CONSIDERED · safer path (LST)

Is rETH safe to hold or use as fixed-rate carry?

Rocket Pool rETH (liquid staking token)

The SPA Rates Desk does NOT refuse rETH on structural grounds. Like stETH it is a plain liquid-staking token (LST), not a restaking token (LRT): no stacked restaking / operator-slashing tail. Rocket Pool's node operators post their own collateral, which is a different — not zero — trust model. It is still not risk-free. Paper research, not a live-capital position.

Why it is structurally safer

Plain staking, not restaking. Decentralised node-operator set with operator-posted collateral, and no restaking layer stacked on top. The peg-breakdown tail is far smaller than the refused LRTs — this is the safer LST path, not the toxic restaking one.

Safer is not risk-free

Safer is not risk-free: rETH carries Rocket Pool smart-contract risk, slashing risk, ETH price risk, and thinner secondary liquidity than stETH (a bigger exit can move its own price). 'Structurally safer than an LRT' is not 'safe'. Whether a specific PT book on rETH clears the carry gate depends on live pricing — see the live refusal log.

Check us Refusal log (hash-chained) → Liquidation-NAV by size → The tiers we run →

SPA is a paper-stage research desk. This is a structural risk verdict, not investment advice. Measured figures are BACKTEST (real ETH-peg history), conservative lower bounds — never presented as realized returns. A CONSIDERED verdict means we do not refuse it on structural grounds — it is not an endorsement, a recommendation, or a claim of safety. The differentiator is what we REFUSE, published transparently.