Puffer Stake
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/puffer-stake - Not met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/puffer-stake - MetAccounting methodology published in the dataset
Methodology published.
defillama.com/protocol/puffer-stake - MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.puffer.fi/restake
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.puffer.fi/restake - MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/puffer-stake - Met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
www.puffer.fi/restake - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.puffer.fi/restake
- MetTotal value locked published independently
TVL $46m at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/puffer-stake - Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- MetListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/puffer-stake
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/puffer-stake - Not met
- MetChains and category disclosed
Category Liquid Restaking, 1 chain(s).
defillama.com/protocol/puffer-stake - Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
A liquid restaking protocol holding $46m, built around hardware-enforced anti-slashing protection for its validators.
Our assessment
Puffer holds $46m and is built around a specific technical claim: hardware-enforced anti-slashing, using secure enclaves to make it difficult for a validator to sign the messages that cause slashing in the first place.
Preventing slashing rather than insuring it
Most protocols handle slashing after the fact, through diversification or an insurance fund. Puffer's approach is to prevent the signing behaviour that triggers it, which — if the enclave works as intended — removes the largest category of validator error rather than compensating for it. That is a meaningfully different engineering position.
Enclaves are a dependency, not a guarantee
Secure enclave technology has a documented history of vulnerabilities, and the protection is only as strong as the hardware and its firmware. Substituting a hardware trust assumption for an economic one is a trade, not an elimination — and it introduces a supply-chain dependency most DeFi protocols do not have.
No audit report at this check
No audit report was retrievable at a public address. For a design resting on a specific technical mechanism, published review of that mechanism is exactly the evidence a prospective user needs and cannot currently read.
Who it suits
Puffer fits users who find the anti-slashing approach convincing and accept unaudited contracts. Users wanting published review should use Kelp, Bedrock or Eigenpie.
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Puffer Stake 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.