Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
S
Liquid Restaking

Swell Liquid Restaking

Best for independently tracked protocol

Total value locked:$24m 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
6.2
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 35%7.0
Cost transparency · 20%4.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%7.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
  • 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% weight7/10 points · 7.0/10
Cost transparency · 20% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Market quality · 15% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight7/10 points · 7.0/10

A protocol offering both liquid staking and liquid restaking, holding $24m with published audit reports.

Our assessment

Swell holds $24m with two audits and reports linked, and offers both liquid staking and liquid restaking through the same protocol — letting a user choose their layer rather than committing to the riskier one by default.

Offering both layers is a genuine service

Many protocols present restaking as simply a better-yielding version of staking, which obscures that it carries additional slashing conditions. Offering both side by side makes the choice explicit, and a user who does not want extra exposure can decline it without leaving the protocol.

The choice matters more than the yield gap

The difference in yield between staking and restaking is usually a few percentage points. The difference in risk is between a well-understood, rarely-triggered slashing regime and a set of new services whose conditions have not been tested in production. That is not a marginal decision.

Evidence position

Two audits with linked reports is solid. What holds the score at 6.2 is the transparency and documentation indicators — operator disclosure, parameter documentation and incident history at stable addresses — alongside modest depth at $24m.

Who it suits

Swell fits users who want the staking-or-restaking choice made explicit and value published audits. Users wanting the deepest restaking market should use Kelp or ether.fi.

Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Swell Liquid Restaking 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.