EigenLayer, Symbiotic, Karak and Babylon have all run points-farming campaigns worth billions in projected token value — but almost nobody farming them can actually do the math on what their points are worth. This tool projects your share of the points pool, your expected token airdrop and the annualized return that implies, using your deposit, the points rate, days staked and any stacking multiplier — before the token generation event happens.
✓ No signup✓ Pool share %✓ Token & USD projection✓ Annualized return✓ Sensitivity table
Projected airdrop value
—
How your deposit becomes tokens
Four steps, each one a multiplication. Your points come first, then your slice of the total pool, then how many tokens that slice is worth, then what those tokens are worth in dollars.
Step
Value
Sensitivity: what if you stayed longer?
Same deposit, rate, multiplier, pool size and allocation — only days staked changes. Points scale linearly with time, but so does everyone else's pool, so the real driver of your return is whether your points grow faster than the total pool grows.
Days staked
Your points
Tokens received
USD value
Annualized
Why this projection matters
Points-farming campaigns ask you to lock capital for months on the promise of a future airdrop, and almost no one farming them runs the actual math — they deposit, watch a points counter go up, and hope. This calculator turns that hope into a number: your share of the pool, your expected tokens and the annualized return that implies, so you can compare a restaking points campaign against just holding or staking outright on the validator staking calculator. If you already received tokens from a completed airdrop and want to value them directly, use the crypto airdrop calculator instead — this page is for projecting before the token exists, that one is for valuing after. And because points-farming math is structurally the same whether the yield source is a restaking protocol or a perp DEX volume-and-points program, the perp DEX points farming ROI calculator runs the equivalent projection for exchange point systems. None of these projections account for what you can lose while you wait — check that side of the trade on the liquid restaking risk calculator before sizing a position around a points campaign.
The math
Your points accrue as deposit × rate × days × multiplier — a straight line, since most points programs pay a fixed rate per dollar per day and any multiplier from stacking a liquid restaking token into a second or third protocol applies uniformly. Your pool share is your points divided by the protocol-wide total at the snapshot the token generation event uses, which is usually disclosed only after the fact — everything downstream of this ratio depends on an estimate of a number you cannot observe directly while the campaign is live.
The protocol reserves some percentage of total token supply for the points program; multiplying that percentage by total supply gives the token pool being divided among every points holder. Your tokens received is your pool share times that token pool, and the USD value is simply tokens times an assumed launch price — itself a guess, since points programs rarely trade before they convert.
The annualized return normalizes the USD value against your deposit and the time it was locked: (USD value ÷ deposit) × (365 ÷ days staked) × 100. It lets you compare a 90-day points campaign against a 12-month staking commitment on equal footing, but remember it is a projection built on two unknowns — the eventual total points pool and the launch price — not a guaranteed yield.
What are restaking points and how do they turn into tokens?
Restaking points are a protocol's running ledger of how much you've contributed to its bootstrap phase — usually a function of how much you deposited and for how long, accruing daily like a loyalty-program balance. EigenLayer, Symbiotic, Karak and Babylon all ran or are running some version of this: deposit ETH or an LST, get points, and the implicit promise is that points convert into a share of a future token allocation at the token generation event. The conversion is almost never 1:1 or published in advance. Instead, the protocol usually announces a percentage of total token supply that goes to the points program, and your tokens are your share of the points pool times that allocation. That means two numbers you don't control — the total supply reserved for points, and how many points everyone else accumulated — decide your payout as much as your own deposit does. Points themselves are not transferable or liquid; they're an accounting entry with no guaranteed value until a token actually launches and gets listed, and plenty of points programs have ended in disappointing allocations or no token at all.
Why is the total protocol points number the biggest risk in this calculation?
Your payout is a ratio — your points divided by everyone's points — and you can measure your own side of that ratio precisely while the denominator is a moving target controlled by thousands of other depositors and by how long the campaign runs. Points pools have grown by orders of magnitude in the final weeks of similar campaigns before, as farmers pile in once a token generation event looks imminent, which dilutes every existing depositor's share without them doing anything wrong. There's no perfect fix, but you can get a reasonable estimate three ways: check the protocol's own dashboard or docs if they publish a running total, look at TVL growth trends since points usually scale with TVL times time, and check community trackers or points-tracking dashboards that estimate the pool from on-chain deposit data. Treat whatever number you use as a lower bound, run the calculator again with it doubled or tripled, and size your position around the diluted case rather than the optimistic one — because dilution, not a bad allocation percentage, is what has actually disappointed most points farmers historically.
How is this different from liquid restaking risk?
This calculator answers an upside question — if the points convert as expected, what is my airdrop worth and what return does that imply on my capital and time. The <a href="/liquid-restaking-risk-calculator.html">liquid restaking risk calculator</a> answers a downside question — what can I lose from slashing across the AVS protocols my collateral is securing, and from smart-contract or bridge failures in the restaking stack itself, independent of whether any points program exists. Both numbers apply to the same deposit at the same time, and neither one substitutes for the other: a huge projected points payout doesn't offset a slashing event that eats your principal, and a low slashing-risk score doesn't guarantee the points convert to anything valuable. Run both calculators on the same position before sizing it — the points math tells you what you're farming for, the risk math tells you what you're risking to farm it, and the sane version of restaking only makes sense when the expected points value clears the expected risk cost by a real margin, not a thin one.
Is stacking multiple protocols' points worth the added smart-contract risk?
Stacking works because a liquid restaking token like the ones issued by EigenLayer-integrated protocols can itself be deposited into a second or third protocol — Symbiotic, Karak, a DeFi vault — so the same underlying ETH earns points in multiple programs at once, which is what the multiplier field in this calculator represents. The upside math is real: a 2x or 3x multiplier directly scales your points and therefore your projected airdrop value, and it's the main lever farmers pull once they've maxed out deposit size. The part the multiplier doesn't capture is that each additional protocol in the stack is a separate smart contract, a separate admin key set, and a separate place the position can freeze, get exploited, or de-peg from the underlying asset — and those risks compound rather than average. A 2026 exploit that drained a major liquid restaking token's bridge is the concrete version of this: farmers stacking that token into a second protocol lost the points value and the principal in the same event. Stacking is worth it when each added layer is a protocol you've actually vetted and would hold anyway for its own risk-adjusted merits — not simply because it multiplies the points number, since the points are worthless if the contract holding them gets drained before the token generation event.