Opinion by: Laura Wallendal, co-founder and CEO of Acre
Restaking is often heralded as the next big thing in decentralized finance (DeFi) yields, but behind the hype lies a precarious balancing act. Validators are stacking responsibilities and slashing risks, incentives are misaligned, and much of the $21 billion in total value locked (TVL) is held by a handful of whales and venture capitalists rather than the broader market.
Let’s break down why restaking lacks real product-market fit and how it compounds more risk than it yields. Most importantly, we need to confront the uncomfortable questions: Who profits when the system fails, and who is left holding the risk?
Restaking doesn’t really work
By definition, restaking allows already-staked assets, typically Ether (ETH), to be pledged a second time, thereby utilizing them in securing other networks or services. In this system, validators use the same collateral to validate multiple protocols, theoretically earning more rewards from a single deposit.
On paper, this sounds efficient. In practice, it’s only leverage disguised as efficiency: a financial house of mirrors where the same ETH is counted multiple times as collateral, while each protocol piles on dependencies and potential failure points.
This is a problem. Every layer of restaking compounds exposure rather than yield.
Consider a validator that restakes into three protocols. Are they earning three times the return? Or are they taking on three times the risk? While the upside usually sets the narrative, a governance failure or slashing event in any of those downstream systems can cascade upward and wipe out collateral entirely.
Additionally, the restaking design breeds a form of quiet centralization. Managing complex validator positions across multiple networks requires scale, meaning only a handful of large operators can realistically participate. Power accumulates, resulting in a small cluster of validators securing dozens of protocols and orchestrating a fragile concentration of trust in an industry purportedly built on decentralization.
There’s a good reason why major DeFi platforms and decentralized exchanges like Hyperliquid or even established lending markets aren’t relying on restaking to power their systems. Restaking has yet to prove real-world product-market fit outside speculative activity.
Where does the yield come from?
Immediate risks aside, restaking raises a deeper question: Does this model even make economic sense? In finance, traditional or decentralized, yield must come from productive activity. Honing in on DeFi, this might involve lending, liquidity provision or staking rewards tied to actual network usage.
Restaking’s yields, by contrast, are synthetic. They repackage the same collateral to appear more productive than it is. This is quite similar to rehypothecation in TradFi. Here, value isn’t being created; it’s just being recycled.
The extra “yield” in this framework usually comes from three familiar sources. It’s either token emissions that inflate supply to attract capital, borrowed liquidity incentives funded by venture treasuries or speculative fees paid in volatile native tokens.
Of course, that doesn’t make restaking inherently malicious. But it does make it fragile. Until there’s a clearer link between the risks validators assume and the tangible economic value their security provides, the returns will remain speculative at best.
From synthetic yields to sustainable ones
Restaking will likely continue to attract capital, but in its current form, it would be hard-pressed to achieve real, lasting product-market fit. That is, as long as incentives remain short-term, risks remain asymmetric, and the yield narrative feels increasingly removed from real economic activity.
As DeFi matures, sustainability will matter more than speed because protocols need transparent incentives and real users who understand the risks they’re taking over inflated TVL. That means a shift away from complex, multi-layered models toward yield systems grounded in verifiable onchain activity where rewards reflect measurable network utility rather than recycled incentives.
The most promising developments are emerging in areas like Bitcoin (BTC) native finance, layer-2 staking and cross-chain liquidity networks, where yields come from network utility and ecosystems focus on aligning user trust with capital efficiency.
DeFi doesn’t need more abstractions of risk. It requires systems that prioritize clarity over complexity.
Opinion by: Laura Wallendal, co-founder and CEO of Acre.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
