Introduction
Puffer is a decentralized liquid restaking protocol built on Eigenlayer, enhancing Ethereum’s Proof of Stake (PoS) accessibility. Targeting reduced capital requirements and increased rewards, Puffer introduces unique tokenomics with pufETH, enabling stakers to benefit from both PoS and restaking rewards. The protocol promotes decentralization by allowing broader participation in Ethereum validation with as little as 2 ETH and safeguards the network through self-regulated mechanisms.
Innovation
Puffer’s innovation lies in its approach to native liquid restaking, allowing validators to earn rewards by restaking on Eigenlayer without needing the typical 32 ETH minimum. Unlike traditional Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs), pufETH offers dual rewards from PoS and restaking activities, maximizing potential gains for stakers. Puffer’s Validator Tickets (VTs) incentivize optimal validator performance by requiring an upfront investment, aligning operator incentives with the protocol’s goals.
Architecture
Puffer’s architecture is modular, with each module containing a set of validators managed through PufferModules. A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) governs these modules, appointing restaking operators (ReOps) to oversee additional validator services (AVSs). This architecture promotes flexibility while maintaining oversight through decentralized and community-led mechanisms.
Code Quality
The code quality and security design are essential for the protocol’s functioning, as it must manage PoS rewards, restaking mechanisms, and validator ejections seamlessly. Puffer’s codebase includes ERC20 tokens for VTs and robust mechanisms for slashing protection. Key areas of interest include the anti-slashing hardware integration and governance structures embedded into the code to manage validator performance. A thorough audit and regular updates are critical to ensure resilience against potential vulnerabilities, especially within the AVS framework.
Product Roadmap
Puffer’s roadmap focuses on complete decentralization, gradually phasing out dependency on Guardians as Ethereum infrastructure advances. Near-term objectives include refining the protocol’s modular governance and extending participation to broader staker demographics. Long-term plans emphasize expanding on-chain automation, aligning with upcoming Ethereum EIPs (like EIP-7002) to transition critical operations to Ethereum-native automation.
Usability
Puffer’s protocol design lowers entry barriers for stakers and NoOps but introduces complexity through its layered reward structures. The dual-reward mechanism of pufETH and the intricacies around VTs may be challenging for new users. Streamlined onboarding materials and clear reward visibility could improve accessibility, particularly for those less familiar with staking and restaking.
Team
Puffer‘s team consists of Ethereum and blockchain specialists with experience in protocol architecture, staking mechanisms, and governance. Their expertise is evident in the innovative design and modularity of the protocol. As the project progresses, further expanding the team to include experts in user experience and onboarding could enhance its appeal to a broader audience.
Conclusion
Puffer presents a pioneering approach to liquid restaking with its modular structure, dual-reward tokenomics, and incentivized validator alignment. Its potential impact on Ethereum’s decentralization and accessibility is promising, but the complexity and risk factors inherent in restaking and AVS reliance merit ongoing vigilance. As Puffer continues to evolve and decentralize, it is a novel addition to Ethereum’s growing landscape of staking solutions.
Initial Screening | |||
Keep researching | |||
Does this project need to use blockchain technology? | Yes | ||
Can this project be realized? | Yes | ||
Is there a viable use case for this project? | Yes | ||
Is the project protected from commonly known attacks? | Yes | ||
Are there no careless errors in the whitepaper? | Yes | ||
Project Technology Score | |||
Description | Scorecard | ||
Innovation (Out Of 11) | 9 | ||
How have similar projects performed? | Good | 2 | |
Are there too many innovations? | Regular | 2 | |
Percentage of crypto users that will use the project? | 6% to 10% | 3 | |
Is the project unique? | Yes | 2 | |
Architecture (Out of 12) | 10 | ||
Overall feeling after reading whitepaper? | Good | 2 | |
Resistance to possible attacks? | Good | 2 | |
Complexity of the architecture? | Not too complex | 2 | |
Time taken to understand the architecture? | More than 1 hour | 0 | |
Overall feeling about the architecture after deeper research? | Good | 4 | |
Has the project been hacked? | No | 0 | |
Code Quality (out of 15) | 12 | ||
Is the project open source? | Yes | 2 | |
Does the project use good code like C,C++, Rust, Erlang, Ruby, etc? | Yes | 2 | |
Could the project use better programming languages? | No | 0 | |
Github number of lines? | More than 10K | 1 | |
Github commits per month? | Less than 10 | 0 | |
What is the quality of the code? | Good | 2 | |
How well is the code commented? | Outstanding | 2 | |
Overall quality of the test coverage? | Outstanding | 2 | |
Overall quality of the maintainability index? | Good | 1 | |
When Mainnet (out of 5) | 5 | ||
When does the mainnet come out? | Mainnet | 5 | |
Usability for Infrastructure Projects (out of 5) | 5 | ||
Is it easy to use for the end customer? | Yes | 5 | |
Team (out of 7) | 5 | ||
Number of active developers? | 5+ | 2 | |
Developers average Git Background? | Intermediate | 1 | |
Developers coding style? | Solid | 2 | |
Total Score (out of 55) | 46 | ||
Percentage Score | |||
Innovation | 16.36% | ||
Architecture | 18.18% | ||
Code Quality | 21.82% | ||
Mainnet | 9.09% | ||
Usability | 9.09% | ||
Team | 9.09% | ||
Total | 83.64% |