Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
K
Liquid Restaking

King Protocol

Best for audited protocol with published methodology

Total value locked:$1m 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 liquid restaking protocol with two published audits, holding roughly $1m — strong documentation at a scale that limits practical use.

Our assessment

King Protocol holds roughly $1m with two audits and reports linked. As with other small protocols scoring well here, the score measures what the team published rather than how much capital agrees with them.

Evidence and scale are separate questions

A protocol can publish audits, document its mechanics and disclose its operators regardless of size — and most do not. Our rubric rewards that because it is the part a protocol controls. Market quality carries 15%, so a small protocol with excellent documentation lands high, and readers should interpret the number accordingly.

What small scale means in restaking

Restaking derivatives depend on secondary liquidity to hold their value, and at $1m there is none to speak of. The exit is the protocol's redemption process, which takes as long as it takes. Anyone entering should be prepared to hold to redemption rather than assuming they can sell.

The category risk is unchanged

Restaking layers additional slashing conditions on top of ordinary staking, tied to services with limited operating history. Audits examine the protocol's contracts; they do not evaluate the economic soundness of the services your stake is securing.

Who it suits

King Protocol suits users active in its ecosystem who value audited contracts and can hold to redemption. Users wanting scale and liquidity should use Kelp or ether.fi.

Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean King Protocol 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.