At a glance
Bedrock uniBTC ↗ and Puffer Finance ↗ are both liquid restaking protocols but take distinct paths. Bedrock uniBTC tokenizes restaked BTC, ETH, and IoTeX across chains like Arbitrum and BNB, with $0.28B TVL. Puffer Finance focuses on Ethereum-native restaking via pufETH, anti-slashing Secure-Signer tech, and its own based rollup, Puffer UniFi, holding $0.05B TVL. Choose Bedrock for multi-asset and multi-chain exposure and a larger TVL base; pick Puffer for Ethereum-centric security and anti-slashing tech.
Key differences
TVL: Bedrock uniBTC commands $0.28B in total value locked versus Puffer Finance’s $0.05B. Bedrock’s deeper liquidity may signal stronger market trust.
Chain support: Bedrock uniBTC operates on six chains — Ethereum, Arbitrum, BNB, Optimism, Base, and Mantle — while Puffer Finance is limited to Ethereum and its UniFi rollup. For users active across multiple ecosystems, Bedrock provides broader composability.
Underlying assets: Bedrock uniBTC restakes Bitcoin via Babylon, plus ETH and IoTeX; Puffer is strictly ETH-native. The BTC angle is unique to Bedrock and absent in Puffer.
Restaking infrastructure: Both integrate with EigenLayer ↗, but Bedrock also plugs into Symbiotic and Babylon for additional yield sources. Puffer adds its UniFi based rollup, which returns sequencer revenue to stakers — a different incentive model.
Audit profile: Puffer completed three audits (Quantstamp, Spearbit, Nethermind); Bedrock settled for two (SlowMist, Salus). The extra review provides a marginal edge in security optics.
Security and track record
Bedrock uniBTC suffered a ~$2M exploit in September 2024, when a flawed uniBTC mint function let an attacker mint disproportionate tokens against a small ETH deposit; the affected contract was paused and Bedrock reported that underlying reserves stayed safe. Puffer Finance has no reported incidents. Puffer Finance’s three audits from top-tier firms (Quantstamp, Spearbit, Nethermind) slightly surpass Bedrock uniBTC’s two audits (SlowMist, Salus). Puffer’s Secure-Signer technology specifically targets slashing protection, a feature not present in Bedrock. Both launched recently — Bedrock in 2023, Puffer in 2024. For risk-averse restakers, Puffer’s additional audit, clean incident record, and anti-slashing mechanism tip the scale.
Fees and costs
Fee structures for both protocols are not disclosed in our data. Restaking yields and gas costs vary by chain and integration, so users should consult official documentation for Bedrock uniBTC (bedrock.technology) and Puffer Finance (puffer.fi) directly.
Which should you choose
Pick Bedrock uniBTC if:
- You want Bitcoin restaking exposure through Babylon.
- You deploy capital across multiple chains (Arbitrum, BNB, Base, etc.).
- Multi-asset flexibility (BTC, ETH, IoTeX) matters to your portfolio.
Pick Puffer Finance if:
- You prefer Ethereum-native restaking with stronger anti-slashing guarantees.
- You value a third audit and a clean incident record for added safety.
- The Puffer UniFi based rollup and sequencer revenue share appeal to you.
Verdict
No universal winner. Puffer Finance’s extra audit, clean incident record, and anti-slashing tech make it the stronger Ethereum-native restaking play. Bedrock uniBTC’s unique Bitcoin restaking, broader chain coverage, multi-asset support, and larger TVL win for diversified restakers. The right pick depends on your asset focus and chain preferences.