When we began designing our liquid restaking layer on top of Jito’s (Re)staking platform, we faced an architectural choice that ends up shaping almost every downstream user experience: should we have just one vault that accepts every major Solana LST, or should we have multiple LRT vaults, each backed by just one LST? At an initial glance, the basket model looks like the obvious choice: why not just sweep jitoSOL, BNSOL, and a dozen smaller tokens into a single pool and have a single, unified LRT? But once you trace the full life cycle of a restaked asset, the advantages of a single-asset design become more clear.
The first and most immediate benefit is transparency. When an LRT is 100% backed by a single LST, the spread between the yield it earns and the yield of the underlying collateral is clearly visible. Every basis point of out-performance comes from restaking, and every basis point of under-performance can be traced to its root for analysis and improvement. Traders and DeFi users can see the relationship between the LST and the LRT, and can make high-quality choices about how they’d like to allocate their assets. If instead you blend half a dozen LSTs with different reward streams and correlations, you end up with an LRT that is more difficult to compare to. This has a big impact, particularly in lending markets like Kamino where users can easily borrow jitoSOL against their ezSOL position. If ezSOL were instead a multi-asset LRT, lenders would have to model cross-asset volatility and pay a higher risk premium, defeating much of the benefit of holding the LRT.
Clarity turns into an even bigger advantage when things go wrong. Each Solana LST has its own smart contracts, validator set, custody model, and depeg risks. A multi-asset LRT can appear to be as resilient and safe as a single-asset LRT, before inheriting the full consequences of a single adverse event: for example, an oracle failure in BNSOL, an upgrade bug with some smaller LST, etc. By separating assets into dedicated vaults we isolate those failures and prevent contagion. If jitoSOL ever faces any issues, only ezSOL is affected while bzSOL remains safe. Conversely, if BNSOL ever faces an issue, ezSOL remains unaffected.
Additionally, single-asset LRTs align well with Jito’s own economics. The Jito TipRouter NCN rewards jitoSOL with double the weight of any other LST; a vault that is 80% jitoSOL therefore captures roughly 1.8x the rewards from TipRouter as an otherwise identical vault that holds no jitoSOL at all. A basket LRT is forced to dilute that premium. The benefits of portfolio diversification are outweighed by the lower return, which is indisputably bad for the absolute APY of every depositor who actually wanted the jitoSOL boost. By contrast, our architecture lets users deposit into the jitoSOL-only vault and earn the full multiple, while our users who prefer the backing of BNSOL can opt into bzSOL, a BNSOL-only LRT which cleanly tracks with that collateral’s native return profile.
The final, and to our minds, most important, argument is choice. A monolithic “index”-type LRT aims to simplify life for the end-user but in practice removes agency: you take whatever blend the protocol happens to set and hope your own preferences align. Single-asset LRT vaults flip this power dynamic, giving choice back to the users. Delegators pick exactly the collateral they trust, NCNs request the specific economic security they require, DeFi protocols list the pairs their communities want, and the protocol itself becomes a neutral marketplace rather than an opinionated allocator. In an ecosystem that values permissionlessness and composability, modularity is a feature, not a bug.
For these reasons we’ve chosen to launch with two self-contained vaults: ezSOL, backed 100% by jitoSOL, and bzSOL, backed 100% by BNSOL. ezSOL will serve as the benchmark for Solana LRTs, and bzSOL will give liquid restakers who prefer BNSOL the option to participate in restaking. With Renzo, users are given the agency to choose what they are comfortable with.
Restake with Renzo.