Ethereum staking rate swaps as smart derivative contract using ERC-6123
During the course of our research, while most participants were already discovering the concept of Ethereum staking rate swaps as a financial product, the introduction of ERC-6123 as a technical standard added another layer of complexity. None of the stakeholders we engaged with were aware of this specification, which meant discussions had to cover both the financial mechanics of the product and its technical implementation simultaneously. This dual novelty - combining a new financial instrument with a new technical standard, while also introducing the concept of standardized Ethereum staking rate benchmarks - however did not appear overwhelming to most market participants.
Contrarily, they expressed enthusiasm and a desire to know more, understanding the potential for Ethereum staking rate swaps to offer both a valuable risk management tool and an opportunity for new product development to the benefits of their end-customers. Participants saw the combination of ERC-6123 with the evolving staking benchmarks as a pathway toward greater transparency and automation in the OTC digital asset derivatives market.
However, it is important to note that these are still very early days. The feedback we received was based on a relatively short engagement period, which, while encouraging, is not sufficient to fully gauge long-term demand or commitment to advancing to the next steps. A far longer engagement period, with deeper, ongoing conversations and more comprehensive testing, will be required to properly assess the genuine market appetite and the potential for widespread adoption. The initial positive response is an indicator that the concept of Ethereum staking rate swaps as smart derivative contracts is not seen as a far-fetched or unachievable idea, but a thorough, longer-term data driven market validation is needed to move beyond conceptual enthusiasm to real, actionable market development. This early enthusiasm shows promise, but sustained interest and commitment will be critical in converting it into tangible progress.
Operational and Technical feasibility
The operational and technical feasibility of implementing Ethereum staking rate swaps varies across the three models: OTC off-chain, OTC with on-chain execution, and fully decentralized. OTC off-chain swaps are feasible and well established, relying on OTC trading desks to facilitate trades between counterparties. However, they often involve high operational costs, longer settlement times, and counterparty credit risk. Moving trade lifecycle management on-chain post OTC off-chain execution, enhances market transparency (without necessarily revealing identities of counterparties) and automation, leveraging blockchain and smart contracts technologies to streamline settlement and reduce counterparty credit risk.This approach does introduce new challenges such as gas fees and the need for secure, reliable oracles. Fully decentralized Ethereum staking rate swaps eliminate intermediaries entirely, using smart contracts and Automated Market Makers (AMMs) to manage trades, margin, and settlement. While this boosts efficiency and transparency, it increases risks related to regulatory compliance, smart contract security, on-chain liquidity, and oracle accuracy, making it technically feasible but riskier without strong risk management tools.
OTC off-chain Ethereum Staking Rate Swaps
Over-the-Counter off-chain interest rate swaps are a long-established mechanism for managing interest rate risk in financial markets. In this model, trades are negotiated and executed privately between counterparties, with all settlement and clearing handled by traditional centralized financial infrastructure. Although highly effective in terms of structure and regulatory familiarity, OTC off-chain swaps face challenges related to post-trade settlement and reconciliation, operational costs, counterparty risk, and limited transparency.
OTC with on-chain Execution Interest Rate Swaps
OTC with on-chain execution of interest rate swaps represents a hybrid model that combines the traditional over-the-counter trading process for trade agreement and execution with the benefits of blockchain technology. In this model, the negotiation of swap terms is still done off-chain, following the typical bilateral negotiation process between counterparties. However, the post-trade execution and settlement processes are handled via smart contracts on a blockchain, bringing increased transparency, automation, and operational efficiency. This setup offers a middle ground between completely off-chain and fully decentralized systems, addressing some of the inefficiencies of legacy systems while maintaining certain centralized elements.
Below is an analysis of the operational and technical feasibility of this approach.
Operational Feasibility of OTC with On-Chain Execution
Trade Negotiation and Execution : Similar to traditional OTC off-chain swaps, trades are negotiated bilaterally between counterparties and OTC desk off-chain. This negotiation process involves defining key swap terms such as the notional amount, fixed or floating interest rates, payment frequency, and contract duration. The parties can communicate via email, phone, or electronic trading platforms.
Once the terms are agreed upon, the trade is executed on-chain using smart contracts. These smart contracts act as the enforcement mechanism, automating the lifecycle events of the swap–such as interest payment, collateral updates, and settlement– without the need for manual intervention.
On-Chain Execution Settlement : After the off-chain negotiation, the trade is executed on-chain by deploying a smart contract on a public or private blockchain network. This smart contract serves as the escrow for the swap, ensuring that both parties comply with the agreed terms. Critical components such as interest rate calculations, collateral management, and payment schedules are pre-programmed into the smart contract.
Key operational processes include:
Collateral Posting : Both counterparties are required to deposit collateral (margin) into the smart contract. The smart contract ensures that the collateral is adjusted in real-time based on the market conditions, similar to how a central clearing counterparty would manage margin in traditional OTC swaps.
Payment Automation : The smart contract automates the payment process, ensuring that fixed and floating payments are calculated and settled on the specified dates without the need for human oversight. Payment amounts are based on real-time interest rate data, often obtained from oracles (external data feeds providing real-world information to the blockchain).
Real-Time Settlement : On-chain execution enables near-instantaneous settlement and reduces settlement risk. Since the transaction is handled by the smart contract, there is no need for manual reconciliation or long delays associated with traditional settlement systems (T+1 or T+2). The smart contract automatically distributes payments based on the terms of the swap at predetermined intervals.
Risk Mitigation via Smart Contracts : By placing execution and settlement on-chain, this model significantly reduces counterparty credit risk. With on-chain execution, this risk is mitigated because the smart contract automatically enforces the terms, including collateral requirements and payments. Additionally, because the contract is self-executing, margin calls and liquidations (if needed) are handled without human intervention. If one party’s collateral falls below a predefined threshold, the smart contract can automatically trigger a liquidation or margin call, requiring additional funds to be posted to maintain the position. This reduces the operational burden associated with margin management in the traditional OTC model.
Regulatory Compliance and Transparency : OTC with on-chain execution introduces greater transparency while still allowing for private negotiation and reporting of trades. On-chain activity, even on permissioned blockchain networks, leaves an immutable audit trail, which enhances regulatory transparency. Regulators can gain access to the on-chain data to verify compliance with reporting requirements, but the identity of counterparties and sensitive trade details can still be protected through privacy-preserving technologies when required.
However, the regulatory landscape surrounding the use of blockchain for derivatives trading is still evolving. Depending on the jurisdiction, using smart contracts for clearing and settlement may require additional regulatory approvals, and some centralized entities may still need to be involved.
Technical Feasibility of OTC with On-Chain Execution
Blockchain Infrastructure : The technical feasibility of OTC on-chain execution hinges on the choice of blockchain infrastructure. Both public blockchains and permissioned blockchains are potential candidates. Within the context of this research, Ethereum Mainnet (factory) and Polygon or Arbitrum for ERC-6123 are potential candidates for contract deployment.
Smart Contracts : Smart contracts are the backbone of the on-chain execution process. These contracts are programmed to enforce the terms of the swap, including calculating floating rates, handling collateral, and making payments. The code of the smart contract is immutable once deployed, which increases the reliability of the system but introduces risks–errors in the contract code or vulnerabilities could result in lost funds or incorrect execution of the swap.
The complexity of the Ethereum staking rate swaps requires sophisticated smart contract logic. The contract must handle not only the basic payment flows but also edge cases like early termination, collateral adjustment, and changes in interest rates. Therefore, developing robust, secure smart contracts is critical to ensuring the smooth functioning of the system.
Oracles and Real-Time Data Feeds : Once of the critical technical components of on-chain execution is the use of oracles. Since the floating leg of an Ethereum staking rate swap depends on external benchmark rate, oracles are necessary to feed accurate, up-to-date rate information to the blockchain.
Oracle accuracy and security are key concerns. If an oracle is compromised or provides incorrect data, the swap execution could be faulty. This introduces oracle risk, where the reliability of the swap depends on the integrity of the external data feed. Solutions such as decentralized oracles reduce the risk of single point of failure by aggregating data from multiple sources.
Key Advantages of OTC with On-Chain Execution
Automation and Efficiency : Smart contracts automate the entire lifecycle of the swap, reducing the need for manual intervention in margin management, payments, and settlement. This reduces operational overhead and error compared to fully off-chain systems.
Reduction of Counterparty Risk : With smart contracts automatically enforcing the terms of the swap, there is less reliance on counterparties fulfilling their obligation. This mitigates counterparty risk and ensures more reliable performance.
Transparency and Auditability : The use of blockchain provides an immutable and accessible record of all transactions.
Real-Time Settlement : On-chain execution allows for near-instantaneous settlement and collateral updates.
Cost Reduction : By automating key processes and reducing reliance on intermediaries, on-chain execution can lower transaction costs, although this benefit can be offset by fluctuating gas fees in public blockchain environments.
Key Challenges and Risks of OTC with On-Chain Execution
Smart Contract Vulnerabilities : While smart contracts automate the trade execution process, they are only as good as their code. Vulnerabilities in the code can be exploited, leading to losses, incorrect execution, or manipulation of the swap terms.
Oracle Risk : The reliance on oracle to feed external interest rate data into the smart contract introduces a risk of incorrect or manipulated data. The entire swap could be executed incorrectly if the oracle fails to provide accurate information.
Gas Fees and Scalability : On-chain execution, especially on public blockchains like Ethereum, can be hindered by high gas fees and slow transaction times during periods of congestion. These issues can increase operational costs and delay settlements, reducing the appeal of using blockchain solutions.
Regulatory Uncertainty : the use of blockchain and smart contracts in derivatives markets is still a relatively new concept, and the regulatory environment is not fully defined. Financial institutions may face hurdles in obtaining approval for on-chain execution, particularly if it involves significant deviation from established centralized processes.
Fully Decentralized Ethereum Staking Rate Swaps
Fully decentralized Interest Rate Swaps represent the most radical shift from traditional financial systems, utilizing decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms built entirely on public permissionless networks. In this model, all elements of the swap, from trade initiation to settlement and margin management, are executed on-chain through smart contracts without intermediaries… Decentralized platforms use Automated Market Makers (AMMs) or peer-to-peer (P2P) mechanisms, enabling users to engage in swaps in a trustless, transparent environment. However, fully decentralized systems introduce unique risks, including smart contract vulnerabilities, liquidity issues, and regulatory uncertainty.
Traditional Swaps vs Swaps using ERC-6123
The table below compares and contrasts how traditional OTC Ethereum staking rate swaps and ERC-6123-based swaps differ in settlement, risk management, flexibility, transparency, automation, and regulatory compliance.
| Aspect |
Traditional Swaps |
Swaps Using ERC-6123 |
| Structure |
Traditional off-chain over-the-counter (OTC) financial swaps. |
New on-chain financial swaps. It could be over-the-counter (OTC) or not. |
| Settlement |
Settlements are managed bilaterally by the counterparties, often through OTC backoffice teams . Most likely manual. |
Settlements, trade execution, and lifecycle management are automated through smart contracts. |
| Flexibility |
Counterparties can negotiate flexible terms and customize the contract, but changes require mutual agreement and manual updates. |
The contract is deterministic with predefined lifecycle phases. Any trade modifications or customizations must be implemented through new contract logic. |
| Risk Management |
Counterparty credit risk is inherent, as the agreement relies on the financial stability and trustworthiness of the counterparties. |
Counterparty risk is minimized by the smart contract’s automated enforcement of settlement terms i.e. deterministic protocol that guarantees settlement based on the predefined agreement. |
| Transparency |
Often opaque, with terms and performance visible only to the counterparties and relevant intermediaries. Market pricing is less transparent. |
Counterparties’ identities are kept private. Trade is transparent, with terms and settlement data recorded on-chain. All market participants can view the trade’s state and settlement history on-chain. |
| Automation |
Limited automation; most processes, including settlement and margin calls, are manual or facilitated by intermediaries. |
Fully automated lifecycle management, from trade inception to settlement and termination, driven by smart contracts. |
| Legal and Regulatory Compliance |
Subject to traditional regulatory frameworks and compliance requirements, which vary by jurisdiction. Requires adherence to OTC derivative regulations. |
Subject to traditional regulatory frameworks and compliance requirements, which vary by jurisdiction. If OTC, then requires adherence to OTC derivative regulations. |
| Termination and Dispute Resolution |
Dispute resolution typically involves negotiation, arbitration, or legal action between counterparties. Termination may require manual intervention. |
Disputes and termination are managed programmatically, with pre-agreed terms and conditions encoded into the smart contract, ensuring consistent and objective execution. |
Risks of Ethereum Staking Swaps using ERC-6123
While Ethereum staking rate swaps using ERC-6123 offer many benefits like automation, reduced counterparty risk, and operational efficiency, they also come with risks, particularly if executed within a public permissionless environment.
1. Smart Contract Risks
Smart contract risks refer to the potential software vulnerabilities or bugs within smart contract code that could be exploited by malicious actors. Once deployed, any flaws or security weaknesses can result in unintended behavior, financial losses, or disruptions in executing the contract’s intended functions.
Bugs and Vulnerabilities : ERC-6123 relies on smart contracts. If there are bugs, security vulnerabilities, or design flaws in the smart contracts, they can be exploited by malicious actors, potentially resulting in loss of funds or disruption in contract execution.
Inflexibility : Once a smart contract is deployed, it cannot be easily changed. This could create issues if market conditions or regulatory requirements change and the contract is no longer fully compliant or operationally viable.
2. Oracle Risks
Oracle risks refer to the vulnerabilities and challenges of using external data sources or oracles to inform smart contract decisions. Oracles bridge blockchain systems and the outside world, feeding real-time data (such as price feeds, event outcomes, etc.) into smart contracts.
Data Dependency : Ethereum staking rate swaps using ERC-6123 depend on external data sources (oracles) for accurate reference rates, pricing and settlement. If the oracle providing data for staking yields or valuation is compromised or malfunctions, it could lead to inaccurate calculations and settlement disputes. These data compromises could be in the form of price oracle issues whereby incorrect data is passed onto the smart contract or validator oracle issues whereby misreporting a validator’s slashing history or reliability, causes users to swap into positions tied to risky or unreliable validators.
Oracle Attacks : Oracles are susceptible to attacks where inaccurate data is fed into the smart contract, leading to incorrect execution of the swap, potentially causing financial losses. Typically these are possible in the form of Flash Loan attacks whereby an attacker momentarily manipulates market prices or liquidity conditions to influence oracle data, allowing them to execute favorable swaps or they create market manipulation by either delaying or changing oracle data feed.
Oracle Downtime or Failure: If an oracle experiences downtime or failure, staking swaps could be delayed or disabled altogether. This might result in failed or incomplete swaps, leaving market participants stuck without any clear information about their staked positions or swapped ETH or possibly lead to unfavorable outcomes if users initiate swaps based on outdated or incomplete data from a non-functional oracle. This risk can be reduced by considering decentralized oracles that use a decentralized network of validators to validate and provide data on-chain.
3. Liquidity Risks (tradeable mode)
Liquidity risks refer to the challenges that arise when there is insufficient market depth to support large trades without causing significant price disruptions. Low liquidity can lead to wide bid-ask spreads, making it difficult for participants to enter or exit positions efficiently. This may result in higher trading costs and reduced market stability.
Market Depth : As Ethereum staking rate swaps and ERC-6123 are relatively new, the market for these instruments may lack sufficient liquidity in the early stages.
Limited Adoption : The success of ERC-6123-based swaps depends on wide adoption by market participants. If adoption is limited, the market may suffer from liquidity constraints, making it difficult for participants to engage with the product efficiently.
Price Slippage: While trying to swap staked positions there is a possibility of price mismatch between the nominal value of staked assets and their market value, especially during high volatility events which can lead to settlement mismatch.
4. Regulatory Risks (tradeable mode)
Regulatory risks involve the potential for changes in laws or regulations that could impact the legality, compliance, or operation of native on-chain derivatives. As regulatory frameworks for decentralized finance (DeFi) and blockchain-based derivatives are still evolving, market participants may face legal uncertainties, potential restrictions, or increased compliance burdens that could limit the development and adoption of these financial products.
Uncertain Regulatory Landscape : There is a risk that regulators may impose restrictions or new compliance requirements that could affect the legality or viability of Ethereums staking rate swaps using ERC-6123, particularly for institutional participants.
Jurisdictional Differences : The decentralized nature of ERC-6123-based swaps makes it difficult to adhere to specific national regulations. Different jurisdictions may impose varying rules regarding the execution and settlement of these derivatives, leading to compliance challenges.
Market Manipulation: Given the difference in abilities of sophisticated actors in this emerging space, there is a potential for market manipulation targeting non-technical end users leading to difficulties in executing fair priced and profitable swaps.
5. Technical Infrastructure Risks
Technical infrastructure risks refer to the potential disruptions in the underlying blockchain network, such as congestion, high gas fees, or network changes or outages.
Network Congestion (applicable mostly to public permissionless networks) :
Custodial Risks: Given that the wallets used for storage of margining funds (funds used to account for variation or margin) cannot be changed. This presents a substantial risk should the custodial bank be unable to access the wallet or lose access resulting in swap default.
Assessing potential impact to the Lido Ecosystem
The need for an Ethereum staking rate swaps market would likely emerge from a combination of institutional demand for yield risk management and hedging tools, the desire for predictable yields, growing institutional staking participation, and the drive for benchmark development in staking yields. As we mentioned earlier, while this market is still nascent and likely to develop, market participants expect growth within a 12-18 month horizon, though timing remains uncertain.
If this market does develop, it would have a significant impact on the Lido Ecosystem, largely shaped by the distinct needs of institutional participants versus other participants.
Potential Increase in Institutional Staking
Our primary assumption was that Lido’s scale and first-mover advantage would position the Lido stETH APR well to be the primary benchmark within the Lido ecosystem and outside. However, as discussed in section “Lido stETH APR as an institutional benchmark” , it is not likely to be the case due if the benchmark composition is defined including the MEV component. A “clean” rate excluding MEV would likely be preferred by institutions for fixed-floating rate derivatives.
However, this would not necessarily impact the use of stETH as collateral and settlement currency. In fact, the benchmark rate determines the swap’s cash flows, while stETH’s qualities as a liquid and well-integrated Ethereum-backed asset make it appealing as collateral in DeFi products. In section “stETH vs ETH vs Stablecoins” we discussed that the choice of stETH as collateral or settlement currency will be driven by regulatory considerations. Institutional stakeholders which operate in regulated settings would leverage Ethereum staking rate swaps for risk management and “stability” purposes. Such stakeholders have a different risk profile than yield-seeking participants operating in DeFI. The question is therefore whether, stETH as a collateral and settlement currency would be attractive for Institutional (DeFi) products and institutional participants.
In September 2024, the announcement that Wintermute started supporting stETH as collateral for OTC trading signals a significant step forward for both Lido and the broader Ethereum ecosystem. Traditionally, stETH is primarily utilized in DeFi, but Wintermute’s support is a reflection of stETH’s continued expansion and utility in institutional markets. This endorsement by a prominent market maker adds further credibility to stETH as a viable asset for institutional-grade trading, which could pave the way for more integration with other OTC desks and trading platforms.
Offering stETH as collateral provides an attractive option for the unstaked ETH sitting on institutional balance sheets, potentially encouraging more of it to be staked. This would be further accelerated by the fact that major institutional and qualified custodians such as Fireblocks, Ceffu and Taurus who have already added custody and staking support for stETH.
Lower APY for Lido Operators
Institutional adoption of stETH as collateral could encourage more staking, increasing Lido’s total staked ETH and associated fees. Without institutional usage, Lido may experience slower growth in protocol fees and reduced demand for stETH issuance, which could limit Lido’s revenue expansion over time. At the same time, an increased staking participation from institutional players would lower the APY as rewards are distributed over a larger staked base. For Lido operators, this would mean a lower APY per validator due to the growing staked ETH supply.
This dynamic could be mitigated by a rise in MEV activity and transaction fees tied to broader Ethereum network adoption. Lido operators benefit from periods of high transaction volume and arbitrage activity, which boost staking rewards despite broader adoption potentially lowering APY. In scenarios where network conditions are highly active, the MEV-inclusive Lido stETH APR could remain competitive, sustaining higher returns for Lido operators. For Lido operators, MEV is a valuable source of additional returns because it enhances the staking rewards they earn.
However, there are ongoing ecosystem discussions around fairness of validator rewards and recent developments in MEV-focused infrastructure and protocol upgrades across Ethereum aiming to create a fairer and more transparent market for MEV, potentially reducing opportunities for extractable value to spike unpredictably. As those development progress (i.e. MEV-burn etc), MEV-driven volatility could reduce over time for operators. While this would lead to a more stable staking rate environment (and therefore making the Lido stETH APR potentially more attractive to be used as a benchmark rate in derivative products), it would also negatively impact per-validator returns because MEV as a supplemental reward source could diminish.
A question here is whether increased institutional activity and associated benefits (higher TVL, more trading, deeper liquidity) can offset the combination of lower base APY and changing MEV landscape for operators.
This could be answered by weighing the quantifiable and qualifiable benefits of institutional adoption—like higher TVL, deeper liquidity, and new revenue streams—against the expected trend in MEV-based yields and diluted APY.
Potential Increase in TVL and Protocol Fees
As we previously mentioned, the Ethereum staking rate swaps market (and more broadly, staking rate swaps markets) are not sufficiently developed (i.e. there are no sufficient data points and trends), to quantify an expected net impact on Lido’s TVL and protocol fees.
If such markets do emerge, the key considerations would be around Lido’s competitiveness both in terms of staking rewards (including protocol fees remaining competitive) and stETH utility.
If Ethereum staking rate swaps use stETH as a collateral asset, more institutions might stake ETH with Lido to obtain stETH, increasing Lido’s TVL. This could result in a virtuous cycle where staking demand rises as staking rate swaps gain popularity, boosting the TVL.
As Lido DAO accumulates a percentage of staking rewards, higher TVL directly translates into higher revenue from protocol fees.
TVL Stability and Liquidity Risk
For market participants able and willing to use stETH as collateral, fluctuations in the swaps market could introduce volatility to Lido’s TVL. In a highly volatile environment, significant stETH liquidations might affect Lido’s on-chain liquidity. High demand for stETH as collateral could drive users to redeem stETH back to ETH, particularly during market downturns, impacting Lido’s liquidity management and potentially causing protocol instability.
In all cases, if an Ethereum staking rate swaps market emerges but Lido does not capture the increase institutional adoption and strategically position the use of stETH as collateral in institutional transactions, it could lead to a challenging environment for the Lido Ecosystem.
Conclusion
Working hypothesis invalidated
The purpose of this research was to assess the demand, benefit and risks of an Ethereum staking rate swap product within the Lido ecosystem and with the following characteristics:
-
using Lido stETH APR as a benchmark rate
-
using stETH as collateral and settlement currency
-
managed as a smart derivative contract (SDC) using ERC-6123.
We aimed to validate or invalidate the working hypothesis that stETH-based Ethereum Staking Rate Swaps can provide significant value to the Lido ecosystem, benefiting stakeholders staking with Lido.
At this stage, the first working hypothesis has been invalidated. The usefulness of Lido stETH APR as underlying in staking yield swaps is limited so far. The critical factor is the inclusion of MEV that causes short spikes in volatility. MEV depends on inherently volatile network conditions, such as transaction volume, gas fees, and the presence of arbitrage opportunities. This can create unexpected and unintended erratic behavior of cash flows. The composition of an ex-MEV index could contribute to further adoption of a Lido benchmark and significantly contribute to the operational stability of derivatives based on such a benchmark.
The assessment of stETH’s usefulness as collateral and settlement currency produced mixed results. stETH ranges in the middle between the alternatives USDC and ETH. On the one hand it lacks USD-denominated exchange rate stability USDC, on the other hand staking rewards allow another source of income compared to ETH and the accrual of such rewards can provide a buffer against a declining ETH price. stETH as collateral and settlement currency is suitable in directional yield-seeking environments. The risk of a stETH-ETH price divergence seems broadly understood, as Lido operators and users are willing to accept or manage this risk. We have no indications that a lack of liquidity is regarded as a limitation to stETH’s use as collateral, quite the contrary.
Most stakeholders were not familiar with the use of smart derivative contracts. They showed enthusiasm to further explore this technology to allow easier adoption of staking yield swaps as a new product. The transparency, degree of automation and relative ease of counterparty risk management are appreciated. We discussed three alternatives: fully off-chain, partially on-chain and fully on-chain versions. Of these the partially on-chain solution presents the most accessible short term solution as it allows the exploitation of the efficient lifecycle management while maintaining better control and regulatory compliance in the pre-trade and execution stages of a transaction. The longer shot of fully decentralized swaps needs the comprehensive ex-ante assessment of the various risks that such a completely automated version without any intermediaries incurs.
To conclude, while there are use cases and potential benefits to Ethereum staking rate swaps as an instrument to gain synthetic exposure, hedge risks or develop new fixed-yield solutions, there is no present demand for stETH-based Ethereum Staking Rate Swaps.
