Shared security is a trap for studios prioritizing sovereignty. Protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon abstract security from the base chain, but this creates a single point of failure for your game's economic layer. A slashing event or consensus bug in the shared network cascades to all applications.
gaming-and-metaverse-the-next-billion-users
Blog
Shared Security is a False Economy for Game Studios
An analysis of why outsourcing validator duties to a parent chain (like Ethereum or Avalanche) forces game studios to sacrifice critical operational control and performance for security benefits that are often marginal and misunderstood.
introduction
THE FALSE ECONOMY
Introduction
Shared security models, while appealing for cost reduction, introduce systemic risks and control trade-offs that are antithetical to sustainable game development.
The cost savings are illusory. While cheaper than a standalone chain, you trade capital expense for existential operational risk. The economic model of shared security, like restaking, creates misaligned incentives where validators optimize for yield, not your game's uptime.
Sovereignty is non-negotiable. Studios like Illuvium and Parallel building on dedicated chains (Immutable zkEVM, Arbitrum) demonstrate that full control over sequencer fees, upgrades, and MEV capture is the only viable path for complex economies. Shared security sacrifices this for a marginal discount.
key-insights
THE FALSE ECONOMY
Executive Summary
Outsourcing game security to a shared L1 or L2 is a strategic error that trades short-term convenience for long-term captivity.
01
The Sovereignty Tax
Shared security models like EigenLayer AVS or Cosmos Interchain Security impose a recurring rent on your game's core economics. You pay for the chain's overhead, not just your own usage.\n- Revenue Leakage: Up to 20-30% of in-game fees can be siphoned to validators.\n- Misaligned Incentives: Validators prioritize high-fee DeFi transactions, causing unpredictable latency spikes.
20-30%
Fee Leak
0 Control
Over Priority
02
The Performance Illusion
Shared chains like Arbitrum Nova or Polygon Supernets promise high throughput, but your game competes with every other app for block space. A viral NFT mint or DeFi exploit on a neighboring app can halt your game state.\n- No Guaranteed SLAs: Latency can spike from ~200ms to 2+ seconds during network congestion.\n- Bundled Failure Risk: A single sequencer outage (see OP Stack) takes down your entire game universe.
200ms→2s+
Latency Spike
Single Point
Of Failure
03
The Customization Trap
Generic L2s and shared security frameworks are built for the lowest common denominator—DeFi and NFTs. They lack the native primitives for game-specific needs like fast finality for match resolution or custom fee markets for microtransactions.\n- Architectural Debt: You must build complex workarounds for features a dedicated chain provides natively.\n- Vendor Lock-in: Migrating a live game's state and economy off a shared chain is a multi-year, high-risk endeavor.
Multi-Year
Migration Lock-in
0 Primitives
For Games
04
The Validator Cartel Problem
In shared security models, validators are profit-maximizing entities. They form implicit cartels to extract Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) from the chain, which directly harms player experience through front-run transactions and unpredictable gas costs.\n- Player Exploitation: A player's in-game asset trade can be sandwiched, eroding trust.\n- Economic Distortion: MEV becomes a hidden tax, making in-game economies inefficient and unfair.
Hidden Tax
From MEV
Eroded
Player Trust
thesis-statement
THE FALSE ECONOMY
The Core Argument: Sovereignty > Rent-a-Validator
Shared security models like OP Stack and Polygon CDK trade long-term viability for short-term convenience, creating a permanent tax on game economies.
Rent-a-validator models are a tax. Protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism charge a recurring fee for block production and sequencing. For a game generating millions of microtransactions, this creates a permanent, non-negotiable cost center that scales with success, directly siphoning value from players and developers.
Sovereignty eliminates middlemen. A dedicated appchain, built with frameworks like Cosmos SDK or Polygon Edge, grants full control over transaction ordering, fee markets, and upgrade schedules. This allows studios to optimize for player experience, not the L2's profit margins.
The shared security trade-off is lopsided. The promised safety of Ethereum's validators is irrelevant for most game state transitions. The real risk is economic capture by the sequencer, a single point of failure and rent extraction that sovereignty explicitly avoids.
Evidence: Games like Illuvium and Aavegotchi migrated to dedicated chains after experiencing the limitations and costs of shared L2s. Their traffic patterns—bursty, high-volume, and unique—are antithetical to the generalized, fee-optimized design of rollup sequencers.
market-context
THE FALSE ECONOMY
The Current Landscape: Everyone's Selling Security, No One's Selling Control
Shared security models sacrifice long-term sovereignty for short-term capital efficiency, creating a strategic trap for game studios.
Shared security is a trap. It trades a studio's technical sovereignty for a temporary reduction in validator costs. This creates a permanent dependency on an external chain's governance and roadmap, like being locked into Ethereum's L2 or Avalanche's subnet ecosystem.
The cost structure is inverted. Studios pay for security with equity in their ecosystem. The value of in-game assets and fees accrues to the security provider's token, not the studio's. This is the core economic flaw of rollups and app-chains on shared sequencer networks.
Control defines the business model. Without full control of the execution layer, studios cannot implement custom fee markets, prioritize their own transactions, or deploy novel VM architectures. Polygon CDK and Arbitrum Orbit offer flexibility but retain final say over core upgrades.
Evidence: The total value locked in major gaming subnets and app-chains is a fraction of their host chain's TVL. This demonstrates that capital follows sovereignty; players and developers value a chain's independent future over marginally cheaper transactions.
SHARED SECURITY FOR GAMES
The Trade-Off Matrix: What You Give vs. What You Get
Comparing the operational and economic realities of building on a shared security layer (e.g., L2, Appchain-as-a-Service) versus a sovereign chain with a purpose-built validator set.
| Critical Dimension | Shared Security Layer (e.g., OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit) | Sovereign Appchain (e.g., Custom Cosmos SDK, Avalanche Subnet) | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Solana, Ethereum) |
|---|---|---|---|
Sovereignty / Forkability | Governed by L1 DAO; Hard fork requires social consensus of host chain. | Full sovereignty; Studio controls chain parameters and can fork at will. | Zero sovereignty; subject to base layer governance and congestion. |
Max Theoretical TPS (Game Logic Only) | ~100-1,000 TPS (bottlenecked by L1 settlement & proving) | 10,000+ TPS (limited only by validator hardware & network topology) | ~5,000-50,000 TPS (shared with all other apps on the chain) |
Latency to Finality (for in-game actions) | 2-20 minutes (depends on L1 block time + challenge period) | < 2 seconds (with instant finality via Tendermint BFT) | ~400ms - 13 seconds (Solana vs. Ethereum) |
Custom Fee Token / Economic Model | Must use L1 gas token (ETH, etc.) for security payments; limited fee abstraction. | Native gas token = in-game currency; 100% of fees go to studio/validators. | Must use native L1 token (SOL, ETH); fees are paid to base layer validators. |
Upgrade Control & Downtime | Coordinated upgrades with L1; potential for multi-day delays and dependencies. | Studio schedules upgrades with zero downtime for other chains. | Subject to network-wide upgrades; zero control over timing or inclusion. |
Security Cost (Annualized, Est.) | $10M-$100M+ (Priced as L1 gas cost for data & proofs; scales with usage) | $1M-$5M (Cost of incentivizing 50-100 professional validators) | $0 (Security is subsidized by other apps; but you compete for block space) |
Max Extractable Value (MEV) Risk | Inherits L1 MEV landscape + potential for cross-domain MEV. | Contained, studio-controlled MEV that can be internalized or mitigated. | Exposed to the full, adversarial MEV of the public mempool. |
Time to Launch (From Zero) | 2-4 months (using standardized rollup stack) | 6-12 months (requires deep protocol engineering) | 0 months (deploy a smart contract) |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRAP
The False Economy: Marginal Gains, Maximum Friction
Shared security models like rollups and appchains trade sovereignty for minimal cost savings, introducing crippling operational complexity.
Shared security is a tax on velocity. A game studio using an Arbitrum Orbit or OP Stack chain inherits L1 finality delays and must manage a separate sequencer, data availability layer, and bridge infrastructure like Across or Stargate. This creates a 6-12 month lead time for a <20% reduction in gas fees versus a well-optimized L2.
The sovereignty is illusory. You control the chain but not the underlying economic security, which remains tied to Ethereum's validators or Celestia's data availability committee. This creates a fragmented user experience where players must bridge assets and manage multiple gas tokens, a friction that directly reduces retention.
The cost calculus fails at scale. A high-throughput game on Polygon Supernets or Avalanche Subnets faces prohibitive data publishing costs during peak activity. The marginal fee savings evaporate, leaving the studio with the full burden of infrastructure monitoring, RPC management, and cross-chain liquidity provisioning without the corresponding benefit.
case-study
SHARED SECURITY IS A FALSE ECONOMY
Case Studies: Sovereignty in Action
Major game studios are abandoning the 'rent-a-chain' model after discovering its hidden costs in performance, control, and long-term economics.
01
The Problem: The Shared Sequencer Bottleneck
Relying on a general-purpose L1 or L2 sequencer (like Arbitrum Nova or Polygon Supernets) creates unpredictable latency and uncontrollable congestion. Your game's UX is held hostage by unrelated NFT mints and DeFi arbitrage bots.
- Real-World Impact: Peak-time transaction latency spikes from ~200ms to 2+ seconds.
- Economic Leakage: 10-30% of gas fees are extracted by the host chain's validators, not your ecosystem.
- No Customization: Cannot implement game-specific sequencing logic (e.g., batch processing for 10k player moves).
2+ sec
Peak Latency
30%
Fee Leakage
02
The Solution: Own Your State & Execution
A sovereign rollup or appchain (via Celestia, EigenLayer, or Polygon CDK) gives the studio full control over the execution environment and state machine. This is the architectural pattern adopted by Axie Infinity (Ronin) and planned by major AAA studios.
- Deterministic Performance: Sub-second finality guaranteed, independent of other chain activity.
- Capture 100% of MEV: In-game asset swaps and marketplace fees are retained as protocol revenue.
- Tailored Stack: Integrate custom VMs (like Paima Engine for on-chain games) and data availability layers optimized for your game's data patterns.
100%
Fee Capture
<1 sec
Finality
03
The Pivotal Metric: Cost Per Daily Active User
Shared security models advertise low fixed costs but scale poorly with success. A sovereign chain's costs are linear and predictable, tied directly to your own usage of a modular data layer like Avail or Celestia.
- Shared L2 Model: Costs scale with the entire chain's activity, not just yours. $0.50+ per DAU at scale.
- Sovereign Rollup Model: Costs are ~$0.01-$0.05 per DAU, scaling only with your game's proven state growth.
- Long-Term Leverage: You own the appreciating asset (the chain) and its liquidity, rather than paying perpetual rent.
$0.05
Cost/DAU
10x
Efficiency Gain
04
Case Study: Why Ronin (Axie) Had to Fork
Axie's initial launch on Ethereum L1 was economically unsustainable, burning ~$15M+ monthly in gas fees for users. Their migration to the sovereign Ronin sidechain was not an optimization—it was an existential necessity.
- Pre-Sovereignty: $50M+ in user gas fees extracted by Ethereum in 2021.
- Post-Sovereignty: Near-zero gas fees enabled the ~1M daily active user model; studio captures all economic activity.
- Strategic Control: Ability to pause bridges during the $625M Ronin hack, a move impossible on a shared L2.
$50M+
Fees Saved
1M
Sustainable DAU
counter-argument
THE FALSE ECONOMY
Steelman: "But What About Validator Bootstrapping?"
The perceived cost savings of shared security are a mirage when accounting for the hidden operational and strategic burdens of bootstrapping a validator set.
Bootstrapping is a marketing tax. Studios must still recruit and manage a decentralized validator set, a non-core competency that diverts resources from game development. This process consumes capital for incentives and requires continuous community management, creating a permanent operational overhead.
Shared security outsources complexity. Using a settlement layer like Ethereum or Celestia eliminates the validator recruitment problem. The studio pays for security via transaction fees, converting a variable operational cost into a predictable, usage-based expense.
The cost comparison is flawed. The true cost of a sovereign chain includes the opportunity cost of developer time spent on validator coordination and chain maintenance. This often exceeds the gas fees paid to a shared sequencer like Espresso or a data availability layer.
Evidence: The failure rate of application-specific chains that attempted bootstrapping, versus the rapid deployment of Rollups on Arbitrum Orbit or OP Stack, demonstrates that studios prioritize development velocity over nominal sovereignty.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: The Builder's Dilemma
Common questions about why relying on Shared Security is a False Economy for Game Studios.
The Builder's Dilemma is the trade-off between using a shared security layer for speed and sacrificing control over your game's economic and technical stack. Launching on a general-purpose L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism outsources security but forces you into their fee market and upgrade schedule, ceding sovereignty.
takeaways
WHY ROLL YOUR OWN
Takeaways: The Sovereign Gaming Stack Checklist
Shared security models like L2s and app-chains sacrifice control for perceived safety. For studios, this is a strategic liability.
01
The Problem: L2s Are Not Neutral Infrastructure
Deploying on a shared sequencer like Arbitrum or Optimism outsources your game's liveness and transaction ordering. You inherit their roadmap, their downtime, and their fee market.\n- Sequencer Failure means your entire game halts.\n- Fee Spikes from a popular DeFi app on the same chain directly impact your players.\n- Governance Capture by token holders can alter core protocol rules.
100%
Vulnerable
0%
Control
02
The Solution: Sovereign App-Specific Rollups
A dedicated rollup (using stacks like Eclipse, Caldera, or AltLayer) gives the studio full control over the execution environment and sequencer. This is the web3 equivalent of running your own game server.\n- Deterministic Performance: Guarantee sub-second latency and predictable gas costs.\n- Custom Opcode Sets: Optimize the VM for game logic, not generic DeFi.\n- Instant Upgrades: Patch exploits or deploy features without L1 governance delays.
~500ms
Finality
-90%
Gas Cost
03
The Problem: Shared Security is a Cost Center
Paying for L1 security (via rollup fees) or purchasing security from a provider like EigenLayer or Babylon is a tax on every transaction. For high-throughput gaming, this creates an unsustainable unit economic model.\n- Revenue Leakage: A significant portion of microtransaction value is burned on base-layer security.\n- Misaligned Incentives: You pay for Bitcoin's security budget, not game-specific slashing conditions.\n- Opaque Pricing: Security costs are volatile and tied to L1 congestion.
20-40%
Fee Overhead
$10B+
TVL Tax
04
The Solution: Optimistic Security with Fraud Proofs
A sovereign chain secured by its own validator set, with fraud proofs as a backstop, eliminates the recurring cost of rented security. The studio's brand and token provide the economic stake.\n- Capital Efficiency: Bond validators with your game's token, aligning them directly with ecosystem health.\n- Tailored Slashing: Define penalties for game-specific malfeasance (e.g., server downtime, item duplication).\n- Cost Predictability: Security cost scales with your chain's activity, not Ethereum's.
$0
Rent Paid
7 Days
Dispute Window
05
The Problem: Monolithic Chains Kill Composability
Deploying on a general-purpose L1 like Solana or a monolithic L2 creates brittle, synchronous dependencies. One popular NFT mint can congest the network, breaking your game's real-time mechanics.\n- No Resource Isolation: Your game competes for blockspace with every other app.\n- Forced Composability: Your in-game assets are exposed to any malicious contract on the shared chain.\n- Upgrade Hell: You cannot fork the underlying chain to fix critical bugs.
1 App
Can Break All
0 Isolation
Guaranteed
06
The Solution: Modular Stack with Intent-Based Bridges
Separate execution, settlement, and data availability. Use bridges like LayerZero or Axelar for asset transfers and Hyperlane for arbitrary messaging. This creates asynchronous, permissioned composability.\n- Choose Your DA: Use Celestia, EigenDA, or Avail for scalable, cheap data.\n- Programmable Bridges: Set custom security thresholds for asset inflows (e.g., only whitelisted NFTs).\n- Asynchronous Logic: Game state updates don't wait for cross-chain confirms, using optimistic or ZK proofs.
10x
Throughput
<$0.001
DA Cost/Tx
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