10 Top Solv Protocol Competitors for Bitcoin LSTs

Top Solv Protocol Competitors for Bitcoin LSTs have quickly become popular among BTC holders to earn high yields in DeFi. Solv Protocol is the first to introduce this concept, but other protocols are rapidly introducing Creative staking, Liquidity, and Cross-chain platforms.

There are many examples of innovative DeFi platforms including Babylon, Lombard, and Renzo Protocol. These platforms are transforming how BTC interacts with other DeFi projects.

What Are Solv Protocol Competitors?

Competitors of Solv Protocol are other blockchain platforms providing Bitcoin Liquid Staking (BTC LST) services. Some of these competitors, e.g. Babylon, Lombard, Symbiotic, Bedrock, Threshold Network, Citrea, Rootstock, Stacks, BOB and Renzo Protocol, provide different ways of staking and yield, liquidity and backing.

Their models allow users to stake and earn rewards on their Bitcoin, as well as use other DeFi services while still having the reassurance of their Bitcoin being backed. Thus, they have been situated in the same space as Solv Protocol in the growing ecosystem of Bitcoin restaking.

How We Selected These Bitcoin LST Competitors

Native BTC staking protocols: These are protocols that let users stake BTC directly. From a security and model-fidelity standpoint, these protocols are preferable compared to wrappers.

Liquid BTC receipt tokens: These are BTC staking tokens that are quickly integrated across DeFi. Users can stake the token and receive BTC upon token redemption.

BTC yield from other sources: These are protocols that let users stake BTC and earn yields from sources other than validator rewards.

Liquid BTC staking across multiple chains: These protocols let users stake BTC and earn yields across multiple blockchain networks.

BTC bridges: These are 2-way BTC bridges between different blockchain networks.

Bitcoin Rollups: These are layer-2 BTC solutions that provide similar functionalities as Rollups and let users of the BTC Rollup issue and redeem BTC.

Sidechains: These are BTC 2nd layer solutions that help enhance BTC’s programmability and let users interact with DeFi.

Auto BTC compounding: These are protocols that let users stake BTC and automate the compounding of the staking rewards.

Key Points

Competitor	Key Point for BTC LSTs
Babylon	Native BTC staking without wrapping or bridging; secures PoS chains directly with timelock scripts, offering trustless yield.
Lombard	Issues LBTC as a liquid receipt token from Babylon stakes; widely accepted across 70+ venues for collateral and liquidity.
Symbiotic	Shared-security protocol allowing BTC and LSTs as collateral for credit, insurance, and RWA markets.
Bedrock	Restakes BTC via uniBTC token, enabling liquidity while securing multiple chains.
Threshold Network	Provides tBTC, a decentralized bridge making Bitcoin usable across DeFi ecosystems.
Citrea	Bitcoin rollup solution anchoring security to BTC, enabling smart contracts and LST integration.
Rootstock	EVM-compatible Bitcoin sidechain supporting BTC-backed DeFi and liquid staking.
Stacks	Smart contract layer for Bitcoin enabling BTC yield, lending, and programmable finance through liquid tokens.
BOB	Hybrid Bitcoin L2 combining Ethereum-style DeFi with BTC collateral and liquid staking.
Renzo Protocol	Offers ezBTC, an auto-compounding liquid restaking token for BTC, enhancing yield efficiency.

1. Babylon

Babylon uses timelock scripts to enable Bitcoin staking. The staking of BTC allows users to participate in Proof of Stake (PoS) blockchains without the need for a bridge or wrapped BTC.

The BTC staking model of Babylon (BTC LST) uses delegation where stakers earn rewards for validating blocks and also earn rewards in BABY. The rewards and fees from the validators are the source of yield for stakers.

Although limited by bonding cycles, stakers are guaranteed yield. Lock-ups for staking are long and yield is earned in the form of fees and rewards, which are also protected.

Because of the long lock-up periods and the extra yield earned for staking, stakers are willing to accept lower annual percentage yields (APY) in the 1-3% range.

Key Differences

• Utilizes timelock scripts to enable native BTC staking.
• Provides Bitcoin secures for Proof of Stake.
• Offers yield without the need for trust or custodial arrangements.
• Focuses on validator fee rewards.
• Couples entirely with Bitcoin.

Limitations

• Yield is modest (1-3%).
• Lockup periods result in illiquarity.
• Early stage protocol.
• Lack of programmability.
• Less efficient than Layer 2 solutions.

2. Lombard

Lombard is a staking service for BTC using the infrastructure provided by Babylon. Lombard issues LBTC, a staked BTC token, to retail customers. LBTC is yield-bearing because it is managed by institutional covered call strategies by Bitwise.

Because LBTC is managed by an institution, retail customers are guaranteed to receive BTC upon request. LBTC has an APY of 2.5%.

Lombard has custody of customers’ staked BTC in institutional-grade, bankruptcy remote accounts. LBTC is accepted as collateral by several decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols and has an APY of 2.5%.

Key Differences

• Offers covered calls to institutions.
• Provides LBTC.
• Allows composability of LBTC.
• Relies on custodial arrangements.
• Offers predictability in windows for LBTC redemption.

Limitations

• Yield is capped.
• Relies on institutions.
• 10 business day window for LBTC redemption.
• Governance is centralized.
• Without integration to other protocols, yield is extremely limited.

3. Symbiotic

Both BTC and Babylon staked tokens (LST) can be used as collateral for credit, insurance and risk-weighted assets (RWA) via the Symbiotic network. The BTC LST model provides composite flexibility. On Symbiotic, staked BTC is put to work in various DeFi activities to generate yields which include protocol fees and lending fees.

Integrated with multiple DeFi protocols, Symbiotic’s native token provides more flexibility and allows for the use of staked assets. Decentralized smart contracts provide superior custody over centralized custody.

With Symbiotic’s current metrics and rapidly expanding client base, it poses a threat to traditional staking options, especially for users looking to maximize their yield on their BTC holdings.

Key Differences

• models BTC staking like other protocols but allows BTC to be used as collateral in related markets.
• Allows users to stake BTC to earn a yield from protocol fees and lending.
• Offers yield from staking and DeFi.
• Uses decentralized custodial arrangements.

Limitations

• Users are at risk of losing their principal due to RWA exposure.
• Yield is unpredictable.
• Security and trust is placed in third parties (vault managers).
• Not all markets support the protocol.
• Users are exposed to heightened risk.

4. Bedrock

Bedrock’s BTC LST model allows BTC to be staked across various chains and retain its liquidity. By combining several DeFi applications and staking fee pages, Bedrock users are able to optimize their staking rewards.

The BTC LST model allows users to stake BTC through Bedrock and immediately retrieve it. Similar to Bedrock, threshold cryptography and distributed signers are used to provide custody over the staked tokens.

With rapidly expanding client base and integrated DeFi services, it poses a major threat to traditional BTC staking options.

Key Differences

• Offers unlimited and non-custodial BTC liquid restaking.
• Allows BTC to be staked for multiple Proof of Stake chains.
• Crypto-secured, decentralized custody.

Limitations

• Recently launched.
• Highly dynamic, and unpredictable, Annual Percentage Yields (APYs).
• Risks posed by the use of smart contracts.
• Less advanced and deficient in comparison to competing projects, in terms of integration and functionality.
• Depending on the validators, the time it takes to effect a withdrawal can vary.

5. Threshold Network

Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, has not been able to keep pace with the growth and potential of the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) market. tBTC by Threshold Network has bridged this gap by allowing users to leverage the core features of DeFi using Bitcoin. Users can stake and provide liquidity with their Bitcoin and earn rewards in various DeFi platforms.

Users can redeem their tBTC for native Bitcoin at any time, and native Bitcoin is always available for custodial service through a threshold cryptography-based cryptographic key distribution system. As of writing, tBTC is one of the best options available for users looking to acquire earnings and gain cross-border Bitcoin liquidity.

Key Differences

• tBTC enables bridge connected, decentralized exchange of Bitcoin.
• Employs threshold cryptography to provide 1:1 backing for Bitcoin.
• Users can produce yield via DeFi.
• Users can acquire native Bitcoin through the threshold network.
• Decentralized Bitcoin Custody via distributed signers.

Limitations

• Slower adoption of bridge based layer 2 networks.
• Fragmented liquidity across various DeFi platforms.
• Yield ultimately depends on the demand for users’ deployment of tBTC.
• Security depends on the strength and quality of signers.
• Compared to a bridge, a rollup network is more prone to centralization.

6. Citrea

Citrea is a Bitcoin roll-up that secures smart contracts and finance with the help of side-chains and anchors its security to Bitcoin. Citrea offers an opportunity to leverage the security and flexibility of Bitcoin for DeFi. Users can stake Citrea’s sidechain for rewards or participate in other staking opportunities and finance activities on the sidechain.

Citrea keeps the security of the Bitcoin sidechain decentralized by using proof of security for the sidechain. Citrea extends the programmability of Bitcoin. For users who hold Bitcoin, Citrea offers an opportunity to gain yield in a more programmable environment.

Key Differences

• Bitcoin rollup facilitates the use of BTC for smart contracts.
• Yield is produced via DeFi and rollup based apps.
• Custody is secured via proofs and decentalized.

Limitations

• Depends largely on the apps developed for the rollup.
• Security of the rollup and apps developed for it, is unkown.
• Yield is unpredictable.
• BTC can be withdrawn via the rollup, but at a slower rate than bridges.

7. Rootstock

Rootstock extends the functionality of Ethereum to Bitcoin through a sidechain. Rootstock uses proof of security for a sidechain to offer DeFi activities. The sidechain issues an arbitrary token rBTC (representative of BTC) that users can lock and unlock to access DeFi activities on Rootstock. Users can lock and unlock BTC to gain or lose yield.

According to current market conditions, activities on the Rootstock sidechain are more competitive than Citrea. Like Citrea, Rootstock extends the yield earning potential of Bitcoin, and similar activities to Ethereum.

Key Differences

• rBTC is pegged to native BTC.
• Yield is produced via BTC locked in DeFi on the Rootstock network.
• Custody is provided by a group of federated signers.

Limitations

• Reduces BTC liquidity.
• Yield is produced in the Rootstock DeFi.
• Faster and more secure BTC bridges speed up withdrawal times of BTC.
• Like other BTC L2 solutions, security ultimately depends on the Bitcoin blockchain

8. Stacks

The Stacks sidechain uses BTC to secure its blockchain via Proof of Transfer (PoX). Stacks sidechain users can gain yield by participating in transfer of Stacks BTC. Yield is gained by transfer and transaction fees.

Stacks offers Bitcoin-backed DeFi activities. Users of Stacks can gain yield from PoX and other Bitcoin-backed DeFi activities on Stacks.

Stacking time is limited. However, Stacks can be redeemed after a lock-up period. While Stacks are tied up, the native asset (BTC) is locked. Right now, the protocol is offering a yearly yield of approximately 3%.

The protocol is compatible with other DeFi applications. One of the main attractions of the protocol is that it allows users to earn yields without taking custody of their BTC.

Key Differences

• Yield is produced via BTC locked in DeFi using the Stacks network.
• BTC is locked via proof of transfer for a specified period.
• Stacking rewards are distributed in native BTC.
• Users can write, deploy, and run smart contracts on the Stacks network.
• Custody is limited to the Bitcoin network.

Limitations

• Liquidity is restricted during bonding times.
• Approximated average annual yield is around 3%.
• Integrations with other DeFi platforms are lacking.
• Wider adoption of smart contracts is slow.
• Redemption is restricted to the length of a bonding contract.

9. BOB

BOB is a DeFi application built on top of the Bitcoin layer-2. Similar to other DeFi applications, BOB allows users to stake their BTC and earn yields. Like other staked assets, BTC can be used to generate yields through DeFi applications, liquidity pools, and other staking opportunities.

The BOB protocol allows users to redeem their staked BTC through smart contracts. Users of the protocol do not have custody of the staked BTC. Similar to other DeFi applications, BOB helps users of the protocol diversify their earnings across different blockchains.

Key Differences

• Implementation of DeFi with Bitcoin on layer 2 of the Ethereum network.
• Tethered Bitcoin can be used as collateral.
• Potential earnings are from Lending and liquidity Pools.
• Terms of contracts dictate when Bitcoin can be redeemed.
• Partial custody is granted through Proof of Stake.

Limitations

• A dual-chain architecture increases complexity.
• Potential earnings are fragmented.
• Reliance on the security and trust of the Ethereum network increases risk.
• Public acceptance and usage of the network is limited.

10. Renzo Protocol

The Renzo protocol uses the BTC Liquid Staking model to create ezBTC. Similar to other staking mechanisms, rewards are automatically reinvested. The Renzo Protocol integrates DeFi applications to create ezBTC.

Users of the protocol can redeem their ezBTC for BTC. The protocol utilizes validators and smart contracts to ensure custody of BTC is not given to users of the protocol. Rapidly increasing ezBTC balances suggest that users are attracted to the automatic and rising yield offered by the protocol.

Key Differences

• ezBTC is a token that can be staked to gain earnings from DeFi and validator nodes.
• Earnings can be automatically reinvested.
• Earnings can be gained from validator nodes and DeFi.
• Bitcoin can be redeemed through a contracts.
• Bitcoin Custody is provided through smart contracts.

Limitations

• Reliance on the security and trust of the Ethereum network increases risk.
• Earnings are highly variable.
• Wider acceptance is still pending.
• Reliance on validator nodes increases time needed for redeeming Bitcoin.
• Earnings are dependent on partnered networks.

Quick Comparison of 10 Solv Competitors

Competitor	BTC LST Model	Yield Source	Liquidity/Redemption	Custody	Current Positioning
Babylon	Native BTC timelock staking	Validator fees + BABY rewards	Locked cycles, slow redemption	Fully native BTC	Early-stage, 1–3% APY
Lombard	LBTC liquid receipt token	Institutional covered calls	10-day redemption window	Anchorage/Kraken custody	70+ DeFi venues, ~2.5% APY
Symbiotic	Shared-security restaking	Protocol fees + lending	Flexible collateral liquidity	Smart contract custody	Expanding into RWA markets
Bedrock	uniBTC liquid restaking	Validators + DeFi yield	Redeemable via contracts	Decentralized guarantees	Growing adoption, variable APY
Threshold Network	tBTC decentralized bridge	DeFi lending + pools	Instant redemption	Threshold cryptography	Widely integrated in Ethereum DeFi
Citrea	Bitcoin rollup smart contracts	Validators + DeFi apps	Redemption tied to rollup	Cryptographic proofs	Expanding programmable BTC utility
Rootstock	rBTC pegged sidechain token	DeFi lending + pools	Peg-in/peg-out redemption	Federated signers	EVM-compatible BTC DeFi
Stacks	Proof-of-Transfer stacking	BTC rewards + fees	Locked cycles, delayed redemption	Native BTC timelocks	~3% APY, growing DeFi
BOB	Hybrid BTC Layer 2	Lending + liquidity pools	Flexible redemption	Hybrid consensus	Bridges BTC + Ethereum DeFi
Renzo Protocol	ezBTC auto-compounding	Validators + DeFi yield	Redeemable via contracts	Smart contract custody	Optimized yield, rapid growth

Conclusion

The Bitcoin LST ecosystem has grown with the Solv Protocol, and other competitors such as Babylon, Lombard, Symbiotic, Bedrock, Threshold Network, Citrea, Rootstock, Stacks, BOB and Renzo Protocol. Each project innovates upon the existing mechanisms of BTC staking and liquidity, and introduces new methods for restaking and compounding.

Each project finds a way to utilize Bitcoin to facilitate access to DeFi, financial collateral and other programmable financial services. The increasing competition allows users of the Bitcoin network to gain access to greater choices for capital and financial services. All of this contributes towards the integration of the Bitcoin network to other services of decentralized finance.

FAQ