Empirical and Theoretical Analysis of Liquid Staking Protocols

Krzysztof Gogol,Benjamin Kraner,Malte Schlosser,Tao Yan,Claudio Tessone,Burkhard Stiller

2024-01-30

Abstract:Liquid staking has become the largest category of decentralized finance protocols in terms of total value locked. However, few studies exist on its implementation designs or underlying risks. The liquid staking protocols allow for earning staking rewards without the disadvantage of locking the capital at the validators. Yet, they are seen by some as a threat to the Proof-of-Stake blockchain security.

Cryptography and Security

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is the lack of research on the implementation design of Liquid Staking Protocols (LSPs) and their potential risks. Specifically, the paper focuses on the following aspects:

1. **Classifying Liquid Staking Protocols**:
- For the first time, the paper classifies the existing liquid staking protocols. Based on different staking reward distribution mechanisms, LSPs are divided into three categories: the rebase model, the reward model, and the dual - token model. This helps to understand the design differences and operation modes of different LSPs.

2. **Analysis of Historical Performance**:
- The author analyzes the historical performance of major Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and compares them with traditional staking. The research covers the three major PoS blockchains of Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain, and explores the performance of these LSTs in the market and their advantages and disadvantages compared to native token staking.

3. **Research on Influencing Factors**:
- The research investigates the influence of factors such as the degree of centralization, the Maximum Extractable Value (MEV), and Ethereum's migration from Proof - of - Work (PoW) to Proof - of - Stake (PoS) on the performance of LSTs. In particular, by analyzing the tracking error, the author finds that these errors are persistent and cannot be explained by the macro variables of the currency (such as volatility or return rate).

4. **Risk Assessment**:
- The paper also explores the risks faced by liquid staking protocols, including depeg risk and slashing risk. Depeg risk refers to the risk that synthetic assets (such as LSTs) lose their peg to the target value, while slashing risk refers to the risk that staked assets are slashed due to improper behavior of validators.

In summary, this paper aims to fill the gap in academic research on liquid staking protocols. Through the classification of existing LSPs, the analysis of historical performance, and the research on influencing factors, it provides an important reference for understanding the risks and opportunities in this emerging field.

### Formula Presentation

- **Multiple Regression Model**:
\[
X_{sc}=\alpha+\beta_1\cdot\Delta c_{\text{daily}}+\beta_2\cdot\sigma_c^{\text{monthly}}+\beta_3\cdot\sigma_c^{\text{daily change}}+\beta_4\cdot M+\beta_5\cdot V
\]
where:
- \(X_{sc}\) represents the excess return of LST.
- \(\Delta c_{\text{daily}}\) represents the daily price percentage change.
- \(\sigma_c^{\text{monthly}}\) represents the standard deviation of the past 30 trading days.
- \(\sigma_c^{\text{daily change}}\) represents the change in the daily standard deviation.
- \(M\) represents the market capitalization.
- \(V\) represents the daily trading volume.

- **Autoregressive Model**:
\[
\text{Premium}_t=\alpha+\beta_1\cdot\Delta c_{\text{daily}}+\beta_2\cdot\sigma_c^{\text{monthly}}+\beta_3\cdot\sigma_c^{\text{daily change}}+\beta_4\cdot MCap+\beta_5\cdot V+\beta_6\cdot\text{Premium}_{t - 1}+\cdots+ \beta_{11}\cdot