# Tracking EigenLayer Restaking Positions

> Restaked assets leave your wallet, sit behind a withdrawal delay and carry slashing risk. What a portfolio system has to represent beyond a single value.

- **URL:** https://octav.fi/blog/tracking-eigenlayer-restaking
- **Published:** 2026-01-28
- **Author:** Octav Team — Portfolio Intelligence for Digital Assets
- **Topic:** Protocols
- **Tags:** eigenlayer, restaking, defi
- **Source:** Octav, Practical guides on crypto NAV reporting, multi-chain portfolio management and digital asset APIs, from the team behind Octav.

---
<LogoRow items="eigenlayer,steth,ethereum" caption="Protocols covered" />

Restaking takes an asset that was already productive and commits it again. For
portfolio tracking, the awkward part is that the asset stops being in your
wallet, stops being freely liquid, and acquires a risk that ordinary staking
does not have.

## Where the asset goes

Deposit an LST or native ETH into EigenLayer and the tokens leave your wallet
for a strategy contract. A balance query on the address afterwards shows less
than before, with no corresponding sale.

That is the first failure mode: a provider without EigenLayer support does not
report "restaked". It reports a smaller portfolio, and the difference looks like
the assets were spent.

## What a complete representation contains

| Field | Why it matters |
| --- | --- |
| Underlying asset and amount | The actual value at stake |
| Operator delegated to | Concentration and counterparty risk |
| AVSs secured | What the stake is exposed to |
| Withdrawal status | Active, queued, or claimable |
| Escrow completion time | When the capital is actually available |
| Accrued rewards | Earned but possibly not yet claimable |

Value alone answers none of the questions a risk or treasury function will ask.

## Liquidity is the real reporting problem

A restaked position is not liquid. Withdrawing means entering a queue and
waiting out an escrow period before the assets can be claimed.

For a fund, that is a liquidity classification, not a footnote. A NAV that
counts restaked ETH identically to spot ETH is arithmetically defensible and
operationally misleading — the two cannot be sold on the same timeline. Any
portfolio system feeding [NAV reporting](/what-is-crypto-nav-reporting) should
preserve the distinction between liquid, queued and claimable.

The three states are genuinely different:

1. **Active** — earning, withdrawable only by entering the queue.
2. **Queued** — no longer earning, not yet claimable, escrow running.
3. **Claimable** — escrow complete, awaiting a claim transaction.

A position sitting in state 3 unnoticed is idle capital.

## Slashing is a real downside

Restaking introduces slashing risk from the AVSs the stake secures. Unlike
market risk, it is not captured by the asset's price.

A portfolio number cannot express this on its own — which is precisely why the
operator and AVS fields belong in the data. Two positions of identical value can
carry very different exposure depending on what they are securing.

## Points and rewards

Restaking programs frequently accrue points or rewards that are not yet
transferable tokens. These are genuinely hard to value and easy to overstate.

Our position is to keep them out of portfolio value until they are claimable
tokens with a market. Booking an unclaimable, unpriced incentive as portfolio
value is how a report becomes a projection.

## Layering with LSTs

Restaked `wstETH` compounds the valuation chain: the wrapper's exchange rate
(see [Valuing stETH and Liquid Staking](/valuing-steth-liquid-staking)), then
the restaking layer on top. Get the first wrong and the second inherits the
error.

## Checking a provider

- Does restaked value appear at all, or does the portfolio just shrink?
- Are queued withdrawals distinguished from active positions?
- Is the operator exposed?
- Are unclaimable points counted as value? They should not be.