks — slashing on immature services, redemption under stress — are economic rather than contractual, and audits do not address them.
Who it suits
Eigenpie fits users who want restaking exposure to one specific underlying derivative and can hold to redemption. Users wanting depth should use Kelp or ether.fi.
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Eigenpie 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.