The short answerMellow's vaults each have a named curator with a published mandate, which is more honest than a single opaque pool where allocation decisions are invisible. The vaults are individually small and illiquid, and curator judgement becomes a new category of risk to evaluate.
Best forChoosing a curated restaking risk profile
Added slashing riskweight 25%
7.0avg 6.6
Contract securityweight 20%
7.0avg 7.0
Exit liquidityweight 20%
5.5avg 6.0
Operator transparencyweight 20%
7.5avg 7.1
Feesweight 15%
7.0avg 7.8
this service category average across 15Score = Σ mark × weight. Usable, but there are better options for most people. Methodology.
| Criterion | Mark | What we found | Source | Checked |
|---|
| Added slashing risk | 7.0 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Contract security | 7.0 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Exit liquidity | 5.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Operator transparency | 7.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Fees | 7.0 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
What we liked, and what fell short
Liked- Curators are named and their mandates are published
- Vault isolation contains the damage from any single strategy
- Built for Symbiotic as well as EigenLayer
Fell short- Each vault is small and correspondingly illiquid
- You are now trusting a curator's judgement as well as the code
Why the marks landed where they did
Restaking allocation is an active decision: which services to secure, how much slashing risk to accept, which operators to use. Most protocols make that decision centrally and describe it vaguely. Mellow names the person making it, publishes the mandate, and lets depositors choose.
Why curation is the honest framing
Somebody always decides which services your collateral secures. Presenting that as a protocol parameter obscures it; presenting it as a curator's mandate makes it assessable. Depositors can compare curators' risk appetites and track records, which is a more informative choice than picking between protocols whose allocation policies are equally opaque.
What it costs
Vaults are individually small, so liquidity within each is minimal and exits depend on the underlying restaking withdrawal path. Fees vary by curator. And curator risk is genuinely new: you are underwriting a manager's judgement as well as the contracts, with limited track record to judge it by in a category barely two years old.
Architecture
Built for both EigenLayer and Symbiotic, with vault isolation containing damage from any single strategy. Audited with no incidents since launch.
Who should use it
Depositors who want to choose their restaking risk profile deliberately and are comfortable evaluating curators. Those who want a simple restaked position should use ether.fi.
FAQ
What is a Mellow curator?+
A named entity that sets a vault's mandate — which services it secures, which operators it uses and how much slashing risk it accepts — and is publicly accountable for those choices.
Does vault isolation protect me?+
It contains losses to the vault that caused them, so a failure in one strategy does not affect depositors in another.
How liquid are Mellow vaults?+
Individually small and illiquid. Exits generally depend on the underlying restaking withdrawal path rather than a secondary market.
Does Mellow work with Symbiotic?+
Yes, it supports both EigenLayer and Symbiotic as underlying restaking layers.
