Phân tích thị trường Crypto - 08/06/2026

Key Takeaways

• Restaking, spearheaded by protocols like EigenLayer (now EigenCloud), has rapidly amassed billions in Total Value Locked (TVL) by allowing staked Ethereum (ETH) to secure additional Actively Validated Services (AVSs), promising amplified yields.
• This innovation, while enhancing capital efficiency and fostering new decentralized infrastructure, introduces a complex, multi-layered risk profile including double slashing, smart contract vulnerabilities across multiple layers, and significant liquidity risks for Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs).
• The market is recalibrating its perception of these layered risks, evidenced by a notable contraction in restaking TVL from its peaks in mid-2025 to May 2026, driven partly by high-profile exploits such as the $280-293 million attack on Kelp DAO in April 2026.
• Concentration of stake among a few operators and the opaque nature of underlying AVS risks pose a looming threat of centralization and systemic contagion, challenging Ethereum’s foundational security assumptions.
• While higher yields (8-12% APY, sometimes 15%+) are attractive, investors must critically assess the trade-off between amplified returns and the compounding, correlated risks inherent in this experimental and rapidly evolving sector.

Market Context: The Allure and Aftermath of Restaking Hype

The decentralized finance (DeFi) landscape in mid-2026 finds itself in a precarious equilibrium, where the pursuit of yield has driven innovation to unprecedented levels, simultaneously unveiling new vectors of systemic risk. At the epicenter of this dynamic is “restaking,” a mechanism that has captivated investors and developers alike with its promise of supercharged returns on already-staked assets. The narrative, initially fueled by the groundbreaking work of EigenLayer (now rebranded as EigenCloud), suggested a virtuous cycle where Ethereum’s robust security could be “rented out” to a burgeoning ecosystem of Actively Validated Services (AVSs), creating a shared security layer and opening new revenue streams for stakers.

By early 2026, the restaking sector had ballooned, reaching a massive $13.45 billion in total value locked (TVL) by late February 2026, with EigenCloud dominating the space at $9.4 billion in TVL and generating over $272,000 in weekly fees, according to DAIC Capital (2026). Other reports placed EigenLayer’s TVL at $15.26 billion by April 2026. This rapid accumulation of capital underscored the market’s voracious appetite for yield, especially as traditional Ethereum staking rewards compressed below 3% APY due to increased participation, as observed by Binance (2026). Restaking offered a compelling solution, allowing users to earn multiple streams of rewards from a single set of assets, a concept often dubbed “yield stacking.”

However, the euphoria surrounding these amplified yields has recently tempered, giving way to a more sober assessment of the underlying risks. As of May 2026, DefiLlama data indicates a significant contraction in the restaking category, with TVL standing at $11.542 billion, down sharply from peaks exceeding $20 billion in mid-2025. This retracement reflects a critical market repricing of the layered exposures inherent in restaking. The broader liquid staking category, which often feeds into restaking, also saw its TVL decline from mid-2025 peaks near $86 billion to $39.432 billion by May 2026. This cooling sentiment is a direct consequence of a growing understanding of the complex vulnerabilities, which are no longer theoretical but have manifested in costly real-world incidents.

The current market sentiment, therefore, is one of cautious optimism for the technology, juxtaposed with palpable skepticism regarding its immediate financial stability and the sustainability of its high yields. The conversation around EigenLayer in 2026 has shifted from its theoretical potential to the concrete risks it poses, particularly through restaking mechanisms, protocol slashing, and shared security challenges, according to Hangryfeed Insights (2026).

On-Chain Data & Fundamental Analysis: The Stacked Architecture of Risk

Restaking’s fundamental innovation lies in its ability to extend Ethereum’s cryptoeconomic security to a multitude of other decentralized applications, or Actively Validated Services (AVSs). These AVSs can range from data availability layers (like EigenDA) and oracle networks to bridges, decentralized sequencers, and even AI verification systems. By 2026, EigenLayer (now EigenCloud) actively supports a network of 39 AVSs, demonstrating the broad adoption of its shared security model, according to Hangryfeed Insights (2026).

The mechanism is elegant in theory: validators who have staked ETH on the Ethereum beacon chain can opt to “restake” their ETH (or Liquid Staking Tokens, LSTs, like stETH) with EigenLayer. This commitment then allows them to provide validation services for AVSs in exchange for additional rewards. This creates a “multiplicative risk structure” where validators can face penalties on multiple fronts: for misbehavior on the Ethereum base layer and for failing to meet service commitments at the AVS level.

Yield Dynamics: The Double-Edged Sword

The primary driver for restaking’s rapid adoption has been the pursuit of higher yields. In 2026, typical liquid restaking yields run between 8-12% APY, with some periods spiking to 15%+ during high AVS demand, as reported by Altrady (2026). This compares favorably to the 3-4% APY offered by standard liquid staking. These enhanced returns are generated from multiple sources: the base staking reward from Ethereum, plus additional incentives paid by the AVSs for securing their networks.

However, a critical analysis reveals that not all yield sources are sustainable. Yield from validators and Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) is often considered the “real” part, while yield from token incentives, often used to bootstrap liquidity and adoption, may only exist during competitive TVL phases, as highlighted by Binance (2026). This distinction is crucial, as unusually high APRs should prompt skepticism about their long-term viability. The danger lies in the inherent complexity masking the true origin and sustainability of these yields, transforming yield from a reward into a potential vulnerability.

LRTs: Liquidity at a Price

Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) like ether.fi’s eETH, Renzo’s ezETH, and Kelp DAO’s rsETH have further amplified restaking’s appeal by addressing the illiquidity of staked assets. By issuing a tradable token representing a user’s restaked position, LRTs allow participants to retain liquidity, utilize their capital in other DeFi protocols, and compound their yields. Ether.fi, for instance, is the leading Ethereum liquid restaking protocol by TVL, reportedly managing ~$4.08 billion as of May 2026. Its recent integration with Telegram Wallet’s Earn program also channels potentially large retail ETH flows into its liquid staking infrastructure, increasing TVL and recurring staking revenue (TradingView News, 2026).

However, this added layer of composability also introduces a new suite of risks. An LRT may carry depeg risk (diverging from ETH’s value), liquidity risk (inability to exit positions during stress), smart contract risk (bugs in the LRT protocol itself), and collateral risk. If users borrow against LRTs or loop them through lending markets, a sharp depeg or exploit in one area can trigger cascading liquidations across the broader DeFi ecosystem, extending far beyond EigenLayer itself.

The Other Side: Real Risks and What Nobody Is Saying

While the innovation of restaking is undeniable, the fervent pursuit of yield has often overshadowed a critical examination of its inherent fragility. The interconnectedness and complexity of the restaking ecosystem introduce systemic risks that go beyond individual protocol failures, threatening the stability of the broader DeFi landscape.

The Double Slashing Dilemma and Correlated Failures

One of the most profound and underappreciated risks is the potential for “double slashing.” This refers to scenarios where the same ETH collateral can be penalized by both Ethereum’s baseline slashing conditions and an AVS for failing to meet its specific service commitments. As noted by Hangryfeed Insights (2026), this multiplicative risk structure means validators can face penalties on multiple fronts.

Moreover, the risk of “correlated slashing” looms large. A single AVS or operator anomaly could significantly disrupt the broader system. If a prominent operator running multiple AVSs suffers a failure or misconfiguration, the slashing event could cascade across all the AVSs they secure, potentially impacting a large portion of restaked ETH. This is not merely a theoretical concern; the complexity of native contracts, LST wrappers, and slashing modules creates fertile ground for potential exploitation or misconfiguration.

Centralization: The Unintended Consequence

The promise of decentralization, a core tenet of Ethereum, faces a significant challenge from the restaking paradigm. Industry analysts, including Chorus One (2024), have consistently warned of a “looming threat of centralization” within EigenLayer. This occurs if too many users delegate their stakes to a small cohort of dominant operators. Should such a concentration occur, a single operator’s failure or a successful attack could have far-reaching, systemic consequences across the restaking ecosystem and potentially compromise Ethereum’s underlying security assumptions.

The economic incentives further exacerbate this. AVSs are likely to favor operators with the largest amount of pooled security, typically professional node operators and large liquid restaking projects. These larger entities benefit from economies of scale, allowing them to offer higher yields to attract more delegations, thereby further consolidating their market share, according to Chorus One (2024). This creates a feedback loop that pushes towards greater centralization, directly contradicting the decentralized ethos of the very network restaking aims to secure.

Smart Contract and Bridge Vulnerabilities: The Kelp DAO Case Study

The layered architecture of restaking introduces an exponential increase in smart contract risk. Each new layer—from the underlying LSTs to the restaking protocols, AVS contracts, and cross-chain bridges—presents an additional attack surface. This vulnerability was starkly demonstrated in April 2026 when Kelp DAO, one of the largest liquid restaking protocols, suffered a significant exploit. An attacker drained $280-293 million in rsETH via a LayerZero cross-chain bridge vulnerability.

This incident, the largest single DeFi exploit of 2026 to that point, was not a flaw in EigenLayer’s core restaking model but a critical vulnerability in a cross-chain bridge integration. However, it serves as a potent, real-world case study revealing how interconnected dependencies can amplify the impact of a localized failure. The exploit underscored that “bridge dependencies and layered smart contract risks are not theoretical” (Altrady, 2026). Similar historical incidents, such as the Poly Network hack ($610 million in 2021) and the bZx protocol flash loan attacks (2020), have repeatedly demonstrated how smart contract complexity and inter-protocol dependencies can lead to catastrophic losses.

The Kelp DAO incident also highlights the liquidity risk inherent in LRTs. While designed for ease of trading, LRTs can obscure underlying risks like exit delays or queue depths. Valuations might appear stable, but actual liquidity constraints can become apparent during stress scenarios, potentially leading to de-pegging events and further cascading liquidations.

Unsustainable Yields and the Echoes of Past Failures

The pursuit of “yield stacking” often leads to mechanisms that, upon closer inspection, resemble the unsustainable models seen in prior DeFi collapses. Protocols offering unusually high APYs should be scrutinized for the source of these returns. As Binance (2026) cautions, if the yield is primarily derived from token incentives rather than genuine protocol revenue (e.g., AVS fees, MEV), it may be a temporary phenomenon designed to attract TVL.

This dynamic echoes the “DeFi Death Spiral” seen with projects like Terra’s Anchor Protocol in May 2022, which offered an unsustainable 19.45% APY on UST deposits, ultimately leading to a $45 billion market value collapse and widespread contagion, as documented by Zircuit (2025). More recently, the Stream Finance collapse in November 2025, which involved a $93 million loss and spread across $285 million in interconnected DeFi debt, showcased how opaque risk models and hidden leverage can turn a single failure into a systemic crisis (Zircuit, 2025). Restaking, with its intricate layers and interconnectedness, carries similar risks if not managed with extreme prudence.

The allure of amplified yields in restaking has fundamentally transformed yield generation from a predictable reward into a complex, multi-layered vulnerability. The market is currently undergoing a painful repricing of this risk, revealing that efficiency, when unbounded by caution, can become its own greatest liability.

Risk and Opportunity Assessment: Navigating the Multi-Layered Landscape

Opportunities: Unleashing Capital Efficiency and Shared Security

• Enhanced Capital Efficiency: Restaking allows staked ETH, which would otherwise be idle after securing the Ethereum network, to be re-utilized to secure additional protocols. This maximizes the utility of capital, offering stakers multiple reward streams without requiring additional principal investment.
• Bootstrapping New AVSs: For new decentralized services (AVSs), EigenLayer provides a ready-made security layer, leveraging Ethereum’s substantial cryptoeconomic security. This eliminates the need for each new project to bootstrap its own validator set and economic security from scratch, significantly lowering entry barriers and accelerating innovation in areas like data availability (EigenDA), oracle networks, bridges, and AI verification.
• Innovation in DeFi Primitives: Restaking creates new financial primitives (LRTs) that can be integrated into the broader DeFi ecosystem, fostering new lending, borrowing, and yield-farming strategies. The evolution of more sophisticated smart contracts and risk management tools is also anticipated to improve efficiency and security over time.
• Institutional Adoption Pathways: Protocols like Puffer Finance are actively pursuing institutional partnerships, such as their March 2026 integration with Anchorage Digital, a federally chartered crypto bank. This allows institutions to stake ETH and receive pufETH within a regulated custody framework, potentially attracting new, sticky capital and boosting TVL. Similarly, Ether.fi’s allocation of $100 million to a Real World Asset (RWA) yield vault in partnership with Plume (June 2026) demonstrates a strategic pivot towards regulated, institutional-grade yields, diversifying revenue beyond volatile DeFi.

Risks: The Confluence of Complexity and Contagion

• Compounded Slashing Risk: Restaking introduces a multi-layered slashing mechanism. Validators face penalties not only for Ethereum consensus-layer misbehavior but also for failing to meet the specific requirements of each AVS they secure. This creates the potential for “double slashing” and “correlated slashing,” where a single error or attack can lead to significant losses across multiple protocols.
• Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: The intricate stack of smart contracts—from LSTs to restaking protocols and AVSs—presents an expanded attack surface. The complexity makes audits challenging and increases the likelihood of bugs or exploits, as painfully demonstrated by the Kelp DAO incident.
• LRT De-peg and Liquidity Risk: Liquid Restaking Tokens are susceptible to de-pegging from their underlying ETH value, especially during periods of market stress or if a significant slashing event occurs. Furthermore, liquidity for LRTs can be shallow, leading to significant price divergence and potentially triggering cascading liquidations if these tokens are used as collateral in other DeFi protocols.
• Centralization of Operators: The pursuit of higher yields often leads to the concentration of restaked ETH among a few large, professional operators. This centralization risk undermines Ethereum’s decentralization principles and creates single points of failure, making the network more vulnerable to coordinated attacks or regulatory pressure.
• Opaque AVS Risks and Unaudited Logic: The specific slashing conditions and economic models of individual AVSs can be highly complex and opaque, making it difficult for stakers to fully assess their risk exposure. Many AVSs are new and may not have undergone rigorous security audits or battle-testing, introducing unknown vulnerabilities.
• Systemic Contagion: The deep interconnectedness of restaking protocols with the broader DeFi ecosystem means that a failure in one component (e.g., an AVS exploit, an LRT de-peg, or a major operator slashing) can have ripple effects, triggering liquidations and a loss of confidence across multiple protocols. This creates new zones of systemic risk where yield becomes a vulnerability.

Comparison with Similar Projects/Trends

Restaking vs. Traditional Staking

Traditional Ethereum staking involves locking up 32 ETH (or delegating to a liquid staking provider) to secure the network and earn rewards, typically 3-4% APY. The primary risk is market volatility of ETH and potential slashing for validator misbehavior. Staked assets are illiquid during unbonding periods.

Restaking, conversely, reuses that already-staked ETH to secure additional AVSs, offering supplementary rewards on top of the base staking yield, potentially reaching 8-12% APY, or even higher. However, this amplifies risk significantly. It introduces new layers of slashing (AVS-specific), smart contract complexity, and operator dependence. While traditional staking secures one network, restaking secures multiple, increasing the interconnectedness and potential for correlated failures.

Liquid Restaking (LRTs) vs. Liquid Staking (LSTs)

Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like Lido’s stETH or Rocket Pool’s rETH provide liquidity for staked ETH, allowing users to participate in DeFi while earning base staking rewards. They address the illiquidity of native staking. Lido, for instance, remains the largest liquid staking protocol with $18.964 billion in TVL across 5 chains as of May 2026, according to CoinLaw (2026).

Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) take this a step further by representing an ETH position that is *both* staked *and* restaked. This offers higher yield potential due to the aggregated rewards from AVSs, but at a significant cost of increased complexity and risk. LRTs introduce additional smart contract dependencies, de-peg risk, and heightened slashing exposure compared to LSTs. The Kelp DAO exploit in April 2026 serves as a stark reminder of these amplified risks.

The “Yield as a Vulnerability” Paradigm

The restaking phenomenon represents a new phase in DeFi’s relentless pursuit of capital efficiency, where yield generation has evolved into a complex, multi-layered vulnerability. This contrasts sharply with simpler yield farming strategies where risks, while present, were often more directly attributable to a single protocol or asset. In restaking, the density of mutual obligations means a failure in one AVS or operator can propagate through interconnected protocols, creating systemic risk, as highlighted by Hangryfeed Insights (2026).

This paradigm shift necessitates a re-evaluation of how “yield” is perceived. It’s no longer just about the percentage return, but the hidden leverage, opaque risk models, and potential for cascading failures embedded within the yield-generating mechanism itself. The market’s recent repricing and TVL contractions indicate a growing awareness of this intricate web of dependencies.

Recommendations: Navigating the Restaking Frontier

The restaking ecosystem, while innovative, is still in its nascent stages, characterized by high potential rewards coupled with equally high, and often opaque, risks. For participants, a nuanced and highly skeptical approach is paramount.

Short-Term Outlook (6-12 Months)

• Extreme Due Diligence: Before engaging with any restaking protocol or LRT, conduct exhaustive due diligence. This includes scrutinizing specific AVS policies, operator reliability, smart contract audits (including those of underlying LSTs and bridges), and the transparency of slashing conditions. The Kelp DAO exploit serves as a critical warning.
• Diversification is Key: Avoid excessive reliance on a single operator or LRT protocol. Diversify your restaked ETH across multiple operators and different LRTs, and consider staggering participation across various AVSs to mitigate correlated slashing cascades.
• Monitor Liquidity and De-peg Risk: Closely scrutinize LRT dynamics and withdrawal conditions. Be aware that LRTs, despite their “liquid” nature, can face severe liquidity constraints and de-pegging during market stress. Avoid over-leveraging LRTs as collateral in other DeFi protocols. Altrady (2026) suggests limiting LRT exposure to 10-30% of an ETH allocation, and aggressive DeFi loops to 0-10%.
• Prioritize Transparency and Audits: Favor protocols that are transparent about their AVS selections, operator performance, and have undergone multiple, reputable smart contract audits. Understand that even audited code can contain economic design flaws.
• Beware of Unsustainable Yields: Approach exceptionally high yields (e.g., above 15% APY consistently) with extreme caution. Investigate the source of these yields. If they are primarily driven by token emissions, they are likely unsustainable in the long run.

Long-Term Outlook (1-3 Years)

• Focus on Core Utility AVSs: The long-term value in restaking will likely accrue to AVSs that provide genuinely needed, robust infrastructure services (e.g., data availability, secure bridges, decentralized sequencing) rather than speculative yield-farming opportunities. Assess the fundamental demand and revenue models of the AVSs being secured.
• Regulatory Scrutiny: As restaking matures and attracts institutional capital, regulatory bodies are likely to increase their scrutiny. Protocols that prioritize compliance, robust risk management, and clear disclosures will be better positioned for long-term sustainability. The SEC’s landmark guidance in August 2025 regarding certain liquid staking activities, while not directly addressing restaking, hints at a developing regulatory framework.
• Decentralization Progress: Monitor the efforts of EigenCloud and other restaking protocols to address centralization concerns. A healthy, decentralized operator set is crucial for the long-term security and censorship resistance of both AVSs and, by extension, Ethereum itself. This includes mechanisms for redistribution of slashed assets and incentivizing a broader base of operators.
• Evolution of Risk Models: The industry will need to develop more sophisticated and transparent risk modeling frameworks for restaking. As the ecosystem evolves, a clearer understanding of intersubjective faults, correlated risks, and cascading liquidation scenarios will be essential for informed participation.

Disclaimer: This is not investment advice. Restaking and liquid restaking tokens involve significant market volatility, slashing risk, operator risk, smart contract risk, liquidity risk, de-peg risk, and potential for exploits. Always conduct your own thorough research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

Sources & References

• Hangryfeed Insights. “Understanding EigenLayer Risks in 2026 | Hangryfeed Insights”. May 17, 2026.
• Hangryfeed Insights. “Restaking as a new zone of systemic risk: when yield becomes a vulnerability”. June 2, 2026.
• Smart Liquidity Research. “Case Studies of Failed DeFi Projects: Lessons Learned”. October 25, 2024.
• Hangryfeed Insights. “Navigating EigenLayer Restaking Risks in 2026 | Hangryfeed Insights”. May 16, 2026.
• KuCoin. “Restaking Explained in 2026: How This New Crypto Trend Is Reshaping Yield and Security”. April 9, 2026.
• Hacken.io. “Understanding EigenLayer & Ethereum’s Restaking – Hacken.io”. June 26, 2025.
• Kernel. “Restaking vs. Traditional Staking: The Next Big Leap in Decentralized Security”. December 16, 2024.
• Hangryfeed Insights. “Restaking as a new zone of systemic risk: when yield becomes a vulnerability”. June 2, 2026.
• DAIC Capital. “Crypto Staking Trends 2026: LSTs, Restaking & ETFs”. March 9, 2026.
• Blockcircle. “EigenLayer Review 2026: Restaking, AVSs, EigenDA & EIGEN Token Explained”. May 16, 2026.
• Roqqu Pay. “Crypto Staking vs Restaking: What Sets Them Apart? | by Roqqu Pay | Medium”. June 18, 2024.
• Bybit Learn. “A Guide to Native Staking vs. Liquid Staking vs. Liquid Restaking – Bybit Learn”. September 3, 2024.
• Datawallet. “EigenLayer Explained: Restaking, AVSs, EIGEN & More – Datawallet”. October 1, 2024.
• Altrady. “Liquid Restaking vs Staking: Yield, Risk Compared – Altrady”. May 12, 2026.
• Venga. “Crypto Staking vs. Restaking: What’s the Difference? – Venga”. October 29, 2024.
• Zircuit. “The DeFi Death Spiral: Understanding the Business Model Failures Behind Crypto’s Biggest Collapses”. 2025.
• CoinMarketCap. “Puffer (PUFFER) Price Prediction For 2026 & Beyond – CoinMarketCap”. June 1, 2026.
• Phemex. “Ether.fi Allocates $100M to Plume’s RWA Treasury for Direct Asset Yields – Phemex”. June 5, 2026.
• DEXTools. “Top 5 Restaking Protocols in 2026: EigenLayer, EtherFi, Symbiotic and More – by DEXTools”. April 13, 2026.
• EigenLayer News. “EigenLayer News”. June 1, 2026.
• CoinLaw. “Liquid Staking and Restaking Adoption Statistics 2026: Yield Unlocked Now – CoinLaw”. May 29, 2026.
• CoinMarketCap. “ether.fi (ETHFI) Price Prediction For 2026 & Beyond – CoinMarketCap”. June 4-5, 2026.
• DWF Labs. “Liquidity Meltdown: Failures, Contagion, and New Rules of Yield Generation – DWF Labs”. December 5, 2025.
• MEXC News. “Ether.fi’s $100M Plume Vault: The RWA Yield Deal That Moves Beyond TVL | MEXC News”. June 5, 2026.
• TradingView News. “Ether.fi (ETHFI) – Wallet in TG Partnership – 01 June 2026 — TradingView News”. June 1, 2026.
• DefiLlama. “ether.fi TVL, Fees, Revenue & Volume – DefiLlama”. Current as of June 8, 2026.
• MEXC News. “Restaking Risk After the Hype: Why Shared Security Still Needs Better Failure Models | MEXC News”. May 28, 2026.
• Blockworks. “EigenLayer’s biggest risk may be centralization, report suggests – Blockworks”. April 18, 2024.
• Coinbase. “Understanding the EigenLayer AVS Landscape – Coinbase”. May 14, 2024.
• DroomDroom. “Top Liquid Restaking Protocols To Watch In 2026 – DroomDroom”. April 11, 2025.
• Blockworks. “EigenLayer Disclosures Prompt Conflict of Interest Policy at Ethereum Foundation”. May 25, 2024.
• arXiv. “Financial Dynamics and Interconnected Risk of Liquid Restaking – arXiv”. March 23, 2026.
• BingX. “What Are the Top Liquid Staking Protocols to Know in 2026? – BingX”. August 6, 2025.
• Hindenrank. “Backtested Against 16 Historic DeFi Failures – Hindenrank”. June 5, 2026.
• DefiLlama. “Puffer Finance TVL, Fees & Revenue – DefiLlama”. Current as of June 8, 2026.
• EigenCloud Blog. “EigenCloud Blog”. May 26, 2026.
• BlockTelegraph. “Learning from DeFi Security Breaches: 5 Case Studies – BlockTelegraph”. October 27, 2025.
• Binance. “Liquid Staking 2026: High yields are real, but what are you giving up? – Binance”. February 6, 2026.
• MEXC. “Puffer (PUFFER) Price Prediction | Forecast for 2026, 2027, 2028, 2030 & Beyond｜MEXC”. June 7, 2026.
• Token Unlocks. “Puffer – Tokenomics & Vesting Schedule – Token Unlocks”. June 5, 2026.
• Tracxn. “Puffer Finance – 2026 Company Profile, Team, Funding & Competitors – Tracxn”. May 22, 2026.
• DefiLlama. “Liquid Restaking Protocols – TVL, Fees, & Revenue – DefiLlama”. Current as of June 8, 2026.