At a glance
Kelp DAO ↗ and Puffer Finance ↗ are two liquid restaking protocols that launched in 2024, both built on EigenLayer ↗. They let users deposit ETH or LSTs and receive liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) in return. Kelp DAO issues rsETH and holds $1B in TVL; Puffer Finance issues pufETH and holds $0.5B in TVL. Kelp targets those who want multi-chain LRT utility and auto-compounding, while Puffer caters to users seeking native restaking with anti-slashing guarantees and a built-in rollup ecosystem.
Key differences
TVL and liquidity: Kelp DAO manages $1B, roughly double Puffer Finance’s $0.5B. That deeper liquidity can mean tighter spreads and easier exit.
Chain support: Kelp operates on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Optimism. Puffer is available on Ethereum and its own Puffer UniFi — a based rollup that redirects sequencer revenue to the Ethereum community. Multi-chain users will find Kelp more accessible; rollup-first users may prefer Puffer UniFi.
Mechanism and product design: Kelp offers standard liquid restaking with rsETH, plus Kelp Gain, an auto-compounding vault that layers additional yield on top of restaking points. Puffer distinguishes itself with Secure-Signer, an anti-slashing technology designed to reduce validator penalties during restaking, and pufETH as its LRT.
Audits: Kelp underwent Sigma Prime and Code4rena audits. Puffer completed Quantstamp, Spearbit, and Nethermind audits. Both have clean incident histories to date.
Governance tokens: Kelp issues KEP; Puffer issues PUFFER. Both govern via DAOs.
Security and track record
Both protocols launched in 2024 and have no recorded security incidents. Kelp DAO’s audits by Sigma Prime and Code4rena cover its smart contracts. Puffer Finance’s audits by Quantstamp, Spearbit, and Nethermind scrutinize its restaking contracts and Secure-Signer module. While the audit breadth is comparable, Puffer’s Secure-Signer provides an additional layer of slashing protection not present in Kelp’s design. On raw track record, both are less battle-tested than older protocols like Lido ↗ or Aave ↗, but no red flags exist for either.
Fees and costs
Fee schedules are not disclosed in our data. Check each protocol’s official documentation for current restaking fees, vault fees, and LRT performance.
Which should you choose
Pick Kelp DAO if you:
- Need multi-chain LRT (Arbitrum, Optimism)
- Want deeper liquidity ($1B TVL)
- Prefer auto-compounding via Kelp Gain
- Are comfortable with standard liquid restaking risk
Pick Puffer Finance if you:
- Value anti-slashing protection (Secure-Signer)
- Want exposure to a based rollup (Puffer UniFi) and its MEV revenue
- Are willing to accept smaller TVL for added security features
- Prefer a native restaking approach
Verdict
This matchup is context-dependent. Kelp DAO wins on multi-chain presence and liquidity depth, making it the safer default for most DeFi users. Puffer Finance wins on security innovation and rollup yield potential, suiting those who prioritize validator safety and Ethereum-aligned rollups. The choice reduces to your preference for scale versus specialized tech.