Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
R
Liquid Staking

Rocket Pool

Best for audited protocol with published methodology

Total value locked:$1,014m 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
8.5
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 35%9.0
Cost transparency · 20%6.0
Market quality · 15%8.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%9.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $1,014m recorded independently
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% weight9/10 points · 9.0/10
Cost transparency · 20% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
  • Partial
    Application reachable without an account

    Published at a documented URL; automated retrieval blocked at this check.

    rocketpool.net
  • Met
    Protocol economics published independently

    TVL and change history published.

    defillama.com/protocol/rocket-pool
  • Met
    Accounting methodology published

    Methodology published.

    defillama.com/protocol/rocket-pool
  • Not met
    Fee or reward model documented publicly

    Not available at this check.

    rocketpool.net
  • Partial
    No account required to reach the application

    Published at a documented URL; automated retrieval blocked at this check.

    rocketpool.net
Market quality · 15% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight10/10 points · 10.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight9/10 points · 9.0/10

A liquid staking protocol holding $1.01bn, built on permissionless bonded node operators rather than a curated operator set.

Our assessment

Rocket Pool holds $1.01bn with two audits and reports linked. Anyone can run a validator for the protocol by posting a bond in ETH and its own token — no whitelist, no governance approval. That is the most decentralised operator model among major liquid staking protocols.

Why permissionless operation matters

The central criticism of liquid staking is that it concentrates validation among a handful of professional operators chosen by a DAO. Rocket Pool answers it structurally: the operator set is open, bonded, and grows with demand. If Ethereum's validator decentralisation matters to you, this is the protocol that acts on it rather than describing it.

Bonds align incentives, and constrain growth

Requiring operators to post their own capital means misbehaviour costs them first. It also means the protocol can only take deposits as fast as bonded operators appear, which is why it has grown more slowly than pooled competitors. That is the decentralisation being paid for, in growth.

Where it scores below the leaders

Audits and mechanics are well documented. Our transparency and documentation indicators are what hold it in the eights, alongside a derivative whose secondary liquidity is thinner than Lido's — relevant if you plan to sell rather than unstake.

Who it suits

Rocket Pool fits stakers who weight Ethereum's decentralisation and accept slightly thinner derivative liquidity for it. Stakers optimising purely for liquidity and integrations should use Lido.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
Lido9.6audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Stader9.5audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
StakeWise V29.4audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Rocket Pool 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.