Risks of Using Liquid Staking Tokens as Collateral

Liquid staking tokens (LSTs) let you earn staking rewards without locking up your crypto. When you stake ETH through a protocol like Lido or Rocket Pool, you get a token like stETH or rETH in return, and that token represents your staked position. Understanding liquid staking collateral risk is essential before you decide to put these tokens to work in DeFi lending markets.

Using LSTs as collateral means you deposit them into a lending protocol to borrow other assets. This strategy sounds efficient on paper because you keep earning staking rewards while accessing liquidity at the same time. But behind that appeal sits a layered set of risks that many investors overlook until it is too late.

Panaprium is independent and reader supported. If you buy something through our link, we may earn a commission. If you can, please support us on a monthly basis. It takes less than a minute to set up, and you will be making a big impact every single month. Thank you!

Why People Use Liquid Staking Tokens as Collateral

The idea behind using LSTs as collateral is simple. You want your capital working harder, and liquid staking gives you a path to do exactly that.

The Double-Earn Appeal

Regular staking locks your ETH and gives you rewards. Liquid staking gives you those same rewards but also hands you a tradeable token you can use elsewhere. That token becomes your ticket into DeFi lending markets.

Why investors like this strategy:

• Earn staking rewards while borrowing - Your LST continues to accrue staking yield even while it sits as collateral in a lending protocol.
• Access liquidity without unstaking - You do not need to go through the unstaking queue, which can take days. You borrow against your position instead.
• Increase capital efficiency - Your staked ETH is no longer sitting idle. It is earning yield and serving as collateral at the same time.

Protocols accept LSTs because they have real backing and generate yield, which makes them attractive as collateral assets. For lenders, a yield-bearing asset as collateral feels more secure than a static one.

But here is the important part. The more layers of reward you add, the more layers of risk you are quietly accepting. Exploring liquid staking collateral risk is not just for cautious investors. It is a basic requirement before anyone puts these assets to work.

Learn more about the Risks of Liquid Staking Most Beginners Miss (And How to Manage Them) before you go further into DeFi strategies.

Price Volatility and De-Peg Risk

This is the first major warning sign that most beginners skip past. LSTs are designed to track the price of their base asset, usually ETH, but they do not always do that cleanly.

What Is a De-Peg and Why Does It Matter?

A de-peg happens when an LST trades below the value of the asset it represents. For example, stETH might trade at 0.97 ETH instead of 1 ETH. That small gap can have serious consequences when your LST is sitting as collateral in a lending protocol.

What can cause a de-peg:

• Market panic - When sentiment turns negative, users rush to sell their LSTs on the open market, pushing the price down fast.
• Liquidity crunch - If there is not enough depth in LST trading pools, even moderate selling pressure can knock the price off its peg.
• Slashing events - If validators behind the staking protocol are penalized, confidence in the LST drops, and the price follows.
• Large withdrawals - A wave of redemptions can drain liquidity from pools and create temporary price gaps.

Here is a simple example. Say you deposit 10 stETH as collateral when stETH equals 1 ETH. Your collateral is worth 10 ETH. Now stETH de-pegs to 0.94 ETH. Your collateral is suddenly worth only 9.4 ETH. That 6% drop could push your position past the liquidation threshold before you even have time to react.

This is one of the most underrated aspects of liquid staking collateral risk, because the drop does not need to be dramatic. Even a small deviation from the peg can be enough to trigger automatic liquidation in a tightly configured lending protocol.

Liquidation Risk Gets Amplified

DeFi lending protocols protect themselves by liquidating collateral when its value drops too far. With standard assets, this process is straightforward. With LSTs, it gets more complicated.

How Collateral Ratios Work With LSTs

When you borrow against collateral, the protocol sets a liquidation threshold. If your collateral value falls below that threshold, a liquidation bot steps in and sells your collateral to cover the debt. The problem with LSTs is that the price can move in two ways at once, both from the base asset dropping and from a de-peg happening simultaneously.

Why is liquidation risk higher with LSTs?

• Two layers of volatility - Your LST value depends on the ETH price and on the peg holding. Both can move against you at the same time.
• Oracle delays - Price oracles that feed data to protocols sometimes lag behind real market prices. By the time the protocol reacts, the situation may already be worse than it appears.
• Lower liquidity compared to base asset - LSTs are less liquid than ETH itself. When liquidators sell your collateral, they may do so at a worse price due to thin order books.

Here is a quick scenario. You borrow 5,000 USDC against 6 stETH valued at 6 ETH, or roughly 18,000 USD. ETH drops 10% and stETH de-pegs another 5%. Your collateral is now worth around 15,300 USD. Depending on your loan-to-value ratio, that could trigger liquidation within minutes. Managing liquid staking collateral risk means understanding that these two forces can compound each other quickly.

Smart Contract and Protocol Risk

Price risk is not the only thing you are exposed to. The systems behind LSTs carry their own risks that have nothing to do with market movements.

When the Technology Itself Becomes the Risk

LSTs exist because of smart contracts, and smart contracts can have bugs. Beyond that, the validators who stake the underlying ETH can be penalized, and the protocol itself can change through governance votes. Any one of these events can affect your collateral value without any warning.

Main technical risks include:

• Smart contract exploits - A bug in the LST protocol or the lending market could allow an attacker to drain funds. This has happened multiple times across DeFi.
• Validator misbehavior - If the validators running the staking infrastructure act dishonestly or go offline, the protocol can slash their stake. That directly reduces the value backing your LST.
• Governance attacks - Bad actors can sometimes acquire enough governance tokens to push through harmful changes to a protocol. This is rare but not impossible.
• Bridge vulnerabilities - If you are using LSTs across chains, bridge contracts add another attack surface that could compromise your collateral.

Each of these risks operates independently, but in a worst-case scenario, they can all hit at the same time. A slashing event can trigger a de-peg, which then triggers liquidations across multiple platforms. This is exactly why liquid staking collateral risk is not just about one thing. It is about how multiple failure points interact.

These risks stack on top of each other. The more complex the protocol stack, the more surfaces there are for something to go wrong.

Liquidity and Exit Risk During Stress

When markets crash, things move fast. The LST market is no exception, and in some ways it moves even faster than the base asset market.

Why Getting Out Can Be Harder Than You Think

During calm conditions, LST liquidity looks fine. But during a market crash, everyone wants to exit at the same time. Order books thin out, slippage increases, and the price you see is not the price you get. This creates a painful situation for anyone holding LSTs as collateral.

Here is a direct comparison to help you see the difference clearly.

What this table shows is straightforward. Every risk category that applies to ETH collateral also applies to LST collateral, but LSTs add more categories on top. You are not replacing risk with LSTs. You are adding to it.

The comparison makes it clear that liquid staking collateral risk is not a minor adjustment to your standard DeFi risk profile. It is a meaningfully different exposure that requires its own evaluation.

Get a clearer picture of how these tokens work by reading Liquid Staking Tokens Explained: stETH, rETH, and Beyond before you decide how much collateral to put up.

Hidden Systemic Risk in DeFi

Zoom out for a moment. The risk with LSTs is not just at the individual position level. It runs through the entire DeFi ecosystem.

When Everyone Is Holding the Same Collateral

Many lending protocols, yield aggregators, and liquidity pools use the same few LSTs. stETH is a prime example. It is used as collateral across dozens of protocols simultaneously. This concentration means that a problem in one place can spread everywhere at once.

Here is how a cascade can unfold. A major validator slashing event shakes confidence in stETH. Holders rush to sell, and the peg starts to slip. Lending protocols that use stETH as collateral begin triggering liquidations. Those liquidations dump more stETH onto the market, pushing the price down further. More protocols hit their liquidation thresholds, and the cycle repeats until the market finds a floor.

This kind of cascade is not hypothetical. The 2022 stETH de-peg during the broader crypto downturn showed exactly how connected these risks are across platforms. Liquid staking collateral risk multiplies when leverage stacks across the ecosystem. A single point of stress can become a systemic event surprisingly quickly.

Conclusion

Liquid staking tokens represent a genuine innovation in how people interact with blockchain networks. They make staking more accessible and capital more efficient, and that is worth acknowledging.

But yield should never blind you to what you are actually taking on. When you use an LST as collateral, you are accepting price risk, de-peg risk, liquidation risk, smart contract risk, and systemic risk all at the same time. That is not a reason to avoid the strategy entirely, but it is a reason to approach it carefully.

Understanding liquid staking collateral risk is what separates informed participants from those who get caught off guard. Sizing your positions conservatively, monitoring your health ratios, and knowing the protocols you are using will always serve you better than chasing yield without a plan. Take the time to understand what you are holding before you put it to work.

FAQs

1. Are liquid staking tokens safe to use as collateral?

LSTs can be used as collateral, but they carry more risk than holding the base asset directly. Smart contract bugs, de-peg events, and validator slashing are all real possibilities that users need to account for before borrowing against them.

2. What happens if an LST loses its peg?

If an LST trades below the value of the base asset, the collateral value in your lending position drops. This can push your position toward liquidation even if the base asset price has not moved significantly.

3. Can I avoid liquidation when using LSTs?

You can reduce liquidation risk by keeping your loan-to-value ratio conservative and monitoring your position regularly. Setting alerts and leaving a healthy buffer between your collateral value and the liquidation threshold is the most practical approach.

4. Is LST collateral risk higher than regular ETH?

Yes, in most cases, using LSTs as collateral carries more risk than using ETH directly. LSTs introduce additional variables like de-peg risk and slashing that do not exist with native ETH collateral.

5. Should beginners use LSTs as collateral?

Beginners are generally better off gaining experience with simpler DeFi positions first. The layered risks of using LSTs as collateral require a solid understanding of how lending protocols, collateral ratios, and liquidation mechanics work.

Was this article helpful to you? Please tell us what you liked or didn't like in the comments below.

Chanuka is a content writer, editor and contributor at Panaprium, specializing in long-form editorial articles. He conducts in-depth research and produces well-structured, carefully edited content with a strong focus on clarity, SEO best practices, and consistent formatting. His work spans lifestyle, fashion, wellness, and technical topics, and all articles are reviewed and refined to meet Panaprium’s editorial standards.