The Emergence of Actively Validated Services (AVSs) in the Modular Blockchain Ecosystem

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

The advent of Actively Validated Services (AVSs) marks a pivotal evolution within the modular blockchain paradigm, offering a sophisticated mechanism to enhance the security, scalability, and flexibility of decentralized applications. This comprehensive research report systematically dissects the multifaceted landscape of AVSs, elucidating their fundamental operational principles, diverse application spectrum, and the intricate economic models that underpin their sustainability. It critically examines the incentive structures designed for AVS operators and restakers, alongside the stringent slashing mechanisms that safeguard network integrity. Furthermore, the report meticulously outlines the inherent technical challenges encountered in the conception, development, and deployment of AVSs, spanning security, cryptoeconomics, scalability, and interoperability. By thoroughly analyzing the symbiotic relationship between AVSs and the burgeoning modular blockchain architectures, this document provides an in-depth understanding of how AVSs are poised to catalyze unprecedented levels of innovation and resilience in the decentralized technology landscape, fundamentally reshaping the future trajectory of web3 development.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The blockchain ecosystem has undergone a profound transformation, moving progressively from monolithic architectures, where a single layer handles execution, data availability, settlement, and consensus, towards a more specialized, modular design. This paradigm shift addresses the inherent limitations of monolithic blockchains, particularly the ‘scalability trilemma’—the challenge of simultaneously optimizing decentralization, security, and scalability. Monolithic designs often necessitate trade-offs, leading to bottlenecks in throughput, higher transaction costs, and diminished flexibility for application-specific requirements. Moreover, the independent security bootstrapping required for every new decentralized application or sidechain frequently resulted in a fragmented security landscape, where nascent protocols struggled to achieve robust economic security, thereby exposing them to various attack vectors, a phenomenon often referred to as the ‘cold-start problem’.

A pivotal innovation emerging from this modular evolution is the concept of Actively Validated Services (AVSs). AVSs are specialized decentralized services that leverage shared security mechanisms, most prominently facilitated by protocols such as EigenLayer’s restaking framework, to bolster their integrity and performance. Unlike traditional approaches where each dApp or protocol must independently establish and maintain its own validator set and economic security, AVSs enable protocols to ‘rent’ or ‘pool’ security from an existing, highly secure blockchain network, typically Ethereum. This mechanism allows dApps and infrastructure services to inherit a substantial portion of the economic security of the underlying Layer 1 (L1) network, significantly mitigating the ‘cold-start problem’ and reducing the capital expenditure and operational complexity associated with bootstrapping independent trust networks.

EigenLayer’s shared security model, specifically, empowers a diverse array of AVSs to collectively pool and secure their operations by allowing Ethereum stakers to ‘restake’ their already staked ETH. This innovative mechanism transforms ETH, which is already securing Ethereum’s consensus layer, into a ‘rehypothecated’ asset that can simultaneously secure additional decentralized services. This pooling mechanism not only dramatically enhances the security posture of individual services but also contributes to the overall resilience and trustworthiness of the broader blockchain ecosystem. The strategic integration of AVSs within the modular blockchain framework directly addresses several critical challenges that have historically impeded the widespread adoption and performance of decentralized systems, including, but not limited to, ensuring efficient data availability, facilitating robust cross-chain interoperability, and implementing novel, application-specific consensus mechanisms. By abstracting away the complexities of security bootstrapping, AVSs pave the way for a more agile, secure, and innovative landscape for decentralized application development.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2. The Concept of Actively Validated Services (AVSs)

2.1 Definition and Functionality

Actively Validated Services (AVSs) can be formally defined as any decentralized service or protocol that requires a distributed network of validators to perform specific tasks, attest to states, or execute computations, and that leverages an existing, highly secure economic trust layer, such as Ethereum’s consensus mechanism via restaking, rather than bootstrapping its own independent security. These services transcend simple smart contracts by requiring ongoing, active validation and computation from a set of permissionless operators. The operational framework for each AVS is typically orchestrated through a series of smart contracts deployed on the base layer (e.g., Ethereum), which govern key functionalities such as defining the specific tasks operators must perform, establishing the rules for attestation, managing the registration and selection of operators, and determining the aggregate amount of staked capital committed to securing the service.

The core innovation enabling AVSs, particularly those within the EigenLayer ecosystem, is the concept of ‘restaking’. Restaking allows Ethereum validators, who have already staked ETH to secure the Ethereum network, to voluntarily ‘restake’ that same ETH (or derivatives thereof) to provide cryptoeconomic security for additional, distinct services – the AVSs. This mechanism is a powerful form of economic reuse of staked capital. Instead of new services having to attract entirely new capital and recruit their own validator sets, they can tap into the immense economic security already protecting Ethereum, which represents billions of dollars in staked value. This addresses the critical issue of fragmented security, where hundreds of decentralized applications each struggle to achieve sufficient security independently, often leading to susceptibility to 51% attacks or other forms of economic manipulation. By pooling security resources, AVSs can achieve a significantly higher degree of economic security and scalability, benefiting both the service providers, who gain immediate access to a robust security infrastructure, and users, who can trust the integrity of these services due to the substantial cryptoeconomic guarantees.

The functionality of AVSs is remarkably broad, encompassing a wide array of critical middleware and infrastructure components essential for a mature decentralized ecosystem:

• Data Availability Layers (DALs): These services ensure that data posted to a blockchain, particularly for Layer 2 rollups, is actually available for anyone to download and verify. Without data availability, rollups cannot guarantee their integrity as users would be unable to reconstruct the rollup state or prove fraud. EigenDA, for instance, is designed to significantly increase data throughput beyond what Ethereum’s base layer can natively provide, serving as a high-performance, low-cost data availability solution for rollups.
• Decentralized Sequencers: In rollup architectures, sequencers aggregate transactions and post them to the L1. Centralized sequencers pose a risk of censorship and single points of failure. AVS-based decentralized sequencers aim to distribute this role among many operators, enhancing censorship resistance and liveness guarantees for rollups.
• Oracle Networks: Oracles are essential bridges that securely bring off-chain data (e.g., price feeds, event results) onto the blockchain. Traditional oracle networks require their own security models. AVS-based oracles can leverage restaked security to provide highly reliable and tamper-proof data feeds, crucial for DeFi applications, insurance, and more.
• Bridges and Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocols: Securely transferring assets and messages between different blockchain networks is one of the most challenging problems in the crypto space, often plagued by exploits. AVSs can provide enhanced security for cross-chain bridges by leveraging a larger, pooled validator set to verify cross-chain messages and proofs, making bridges more robust against attacks.
• Threshold Cryptography Schemes (e.g., Multi-Party Computation – MPC): These schemes involve distributing a cryptographic secret or computation among multiple parties, requiring a threshold number of them to collaborate to reconstruct the secret or perform the computation. AVSs can act as the distributed network of participants for MPC protocols, enabling secure key management, confidential computations, or distributed signature generation (e.g., for decentralized custodianship).
• Virtual Machines (VMs) or Co-processors: Specialized VMs or coprocessors that can perform specific computations more efficiently or securely off-chain, while having their results verifiable on-chain. An AVS could provide a distributed network for these specialized computational tasks, such as zero-knowledge proof generation or complex algorithmic computations, where the integrity of the computation is guaranteed by restaked security.
• Keeper Networks: These networks automate smart contract executions that require external triggers (e.g., liquidating undercollateralized loans, harvesting DeFi yields, executing limit orders). AVSs can provide a decentralized and economically secure network of keepers, ensuring timely and reliable execution of these automated functions without relying on centralized bots.
• Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs): While TEEs provide hardware-level security, integrating them with blockchain often requires a decentralized network to attest to their proper operation. An AVS could coordinate and validate TEE computations, bringing a layer of cryptographic trust and attestability to off-chain computation without full decentralization of the computation itself.

2.2 Examples of AVSs

The EigenLayer ecosystem has witnessed the emergence of several prominent AVSs, each addressing specific, critical challenges within the blockchain landscape:

• EigenDA: Developed by EigenLayer itself, EigenDA is a high-throughput, low-cost data availability solution specifically designed to scale Ethereum’s data availability capabilities beyond the initial EIP-4844 ‘proto-danksharding’ implementation. Inspired by the principles of Danksharding, EigenDA allows rollups to post their transaction data to its specialized layer, where a network of EigenLayer restakers validates and ensures the availability of this data. This significantly reduces the cost and increases the throughput for rollups, enabling them to process more transactions per second while still inheriting strong security guarantees from Ethereum via restaking. EigenDA aims to provide up to 10 MB/s of data throughput at launch, drastically improving the economic viability of new and existing rollup solutions.

• Hyperlane: Positioned as a modular and permissionless interoperability framework, Hyperlane is deployed across numerous blockchain networks. Its primary function is to enable secure and reliable cross-chain messaging, facilitating seamless communication and asset transfers between disparate chains. Hyperlane’s unique approach allows developers to integrate expressive pre-transaction logic directly into decentralized applications, enabling complex multi-chain operations. By potentially leveraging EigenLayer AVSs, Hyperlane could enhance its security model for message validation and dispute resolution, allowing its existing validator sets (known as ‘watchtowers’) to be augmented with the economic security of restaked ETH, thereby fortifying its cross-chain security guarantees against potential exploits that have plagued traditional bridging solutions.

• AltLayer: AltLayer is a decentralized rollup protocol offering a comprehensive suite of AVSs specifically tailored for the deployment and operation of scalable, application-specific rollups. AltLayer’s architecture, powered by EigenLayer, focuses on what they term ‘Restaked Rollups’, which are essentially highly customizable rollups augmented with three core AVS components:

  • VITAL: A decentralized verification layer that uses EigenLayer restakers to verify the state transitions of rollups, ensuring their correctness and integrity. This acts as an independent layer of verification for optimistic rollups, speeding up finality and reducing the trust assumptions on single sequencers.
  • MACH: A fast finality layer that enables significantly quicker finalization for rollup transactions. By using a network of EigenLayer restakers to provide rapid confirmation of rollup blocks, MACH allows dApps built on these rollups to achieve near-instantaneous transaction finality, critical for user experience in gaming, trading, and other high-frequency applications.
  • DEDICATED: A decentralized sequencing layer that aims to decentralize the rollup sequencing process, moving away from centralized sequencers. By enabling restakers to participate as decentralized sequencers, AltLayer enhances censorship resistance and liveness for rollups.
    These AVSs collectively transform AltLayer into a robust platform for deploying highly scalable and secure dApps.

• Lagrange Protocol: Lagrange Protocol provides crucial infrastructure for generating zero-knowledge (ZK) based cross-chain state and storage proofs. These proofs are fundamental for enabling secure, trustless cross-chain interactions and for enhancing the efficiency of optimistic rollups. By generating proofs of state from one chain that can be verified on another, Lagrange allows for light clients and interoperability protocols to operate with significantly reduced trust assumptions. Leveraging AVSs, Lagrange can outsource the computationally intensive and security-critical task of generating these ZK proofs to a network of restakers, whose honesty is guaranteed by their staked capital. This enhances the scalability, security, and trustworthiness of cross-chain communication, mitigating the risks associated with multi-sig or federated bridge models.

• Axiom: Axiom is a decentralized zero-knowledge coprocessor designed to enable smart contracts to securely and verifiably query and compute over the entirety of Ethereum’s historical state. Currently, smart contracts can only access a limited amount of recent on-chain data. Axiom, by leveraging ZK proofs and a network of AVS operators, allows dApps to prove arbitrary computations over historical block headers, transaction receipts, and state roots, all while verifying these proofs on-chain. This opens up vast possibilities for complex DeFi strategies, historical data analytics, and more sophisticated on-chain applications that require deep historical context, with the computation and proof generation secured by restaked ETH.

• Omni Network: Omni is an Ethereum-native Layer 1 blockchain specifically designed to unify the rollup ecosystem. It aims to act as a universal interoperability layer that allows applications to seamlessly operate across all rollups, without needing to integrate with each one individually. Omni achieves its security by leveraging EigenLayer restaking, directly integrating with Ethereum’s validator set. This means that Omni’s consensus is secured by the same economic stake that secures Ethereum, providing a highly robust and cryptoeconomically aligned foundation for cross-rollup communication and shared liquidity. Applications built on Omni can achieve global composability and access to liquidity across the entire rollup landscape.

These examples collectively underscore the diverse and profound impact of AVSs in addressing the pressing challenges of scalability, interoperability, and security within the decentralized web. They demonstrate how EigenLayer’s shared security model is fostering a new wave of modular infrastructure and application development.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Economic Models and Incentives for AVS Operators

The sustainability and security of Actively Validated Services are fundamentally reliant on meticulously designed economic models and incentive structures. These models must effectively align the interests of various stakeholders: the restakers (who provide the economic security), the AVS operators (who run the necessary software and perform validation tasks), and the users (who consume the AVS’s services). The design ensures that participation is rational, profitable, and secure.

3.1 Incentive Structures

The primary incentive for restakers to secure AVSs is the opportunity to earn additional yield on their staked ETH, beyond the staking rewards from Ethereum itself. Validators who restake their ETH, either natively, via Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs), or through Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs), opt into securing one or more AVSs. In return for performing the validation tasks required by these AVSs (e.g., signing messages, participating in consensus, providing data availability), they are typically rewarded with a portion of the fees generated by the specific services they secure. This reward structure directly incentivizes validators to actively participate in the network, maintain high uptime, and behave honestly, as their earnings are contingent on their performance and the AVS’s usage.

Operators of AVSs, who are responsible for running the specialized client software for each AVS, maintaining the necessary infrastructure (hardware, bandwidth), and ensuring continuous operation, also receive a share of the fees collected from users. Their compensation model can vary; some AVSs might directly pay operators, while others might share a portion of the protocol’s native token or a combination of both. Operators are incentivized to provide high-quality service, as poor performance or malicious behavior can lead to slashing (loss of staked capital). Furthermore, operators are motivated to attract restakers to delegate their stake to them, often by offering competitive reward shares, ensuring the stability and profitability of the services they provide, and building a reputation for reliability. This creates a competitive marketplace among operators, driving efficiency and service quality.

The distribution of rewards across the ecosystem must be meticulously designed to maintain a delicate balance:

• For Restakers: Rewards must be attractive enough to encourage participation, outweighing the increased slashing risk and opportunity cost. The concept of ‘risk-adjusted returns’ is paramount here; higher potential rewards might compensate for higher perceived risk from a particular AVS.
• For Operators: Rewards must cover operational costs (hardware, energy, maintenance) and provide a sufficient profit margin to justify their specialized effort and investment. This ensures a healthy supply of capable operators.
• For AVS Protocols: The fee structure must be sustainable, allowing the protocol to fund its own development, community grants, and future initiatives, while remaining competitive for users. Some AVSs might also have their own native tokens, used for governance or as a medium of exchange for services, introducing additional tokenomics considerations.

This multi-party incentive alignment forms the cornerstone of cryptoeconomic security, where rational economic behavior leads to the desired network properties of security, decentralization, and reliability.

3.2 Slashing Mechanisms

Slashing is an indispensable and punitive component of the cryptoeconomic security model, serving as a powerful deterrent against malicious behavior, gross negligence, or persistent non-performance by AVS operators and the restakers who delegate to them. It ensures the integrity of the network by making dishonest participation economically ruinous. When an AVS operator or a validator delegated to them engages in prohibited activities, a predetermined portion of their staked assets (the restaked ETH) is ‘slashed’ or forfeited. This forfeited capital can either be burned (removed from circulation) or redirected to a common pool to compensate victims or fund the protocol.

Key aspects of slashing mechanisms include:

• Clearly Defined Slashing Conditions: For a slashing mechanism to be effective and fair, the conditions under which an operator’s stake will be penalized must be unambiguously defined. These conditions are specific to each AVS and its functionalities. Examples include:
  • Double-signing: Signing two conflicting blocks or messages at the same height or epoch for a consensus-based AVS.
  • Data Unavailability: Failing to make data segments available for a Data Availability Layer AVS.
  • Incorrect Computation/Attestation: Providing an incorrect or fraudulent computation result or attestation for an oracle or coprocessor AVS.
  • Censorship: Maliciously omitting valid transactions for a decentralized sequencer AVS.
  • Liveness Faults: Persistent offline behavior or failure to participate in required duties, even if not explicitly malicious, can lead to penalties (though often less severe than active misbehavior).
• Attributable Fault: A crucial principle in slashing design is ‘attributable fault’. The system must be able to cryptographically or verifiably attribute misbehavior directly to a specific operator or a coordinated group. This prevents innocent participants from being unfairly penalized and ensures that only those demonstrably at fault suffer economic loss.
• Cool-down Periods and Withdrawal Delays: To prevent ‘rug pulls’ or rapid capital flight by malicious actors after committing an offense, staked assets typically have a ‘cool-down’ or ‘withdrawal delay’ period. This allows sufficient time for any potential misbehavior to be detected and reported to the system before the malicious actor can withdraw their stake, ensuring the slashing mechanism can be enforced effectively.
• Correlated Slashing Risks: A significant challenge in a shared security model like EigenLayer is the potential for ‘correlated slashing’. If a single operator provides validation for multiple AVSs, and that operator behaves maliciously or experiences a catastrophic failure, their stake could be slashed across all the AVSs they are securing. This could lead to a disproportionately large loss for the operator and, more critically, could potentially destabilize the underlying ETH staking ecosystem if a widespread event occurs. Mitigating this requires careful risk management by operators, diversification strategies by restakers, and robust design of AVS slashing conditions to prevent systemic risk.
• Slashing Modules and Enforcement: AVSs define their specific slashing conditions through smart contracts, often referred to as ‘slashing modules’ or ‘middleware’. When a slashing event is detected and proven on-chain, these modules trigger the forfeiture of the offending operator’s stake. The design of these modules is highly complex, requiring rigorous security audits and formal verification to prevent vulnerabilities that could be exploited.

3.3 Tokenomics and Governance

The effective design of tokenomics and governance structures is paramount for the long-term success, adaptability, and decentralization of AVSs. While AVSs benefit from the economic security of restaked ETH, many choose to introduce their own native tokens for specific purposes.

• Native Tokens and Utility: An AVS may issue its own native token, which can serve multiple utilities:

  • Payment for Services: Users might pay for the AVS’s services using its native token, creating demand for the token.
  • Staking/Bonding: Operators might be required to bond a certain amount of the AVS’s native token (in addition to restaked ETH) to participate, signaling commitment and aligning incentives.
  • Governance: The token often grants holders voting rights on key protocol parameters, upgrades, and treasury management.
  • Incentivization: Tokens can be distributed as rewards to operators and restakers to bootstrap activity and subsidize early growth.
    The distribution and utility of these tokens must be carefully planned to ensure broad participation, prevent centralization of control, and foster a robust economic ecosystem around the AVS.

• Governance Mechanisms: Decentralized governance is a cornerstone of autonomous AVSs, enabling stakeholders to collectively propose, discuss, and vote on changes to the protocol. Common governance models include:

  • Token-Weighted Voting: Where the voting power of a participant is proportional to the amount of governance tokens they hold.
  • Delegated Governance: Token holders delegate their voting power to elected representatives or delegates who then vote on their behalf.
  • Multi-Sig Wallets: For critical operations, a multi-signature wallet requiring approval from a set number of trusted individuals or entities may be used, though ideally, this transitions to full on-chain governance over time.
    Effective governance mechanisms ensure that the AVS can evolve in response to technological advancements, market demands, and community needs, fostering resilience and adaptability. The interplay between EigenLayer’s overarching governance (if any) and the individual governance of each AVS is a complex area, requiring careful delineation of responsibilities to avoid conflicts or undue influence.

• Economic Abstraction: Some AVSs might opt for ‘economic abstraction’, where users pay for services directly in ETH or stablecoins, and the AVS protocol handles the conversion or distribution to operators in their preferred asset. This simplifies user experience by removing the need to acquire a specific AVS token for utility purposes, while operators still receive compensation for their services.

In summary, the economic models of AVSs are designed to create a self-sustaining ecosystem where economic incentives drive secure and efficient operation, while robust slashing mechanisms deter malfeasance. The tokenomics and governance frameworks then ensure the long-term health, decentralization, and evolutionary capacity of these critical decentralized services.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Technical Challenges in Developing and Deploying AVSs

Developing and deploying Actively Validated Services, while promising immense benefits, presents a sophisticated array of technical challenges. These challenges span multiple domains, from fundamental security design to operational scalability and cross-protocol interoperability, demanding a high degree of expertise in cryptography, distributed systems, and smart contract engineering.

4.1 Security and Cryptoeconomics

Ensuring the robust security of AVSs is paramount, and it involves navigating intricate cryptoeconomic landscapes. The core challenge lies in designing a system where the ‘cost of attack’ for any malicious actor significantly outweighs the ‘potential gain’ from compromising the AVS, backed by the large economic stake from restaked ETH.

• Designing Robust Slashing Conditions: A fundamental challenge is precisely defining what constitutes ‘malicious behavior’ or ‘failure to perform duties’ for diverse AVS functionalities. Each AVS type (e.g., data availability, oracle, sequencer) has unique operational requirements, and drafting unambiguous, provable, and fair slashing conditions that prevent false positives while effectively punishing misbehavior is extremely complex. This requires deep domain-specific knowledge and meticulous smart contract engineering to ensure that faults are attributable and verifiable on-chain.
• Preventing Correlated Slashing and Systemic Risk: The shared security model, while efficient, introduces the risk of ‘correlated slashing’. If a large number of operators secure a particularly critical or vulnerable AVS, and that AVS is exploited or suffers a widespread operational failure (e.g., due to a bug in its client software), a significant amount of restaked ETH could be slashed simultaneously across multiple operators. This could lead to a cascading effect, potentially destabilizing the L1 ETH staking ecosystem if a substantial portion of staked ETH is affected. Mitigating this requires careful risk assessment, diversified restaking strategies, and potentially ‘slashing caps’ or insurance mechanisms. The potential for ‘economic contagion’ if slashing events cascade across the Ethereum staking layer is a key concern for the ecosystem.
• The Oracle Problem in a Multi-AVS Environment: While AVSs can be oracle networks, the broader EigenLayer ecosystem itself relies on accurate information to enforce slashing and rewards. If the mechanism for detecting and reporting misbehavior relies on external, off-chain data or subjective adjudication, it introduces potential points of failure or centralization. Designing fully decentralized, cryptographically verifiable fault-detection mechanisms is a significant hurdle.
• Smart Contract Security: The smart contracts that define AVS logic, manage operator registration, handle staking, and implement slashing are critical infrastructure. Any vulnerability in these contracts could lead to loss of funds, protocol exploits, or network instability. Rigorous security audits, formal verification, and bug bounty programs are essential, but the complexity of these systems makes them inherently challenging to secure completely.
• Economic Security vs. Technical Security: While restaking provides economic security, it does not inherently guarantee technical security. A well-designed cryptoeconomic model can deter attacks, but it cannot prevent all software bugs, zero-day exploits, or protocol design flaws. A balance must be struck between strong economic incentives and robust, fault-tolerant technical implementations.

4.2 Scalability and Performance

AVSs must be engineered to handle high transaction throughput, ensure low latency, and maintain high availability to meet the demands of modern decentralized applications and underlying blockchain infrastructure.

• Throughput Requirements for Data-Intensive AVSs: Services like Data Availability Layers (e.g., EigenDA) must process and guarantee the availability of vast amounts of data at high speeds. This requires optimized data structures, efficient network propagation mechanisms, and scalable storage solutions, often pushing the limits of current decentralized architectures.
• Low Latency for Time-Sensitive AVSs: Decentralized sequencers, fast finality layers, and real-time oracle networks demand extremely low latency to be practical for applications like high-frequency trading or gaming. Achieving this in a decentralized, globally distributed network of operators is challenging, requiring advanced consensus protocols, optimized peer-to-peer communication, and efficient validator selection mechanisms.
• Diverse Hardware and Network Demands: Different AVSs will impose varying computational, storage, and bandwidth requirements on their operators. Managing these diverse demands across a shared pool of restakers, some of whom may only run standard Ethereum validators, creates complexity. Operators must be able to select AVSs that match their hardware capabilities, and AVSs must consider the baseline performance of typical restaking nodes.
• State Management and Syncing: Many AVSs need to maintain a substantial amount of state or sync with the state of other chains. Efficient state management, pruning, and fast syncing mechanisms are crucial to prevent node bloat and ensure new operators can quickly join the network.

4.3 Interoperability

Achieving seamless interoperability between different AVSs, their underlying L1 (Ethereum), and the myriad of decentralized applications built on top is crucial for realizing the full potential of a modular blockchain ecosystem.

• Standardized Interfaces and APIs: The lack of standardized interfaces for AVSs can lead to fragmentation and increased development overhead for dApp developers. Establishing common APIs for interacting with different types of AVSs (e.g., a universal interface for data availability layers or cross-chain messaging) would greatly simplify integration.
• Cross-AVS Communication and Coordination: As the number of AVSs grows, there will be a need for them to communicate and coordinate securely. For example, a decentralized sequencer AVS might need to interact with a data availability AVS. Designing secure, efficient, and trust-minimized communication channels between distinct AVSs is a complex challenge.
• Proof Verification Across Chains: For AVSs that provide proofs (e.g., ZK proofs for historical state, fraud proofs for rollups), enabling efficient and cost-effective verification of these proofs on different target chains is vital. This requires highly optimized verification contracts and potentially pre-compiles on L1s to reduce gas costs.
• Bridging and Message Passing: While AVSs can enhance bridge security, the underlying complexity of generalized message passing between heterogeneous blockchains remains a significant technical challenge. Ensuring atomicity, liveness, and censorship resistance for cross-chain operations requires robust protocols and careful consideration of trust assumptions.

4.4 Development and Deployment Complexity

Beyond the architectural and security challenges, the practical aspects of developing, testing, deploying, and maintaining AVSs introduce their own set of complexities.

• Smart Contract Development and Audit Cycles: AVSs involve highly complex smart contracts interacting with core L1 staking logic. This necessitates extensive development cycles, rigorous testing, and multiple rounds of independent security audits, which are time-consuming and expensive.
• Operator Onboarding and Management: Attracting, onboarding, and managing a decentralized network of AVS operators is a significant operational challenge. This includes providing clear documentation, robust client software, monitoring tools, and mechanisms for operator reputation and performance tracking.
• Software Deployment and Updates: Deploying and upgrading decentralized software for hundreds or thousands of operators in a coordinated manner without causing downtime or introducing vulnerabilities is complex. This requires robust versioning, staged rollouts, and clear communication channels.
• Monitoring and Alerting: AVSs are critical infrastructure. Robust monitoring systems are required to detect operational issues (e.g., node offline, incorrect attestations) or potential attacks in real-time, enabling prompt responses. This includes on-chain monitoring for slashing events and off-chain monitoring for performance metrics.
• Regulatory Uncertainty: As novel decentralized services, AVSs operate in a largely uncharted regulatory landscape. Ensuring compliance with existing and evolving regulations (e.g., securities laws, data privacy, anti-money laundering) can add significant complexity to development and deployment, particularly for AVSs handling sensitive data or financial transactions.

Overcoming these technical hurdles requires substantial research, engineering prowess, and collaborative efforts across the blockchain ecosystem. However, the successful navigation of these challenges promises to unlock a new era of highly scalable, secure, and flexible decentralized applications.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Broader Impact of the Shared Security Paradigm on Decentralized Applications

The emergence of the shared security paradigm, epitomized by Actively Validated Services, marks a transformative inflection point for decentralized applications. This model profoundly reshapes the economic, security, and developmental landscapes of the blockchain ecosystem, ushering in a new era of scalability, trust, and innovation.

5.1 Enhanced Security and Trust

One of the most profound impacts of AVSs is the dramatic enhancement of security and trust for decentralized applications. Historically, new dApps, Layer 2 solutions, or specialized protocols faced the arduous task of bootstrapping their own economic security. This ‘cold start problem’ meant attracting and incentivizing a sufficient number of validators to stake substantial capital, a process that is both capital-intensive and time-consuming. During this nascent phase, such protocols were often economically insecure, making them vulnerable to various attacks, including 51% attacks, censorship, or manipulation, as the cost to attack was relatively low.

• Solving the Cold Start Problem: AVSs directly solve this by allowing new protocols to inherit the economic security of a highly established and cryptoeconomically robust network like Ethereum. By leveraging the immense collective value of restaked ETH (potentially tens of billions of dollars), an AVS can immediately gain a level of security that would otherwise take years and enormous capital investment to achieve independently. This translates into a significantly higher ‘cost of attack’ from day one, making Aking an AVS economically irrational for potential attackers.
• Super-Linear Security: The EigenLayer model introduces the concept of ‘super-linear security’. This implies that the security provided to an AVS is not merely additive but potentially multiplicative. If an attacker wishes to compromise multiple AVSs simultaneously, they might need to control a super-linear amount of total restaked capital, as the slashing conditions for each AVS could be independently triggered. This creates a powerful network effect of security, where the collective cost to compromise the ecosystem grows exponentially, providing a more robust foundation for the entire web3 stack.
• Reduced Trust Assumptions: For users, this translates to reduced trust assumptions. Instead of trusting a newly formed, potentially small and untested validator set for a bridge or rollup, users can rely on the battle-tested economic security of Ethereum’s validator set, which now extends to these AVSs. This fosters greater user confidence and accelerates adoption of new decentralized services.

5.2 Scalability and Efficiency

AVSs are instrumental in driving scalability and efficiency across the decentralized landscape, particularly within the rollup-centric roadmap of Ethereum.

• Enabling Application-Specific Scalability: Instead of forcing all applications to fit within the constraints of a single, general-purpose blockchain, AVSs enable the creation of highly specialized middleware and infrastructure services. For instance, dedicated Data Availability Layers like EigenDA offload data storage from the L1, allowing rollups to process more transactions at lower costs. Decentralized sequencers can provide faster finality for specific applications without congesting the L1. This modular approach allows for ‘vertical’ scaling within specific functions of the blockchain stack.
• Economic Efficiency: The shared security model dramatically reduces the economic burden on new protocols. They no longer need to raise and bootstrap their own validator sets, saving significant capital and operational expenses. This capital efficiency can be redirected towards research, development, and user acquisition, accelerating the pace of innovation.
• Optimized Resource Utilization: By reusing existing staked ETH, the shared security model ensures more efficient utilization of capital. The same capital that secures the L1 can simultaneously secure numerous other services, maximizing the return on staked assets for validators and creating a more capital-efficient ecosystem overall.
• Unlocking New Design Space: The availability of highly secure, modular components like decentralized sequencers or ZK coprocessors (like Axiom) allows rollup developers and dApp builders to create more performant, feature-rich, and complex applications that were previously infeasible due to security or cost constraints. This ‘middleware as a service’ approach streamlines development and speeds up time-to-market for innovative solutions.

5.3 Innovation and Flexibility

The modular nature and shared security model fostered by AVSs significantly enhance innovation and flexibility within the blockchain development sphere.

• Permissionless Innovation: The EigenLayer framework operates as a ‘marketplace for decentralized trust’. Any developer or team can propose and deploy a new AVS, provided they can attract sufficient restaked capital. This permissionless environment lowers the barrier to entry for developing new decentralized services, encouraging rapid experimentation and fostering a diverse ecosystem of specialized protocols that solve unique problems. It’s akin to an ‘app store’ for trust, where any novel decentralized function can be built and secured.
• Customizable Trust Models: Different AVSs can define their own specific slashing conditions, operational requirements, and reward structures. This flexibility allows dApp developers to choose the specific AVSs that best meet their security needs and performance requirements, creating a ‘customizable trust’ paradigm. For instance, a high-value DeFi protocol might opt for an AVS with extremely stringent slashing conditions, while a gaming application might prioritize speed and low cost.
• Emergence of New Middleware: AVSs enable the creation of entirely new categories of decentralized middleware services that were previously too expensive, risky, or complex to build. This includes things like decentralized verifiable randomness functions, privacy-preserving computation layers, or specialized fraud-proving systems that can operate independently but securely.
• Decentralization of Previously Centralized Services: Many critical functions within existing blockchain systems, such as rollup sequencers, cross-chain bridge relayers, or certain oracle operations, are often centralized or semi-centralized due to the difficulty of decentralizing them securely and economically. AVSs provide a viable path to decentralize these components by leveraging the pooled economic security, thereby enhancing the overall censorship resistance and robustness of the ecosystem.

5.4 Risk Mitigation and Challenges for the Ecosystem

While offering substantial benefits, the shared security paradigm also introduces novel risks and challenges that require careful consideration.

• Systemic Risk: As discussed, the interdependence created by shared security means a significant failure or exploit in one highly utilized AVS could have ripple effects across the entire restaking ecosystem, potentially impacting ETH’s economic security if massive correlated slashing events occur. This necessitates robust risk management frameworks, including potential caps on restaked capital per AVS or mechanisms for diversified staking across multiple AVSs.
• Centralization Concerns: There is a potential risk of centralization within the restaking ecosystem if a few large Liquid Staking Token (LST) providers or Liquid Restaking Token (LRT) protocols come to dominate the supply of restaked ETH. This concentration of power could lead to undue influence over AVS selection or even potentially compromise network integrity if these entities become single points of failure. Ensuring broad participation and decentralization among restakers and operators remains a critical challenge.
• Operational Complexity for Stakers: For individual ETH stakers and operators, participating in AVSs introduces additional operational complexity. They must choose which AVSs to opt into, understand their specific slashing conditions, and run the necessary AVS client software, adding to their technical burden and potential liability.
• Regulatory Scrutiny: The novel economic mechanics of restaking and shared security, particularly the rehypothecation of staked assets, may attract increased regulatory scrutiny. Regulators might view pooled restaking as a form of unregistered security offering or be concerned about the systemic risks posed by such interconnected financial primitives.

Despite these challenges, the overall impact of the shared security paradigm, driven by AVSs, is overwhelmingly positive. It represents a fundamental shift in how decentralized applications are secured, scaled, and built, laying the groundwork for a more robust, efficient, and innovative future for web3.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Conclusion

Actively Validated Services (AVSs) stand as a transformative innovation within the rapidly evolving modular blockchain ecosystem, offering a sophisticated and economically efficient approach to enhance the security, scalability, and operational efficiency of decentralized applications. By leveraging shared security mechanisms, most notably through EigenLayer’s pioneering restaking framework, AVSs directly confront and provide compelling solutions to long-standing challenges such as fragmented security, the burdensome ‘cold-start problem’ for new protocols, and the inherent limitations in achieving performant interoperability across disparate blockchain networks.

This report has meticulously detailed the diverse functionalities of AVSs, ranging from critical infrastructure components like Data Availability Layers and Decentralized Sequencers to specialized middleware such as Oracle Networks and ZK Coprocessors. We have explored the intricate economic models underpinning AVSs, highlighting the precise incentive structures that align the interests of restakers and operators, alongside the robust slashing mechanisms designed to enforce honest behavior and safeguard network integrity. Furthermore, we have dissected the significant technical hurdles inherent in the development and deployment of AVSs, including the complexities of cryptoeconomic security design, ensuring high performance and scalability, fostering seamless interoperability, and navigating the operational intricacies of smart contract development and decentralized network management.

The broader impact of this shared security paradigm on decentralized applications is undeniably profound. AVSs significantly enhance the economic security of dApps, leading to unprecedented levels of trust and resilience by allowing them to inherit the deep security guarantees of established L1s like Ethereum. This model not only drives remarkable improvements in scalability and efficiency by enabling specialized, high-throughput services but also unlocks a vast new design space for innovation and flexibility within web3 development. It facilitates the permissionless creation of novel middleware and accelerates the decentralization of critical services that were previously centralized due to security or economic constraints. While the ecosystem must prudently address emerging challenges such as systemic risk and potential centralization vectors, the foundational shift introduced by AVSs promises a more robust, interconnected, and economically viable future for decentralized technology.

In essence, AVSs are not merely an incremental improvement but represent a fundamental paradigm shift in blockchain architecture. Their continued development, refinement, and widespread adoption are poised to play an absolutely pivotal role in shaping the next generation of blockchain technology, fostering unparalleled innovation, and dramatically expanding the capabilities and reach of decentralized applications across all sectors.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• EigenLayer. (n.d.). FAQ. Retrieved from docs.eigenlayer.xyz
• Blockchain UBC. (2024). Understanding Eigenlayer AVS: Key Insights and Practical Applications. Retrieved from blockchainubc.ca
• Ava Protocol. (2024). A Guide to EigenLayer AVS: Actively Validated Services on Ethereum. Retrieved from avaprotocol.org
• Gate. (2024). EigenLayer – Leveraging Ethereum’s Security. Retrieved from gate.com
• The Spartan Group. (2024). EigenLayer: A Marketplace for Trust. Retrieved from spartangroup.io
• EigenLayer. (2024). EigenLayer: An Open Marketplace for Decentralized Trust. Retrieved from xangle.io
• Blockchain UBC. (2024). EigenLayer AVS Operator: Revolutionizing Validator Services in Blockchain. Retrieved from blockchainubc.ca
• HashKey Cloud. (2024). What are AVSs and how to select them? Retrieved from hashkey.cloud
• ChainCatcher. (2024). A summary of well-known AVS projects in the EigenLayer ecosystem. Retrieved from chaincatcher.com
• Stakin. (2024). Most Popular Actively Validated Services (AVSs) on EigenLayer. Retrieved from stakin.com
• Mitosis University. (2024). An Impenetrable Liquidity Fortress: How Mitosis and EigenLayer AVS Protect Your Assets. Retrieved from university.mitosis.org