I. Technical Comparison

1. Staking Mechanism and Token Model

Parameter	LiquiSynth Protocol	Drop	EigenLayer	Lido
Staking Mechanism	Dynamic Collateral Ratio (150%-200%)	Fixed Collateral Ratio (150%)	Over-Collateralization (≥200%)	Pure Staking (No Collateral)
Token Model	LSP (ERC-4626 Standard)	stAsset (ERC-20)	LRT (ERC-721 NFT)	stETH (ERC-20)
Revenue Sources	Staking Rewards + Synthetic Asset Fees	Staking Rewards	Restaking Rewards + AVS Fees	Staking Rewards
Cross-Chain Support	Arbitrum + Layer3 Expansion	Single-Chain (ETH/SOL)	Ethereum Mainnet	Multi-Chain (ETH/SOL/AVAX)
Smart Contract Audit	CertiK + OpenZeppelin	OpenZeppelin	Trail of Bits	CertiK

Technical Advantages:

• Dynamic Collateral Ratio: Real-time adjustments via Chainlink oracles reduce liquidation risks (LiquiSynth: 150% minimum, EigenLayer: 200%).

• ERC-4626 Standardization: Seamless integration with DeFi protocols enhances capital efficiency (vs. Lido’s ERC-20 tokens requiring additional wrapping).

2. Risk Management and Performance Metrics

Metric	LiquiSynth	Drop	EigenLayer	Lido
TPS (Layer2)	4000+	1000	15 (L1)	2000
Liquidation Delay (s)	≤5	≤10	≤30	≤15
MEV Resistance	Dynamic Weighted Auctions	None	Time-Lock Mechanism	None
Oracle Aggregation	3+ Sources	1	2	1

Formula: Capital Efficiency (CE)

CE=Staking Rewards+Synthetic Asset RevenueCollateral Value×Leverage RatioCE=Collateral ValueStaking Rewards+Synthetic Asset Revenue​×Leverage Ratio

• LiquiSynth CE = 18% (APY 10% + Synthetic Revenue 8%)

• EigenLayer CE = 12% (Restaking Rewards 10% + AVS Revenue 2%)

• Lido CE = 5% (Single Staking Rewards).