Forking duplicates security costs. A new chain must bootstrap its own validator set and staking tokens, creating a capital inefficiency that inflates the total security budget for the same functionality.
algorithmic-stablecoins-failures-and-future
Blog
The Hidden Cost of Forking: Duplicated Collateral and Diluted Security
Forking a successful collateralized debt protocol like MakerDAO is not a victimless copy-paste. It fragments liquidity, dilutes governance attention, and creates systemic fragility by spreading the same collateral base across competing systems. This is the silent security tax of open-source finance.
introduction
THE FORK TAX
Introduction
Forking a blockchain protocol creates a hidden security tax by duplicating collateral and fragmenting network effects.
Security is not additive. The combined TVL of Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism does not create a unified security layer; each chain's security is isolated and often weaker than the mainnet's.
Liquidity fragments, not copies. A fork of Uniswap or Aave must attract its own liquidity, diluting the Total Value Locked (TVL) and reducing capital efficiency across the ecosystem.
Evidence: The combined staking value of forked Proof-of-Stake chains often represents a fraction of the original's, creating a systemic vulnerability that is masked by nominal market cap.
key-insights
THE FORKING TAX
Executive Summary
Forking a blockchain protocol isn't free; it imposes a systemic tax on the entire ecosystem through duplicated capital and fragmented security.
01
The $100B+ Duplication Problem
Every major fork (e.g., Lido, MakerDAO, Aave) requires its own liquidity and collateral pool. This locks capital in parallel silos instead of creating a unified security base.\n- TVL is not additive across forks; it's redundant.\n- Capital efficiency plummets as security guarantees fragment.
$100B+
Locked in Forks
<50%
Capital Efficiency
02
Security is a Zero-Sum Game
Forking dilutes the economic security of the original protocol. Attackers can exploit the weaker fork, creating systemic risk for the entire codebase lineage.\n- Security budgets are split, not shared.\n- A vulnerability in one fork threatens all, as seen with Compound and its forks.
Split
Security Budget
Cascade
Risk
03
The Modular Alternative: Shared Security Layers
Protocols like EigenLayer and Cosmos Interchain Security demonstrate that security can be a reusable resource. Validators/stakers secure multiple services without forking the asset base.\n- Restaking re-hypothecates Ethereum's trust.\n- Consumer chains lease security, avoiding the fork tax.
10x+
Efficiency Gain
Unified
Security Pool
thesis-statement
THE DILUTION
The Core Argument: Security is a Non-Rival Good Until It's Forked
Forking a blockchain protocol creates a zero-sum competition for its most critical resource: economic security.
Security is a non-rival good within a single chain. The staked capital securing Ethereum or Solana protects every application simultaneously without diminishing returns.
A fork creates a rivalrous market. The new chain must compete for the same validator capital and user liquidity, splitting the security budget. This is the hidden cost of forking.
Evidence: The 2022 BNB Chain fork of Ethereum demonstrated this. It siphoned validator attention and capital, creating a parallel, less secure system while diluting the talent pool for core development.
The result is systemic fragility. Instead of one highly secure network, you get multiple weaker ones. This dynamic is why L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism chose to inherit Ethereum's security rather than fork it.
SECURITY DILUTION
The Duplication Problem: A Tale of Two (or More) ETH Backstops
Comparing the capital efficiency and security dilution of canonical bridges versus third-party bridges for Ethereum L2s.
| Security Metric | Canonical Bridge (e.g., Optimism, Arbitrum) | Third-Party Bridge (e.g., Across, LayerZero) | Native Staking (e.g., EigenLayer, Karak) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Collateral Backstop | L1 Ethereum (Smart Contract) | Bridged ETH / Staked ETH | Native ETH (Restaked) |
Economic Security Source | L1 Finality & Validator Set | Bridge Operator Bond / External Validators | Ethereum Validator Slashing |
Capital Multiplier Effect | 1x (Direct 1:1 backing) |
|
|
Security Dilution Risk | None (Singular backstop) | High (Fragmented across protocols) | Medium (Correlated slashing risk) |
TVL Required for $1B in Security | $1B | $200-500M (Est. 2-5x leverage) | $500M (Est. 2x leverage via AVS rewards) |
Failure Mode | L1 Consensus Failure | Bridge Operator Fault / Oracle Attack | AVS Code Bug / Operator Misbehavior |
Recovery Path | Social Consensus / Hard Fork | Insurance Fund / Governance Vote | Slashing & Fork Choice Rule |
deep-dive
THE COLLATERAL TRAP
The Liquidity Fragmentation Death Spiral
Forking a blockchain protocol duplicates its liquidity, diluting security and creating a systemic risk for the entire ecosystem.
Forking creates duplicate states that require separate collateral pools. A forked version of a protocol like MakerDAO or Aave must bootstrap its own ETH or stablecoin reserves from scratch, splitting total value locked (TVL) across identical systems.
Diluted security is a mathematical certainty. The security of a collateralized debt position (CDP) system scales with its TVL. Splitting $10B TVL between two forks creates two $5B systems, each more vulnerable to market volatility and liquidation cascades than the original.
This triggers a negative feedback loop. Lower TVL per fork increases risk, which drives away conservative capital, further depleting TVL. Users migrate to the fork with perceived higher security, abandoning the weaker one to fail.
Evidence: The 2022 collapse of the Fantom-based multichain fork of Yearn Finance, Abracadabra Money (SPELL), demonstrated this. Its isolated Fantom TVL became insolvent during market stress, while the Ethereum mainnet version survived.
case-study
THE HIDDEN COST OF FORKING
Case Studies in Fragility
Copy-pasting a protocol's code fractures its most critical asset: its security model, creating systemic risk across the ecosystem.
01
The MakerDAO Fork Spiral
Every fork of the Maker protocol (e.g., Abracadabra, Liquity) must bootstrap its own isolated collateral pool. This fragments the $10B+ DeFi stablecoin security budget across competing systems, making each individually more vulnerable to black swan collateral crashes.\n- Diluted Oracles: Each fork runs its own price feed, reducing attack cost for manipulating any single instance.\n- Cascading Liquidations: A market shock can trigger simultaneous, uncoordinated liquidations across all forks, exacerbating volatility.
$10B+
Fragmented TVL
5+
Major Forks
02
Uniswap V2: The AMM Template Trap
While Uniswap V2's forkability spawned thousands of DEXs, it locked them into a primitive, inefficient design. This created a massive aggregate attack surface of ~$20B in duplicated, suboptimal liquidity.\n- Wasted Capital: Identical liquidity pools exist across dozens of chains and forks, offering no aggregate depth.\n- Stagnant Innovation: Forks are incentivized to maintain compatibility, slowing adoption of superior concentrated liquidity models from Uniswap V3 or Trader Joe v2.1.
~$20B
Duplicated Liquidity
1000+
V2 Forks
03
The L1 Bridge Replication Fallacy
Each new Layer 1 blockchain (Avalanche, Polygon) required its own bespoke, canonical bridges from Ethereum, creating a $2B+ cross-chain attack surface. This model of sovereign security led to disasters like the Nomad ($190M) and Wormhole ($325M) hacks.\n- Security Budget Dilution: Each bridge must fund its own validator set and audits, a cost passed to users.\n- Protocol Duplication: Apps like Aave must deploy and secure separate lending pools on each chain, multiplying governance overhead and smart contract risk.
$2B+
Bridge TVL at Risk
50+
Major Bridge Exploits
04
Solution: Shared Security Primitives
The antidote to forking fragility is to decompose applications into modular components secured by a shared base layer. This shifts the security budget from individual protocols to universal infrastructure.\n- Restaking (EigenLayer): Allows ETH stakers to cryptographically secure new systems (AVSs), providing a ~$15B pooled security budget.\n- Intent-Based Architectures: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap delegate routing and execution to specialized, shared networks, eliminating the need for forked liquidity pools.\n- Universal Layer 2s: Using a shared settlement layer (e.g., Ethereum L2s) ensures bridges and state are secured by the same underlying consensus.
~$15B
Pooled Security (EigenLayer)
-90%
Reduced Bridge Surface
counter-argument
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
Counter-Argument: Isn't Forking Just Healthy Competition?
Forking fragments capital, creating systemic risk by duplicating collateral and diluting security.
Forking fragments capital. A new chain must bootstrap its own validator set and liquidity pools, pulling TVL from the original network. This capital duplication is a net negative for the ecosystem's security budget.
Security is not a commodity. A fork's security is only as strong as its economic weight. A $500M forked chain is inherently less secure than the $50B Ethereum it copied, creating a weaker link in the cross-chain mesh.
Evidence: The L2 ecosystem demonstrates this. Optimism and Arbitrum innovate on a shared security foundation. A pure fork like Polygon PoS competes for the same validator stake as BSC, diluting Proof-of-Stake security across chains.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Frequently Challenged Questions
Common questions about the systemic risks and economic inefficiencies introduced by forking blockchain protocols.
The hidden cost is the massive duplication of capital and the dilution of network security. Forking a chain like Ethereum or Avalanche doesn't just copy code; it fragments the total value locked (TVL), liquidity, and validator security across competing networks, making each one individually weaker and more expensive to secure than the original.
takeaways
THE FORKING TAX
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Forking a chain doesn't just copy code—it replicates its most critical and expensive failure mode: fragmented security budgets.
01
The Problem: Duplicated, Stagnant Collateral
Every EVM L2 fork requires its own sequencer bond and fraud/validity proof staking pool. This creates billions in idle capital competing for the same limited validator attention and yield, leading to weaker per-chain security.
- Capital Inefficiency: $1B in total TVL split across 10 forks offers less security than $1B on one chain.
- Yield Dilution: Staking rewards are fragmented, reducing the economic incentive for honest validation.
- Coordination Overhead: Security responses (e.g., slashing) are siloed and slower.
>90%
Idle Capital
10x
More Attack Surfaces
02
The Solution: Shared Security Hubs
Architectures like EigenLayer, Babylon, and Cosmos ICS allow new chains to rent security from an established validator set and capital pool, turning a cost center into a revenue stream for the base layer.
- Instant Security Bootstrap: New rollup or appchain launches with $10B+ of economic security from day one.
- Capital Efficiency: Validators secure multiple chains with the same stake, earning pooled fees.
- Market-Driven Security: Security becomes a commodity; chains pay for the level they need.
$10B+
Security from Day 1
-90%
Bootstrap Cost
03
The Investor Lens: Value Accrual Shifts to Base Layers
The forking endgame consolidates value at the shared security and settlement layer, not the execution layer. Investing in yet another EVM fork is a bet against this aggregation trend.
- Settlement as a Service: Value accrues to Ethereum L1, Celestia, and Bitcoin via restaking.
- Execution is Commoditized: High-throughput EVM environments become low-margin utilities.
- The Moat is Security: The chain with the largest, most credible neutral validator set wins.
L1/Settlement
Value Accrual
Commodity
Execution Layer
04
The Builder Mandate: Specialize or Perish
Generic L2 forks have no long-term moat. Sustainable builders must leverage shared security to create hyper-specialized execution environments that justify their existence.
- Vertical Integration: Build app-specific chains (appchains) for DeFi, gaming, or social with tailored VMs.
- Leverage, Don't Rebuild: Use EigenLayer AVS or Cosmos SDK to outsource consensus.
- Focus on UX: Differentiate on performance, fee abstraction, and developer experience, not just security.
Appchain
Specialization
AVS/ICS
Security Source
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall