Bridges are high-value targets. Their security budget must exceed the total value locked (TVL) they protect, a requirement that makes traditional staking models economically unviable for protocols like Across or LayerZero.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Restaking is the Only Viable Economic Model for Secure Bridges
The capital inefficiency of isolated bridge security budgets makes restaking the sole sustainable way to fund protocols like LayerZero and Axelar. This analysis breaks down the economic math and why EigenLayer's model is inevitable.
introduction
THE ECONOMIC FLOOR
Introduction
Bridge security requires a capital cost that exceeds the value it secures, a model only restaking provides.
Restaking recycles security capital. It allows assets securing Ethereum (via EigenLayer) to also secure external systems, creating a shared security pool that is larger and more expensive to attack than any single bridge's native token.
Native tokens fail the cost-of-corruption test. The market cap of a bridge token like Stargate's STG is a fraction of the TVL it secures, making a 51% attack profitable. Restaked ETH provides an economic floor orders of magnitude higher.
Evidence: The TVL of major bridges often exceeds $1B, while their native token market caps rarely do. EigenLayer's restaked ETH, exceeding $15B, is the only pool large enough to credibly backstop this risk.
key-trends
THE ECONOMICS OF TRUST
Executive Summary
Bridges are the most lucrative and fragile targets in crypto. This analysis argues that only restaking provides the capital-efficient, crypto-native security required to scale them.
01
The Problem: The $2B+ Bridge Hack Tax
Native validators lack skin-in-the-game for external chains, creating a security vacuum. Third-party committees are undercapitalized and fragmented.
- ~$2.8B lost to bridge exploits since 2022.
- Security budgets are a fraction of the TVL they protect.
- Fragmented security across LayerZero, Wormhole, Axelar forces users to trust new entities.
$2.8B+
Exploited
>90%
Of Major Hacks
02
The Solution: EigenLayer's Restaking Primitive
EigenLayer allows Ethereum stakers to re-hypothecate their stake (e.g., from Lido, Rocket Pool) to secure other protocols, creating a unified security marketplace.
- Taps into $70B+ of already-at-risk ETH stake.
- Slashing aligns economic security with bridge performance.
- Enables shared security for bridges like Hyperlane, Omni Network.
$70B+
Securing ETH
10-100x
Capital Efficiency
03
The Model: Slashing for Byzantine Behavior
Restaking transforms security from a passive cost to an active, enforceable contract. Validators are financially penalized for malicious or faulty actions.
- Cryptoeconomic security replaces legal & social consensus.
- Automated verification via light clients or ZK proofs triggers slashing.
- Creates a sustainable yield model for stakers securing infrastructure.
Automated
Enforcement
Sustainable
Yield Source
04
The Competitor: Isolated Staking Pools Fail
Bridge-specific staking (e.g., early Across) cannot compete with pooled security. It fragments capital and offers inferior risk-adjusted returns.
- High opportunity cost vs. Ethereum consensus rewards.
- Low liquidity leads to centralization and higher fees.
- Proven inferior by the market shift towards EigenLayer AVSs.
Fragmented
Capital
Centralized
Risk
05
The Future: Intent-Based Bridges & Shared Security
The endgame is intent-based settlement layers (UniswapX, CowSwap) secured by restaked ETH. Users express a desired outcome; a network of solvers competes to fulfill it.
- Restakers secure the solver network and settlement layer.
- Across Protocol already demonstrates this hybrid model.
- Reduces trust assumptions to the base Ethereum layer.
Intent-Based
Future
Base Layer
Trust
06
The Verdict: A Non-Optional Upgrade
For any bridge securing >$100M, a dedicated staking pool is negligent. Restaking is the only model that provides crypto-economic security at scale.
- Mandatory for cross-chain interoperability.
- Virtuous cycle: More TVL attracts more restakers, increasing security.
- The de facto standard for LayerZero V2, Polygon AggLayer, and beyond.
Mandatory
For Scale
Virtuous
Cycle
thesis-statement
THE ECONOMIC REALITY
The Core Argument: Capital Efficiency is a Security Prerequisite
Secure cross-chain bridges require capital efficiency that only restaking provides.
Bridges are security sinks. Traditional models like bonded validator pools for Stargate or LayerZero require capital to sit idle, creating a massive opportunity cost that disincentivizes sufficient staking.
Restaking recycles security. Protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon enable the same capital securing Ethereum or Bitcoin to also secure bridges like Across, eliminating the capital inefficiency tax of standalone systems.
The slashing threat is credible. A restaker's entire principal across multiple services is at risk for a single bridge fault, creating a superlinear security penalty that bonded models cannot match.
Evidence: A $10B restaked position securing a $1B bridge creates a 10:1 slashing leverage. A standalone $1B bond offers no such leverage, making attack costs an order of magnitude lower.
BRIDGE ECONOMIC MODEL BREAKDOWN
The Capital Inefficiency Tax: Isolated vs. Restaked Security
Quantifying the trade-offs between isolated validator security and pooled restaking for cross-chain bridges.
| Security Model Metric | Isolated Validator Model | Restaked Security Pool (EigenLayer) | Hybrid/External Committee |
|---|---|---|---|
Capital Efficiency (Security/Capital Locked) | 1:1 |
| 3:1 to 5:1 |
Validator Slashable Capital | 100% of bridge stake |
| Defined by committee size |
Time to Economic Finality | ~7-30 days (unstaking delay) | < 4 hours (fast slashing) | ~1-7 days |
Protocol Revenue Required for Sustainability |
| < 2% APR on allocated capital | 5-10% APR |
Resilience to Correlated Downtime Attack | Low (isolated, small stake) | High (diversified, large pool) | Medium (depends on committee) |
Native Integration with Ethereum Consensus | |||
Examples in Production | Most canonical bridges pre-2023 | EigenLayer, Omni Network | Polygon zkEVM Bridge, Wormhole |
deep-dive
THE CAPITAL EFFICIENCY
How Restaking Re-Architects Bridge Economics
Restaking transforms bridge security from a cost center into a yield-bearing asset, solving the validator capital lockup problem.
Traditional bridge security is a cost center. Validators must lock native tokens solely for bridge duties, creating a massive opportunity cost that inflates user fees and limits validator participation.
Restaking repurposes secured capital. Protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon allow ETH or BTC stakers to opt-in to validate networks like Across or Stargate, generating extra yield from existing security.
This flips the validator incentive. Instead of a pure cost, securing a bridge becomes a revenue stream. This economic alignment attracts more high-quality validators, directly increasing security.
Evidence: Without restaking, a secure bridge requires billions in idle capital. With it, the same capital secures Ethereum and the bridge, a 10x efficiency gain that lowers user fees.
protocol-spotlight
THE ECONOMICS OF TRUST
Protocols Betting on the Restaking Future
Traditional bridge security is a capital efficiency nightmare. These protocols are using restaking to create a single, reusable cryptoeconomic layer for cross-chain trust.
01
Omni Network: The Restaked Rollup
Omni is an Ethereum L1 that aggregates all rollups into a single interoperable network. It uses EigenLayer to secure its cross-chain messaging layer.
- Security: Inherits Ethereum's economic security via restaked ETH.
- Unified State: Enables native access to all rollup liquidity and applications.
- Efficiency: A single restaking operation secures communication across dozens of chains.
Ethereum L1
Base Layer
Unified
Liquidity Layer
02
Lagrange: Restaked Proof Aggregation
Lagrange builds zk-proofs of cross-chain state (State Committees). It uses EigenLayer to secure its committee of provers, making proofs of arbitrary historical data trust-minimized.
- Scalability: Generates proofs for 1000s of blocks across multiple chains in one batch.
- Verification: Light clients verify a single proof instead of all source chain headers.
- Use Case: Enables native cross-chain staking, lending, and derivatives.
ZK Proofs
Core Tech
Historical
Data Access
03
The Problem: Bridge Security is Fragmented & Expensive
Every new bridge mints its own token and bootstraps its own validator set. This fragments security budgets and creates systemic risk.
- Capital Inefficiency: $20B+ is locked in isolated bridge staking contracts.
- Weak Security: Small validator sets are easier to corrupt (51% attacks).
- Vendor Lock-in: Apps must integrate and trust each bridge individually.
$20B+
Fragmented TVL
Isolated
Security Pools
04
The Solution: Restaking as a Meta-Security Layer
EigenLayer allows ETH stakers to re-stake their ETH to secure other protocols (AVSs). This creates a shared security marketplace.
- Capital Reuse: The same $ETH secures Ethereum and dozens of other services.
- Stronger Security: Protocols tap into Ethereum's $100B+ staked economic base.
- Economic Flywheel: More AVSs increase utility for restaked ETH, attracting more capital.
$100B+
Base Security
Reusable
Capital
05
Hyperlane: The Permissionless Interoperability Layer
Hyperlane allows any chain to connect to any other chain with modular security. Its "Interchain Security Modules" (ISMs) can be configured to use EigenLayer restakers.
- Flexibility: Developers choose their security model (multisig, MPC, restaking).
- Permissionless: No governance whitelisting for new chains.
- Aggregation: Can aggregate security from multiple AVSs (e.g., restaking + EigenDA).
Modular
Security
Permissionless
Connectivity
06
Brevis: Restaked ZK Coprocessor
Brevis enables smart contracts to perform arbitrary compute on historical data from any chain via ZK proofs. It uses EigenLayer to secure its proof generation network.
- On-Chain Intelligence: DApps can make decisions based on proven cross-chain history.
- Data Authenticity: ZK proofs guarantee data integrity from source chains.
- Use Case: On-chain credit scoring, yield optimization, and compliant DeFi.
ZK Coprocessor
Architecture
Proven Data
Input
counter-argument
THE ECONOMIC REALITY
The Counter-Argument: Isn't This Just Systemic Risk?
Restaking is the only model that provides sufficient economic security for trust-minimized bridges without requiring new capital formation.
Restaking is capital efficiency. New, isolated security models for bridges like Across or Stargate require billions in fresh, idle capital. The crypto capital market is finite; restaking recycles the largest existing pool of crypto-native capital: Ethereum stake.
The alternative is weaker security. Without restaking, bridges default to optimistic security models or small, fragmented validator sets. This creates systemic fragility where a bridge's security budget is a rounding error compared to the value it secures.
Risk is concentrated, not created. The systemic risk critique misdiagnoses the problem. Risk is already concentrated in the Ethereum L1. Restaking for AVSs like EigenLayer explicitly manages this concentration through slashing and decentralized governance, unlike opaque multisigs.
Evidence: The Total Value Secured (TVS) for major bridges often exceeds their own token market cap by 10x. Only a shared security layer backed by Ethereum's $100B+ stake provides the economic gravity to secure cross-chain liquidity.
risk-analysis
RESTAKING'S SYSTEMIC RISKS
The Bear Case: What Could Go Wrong?
The restaking model for bridge security creates powerful network effects but introduces novel systemic vulnerabilities that could cascade across the ecosystem.
01
The Systemic Contagion Problem
Restaking protocols like EigenLayer create a web of correlated slashing risks. A failure in one actively validated service (AVS), like a bridge, can trigger mass slashing across the entire restaking pool, propagating failure to unrelated protocols.
- Correlated Failure: A single bug in a bridge's light client could slash thousands of validators.
- Cross-Chain Contagion: The economic penalty bleeds into the security of the underlying L1 (e.g., Ethereum).
>$15B
TVL at Risk
100+
AVS Correlations
02
The Economic Misalignment Problem
Restaking commoditizes security, creating a race to the bottom on cost. Bridges compete for the cheapest security, not the most robust, leading to under-collateralization.
- Yield-Driven Security: Node operators prioritize high-yield AVSs, not necessarily the most secure.
- Free-Rider Risk: A bridge with a small slashing penalty can free-ride on the perceived security of the larger restaking pool.
<1%
Typical Slashing
100x+
Potential Bridge Theft
03
The Complexity & Opaqueness Problem
The security model becomes a black box. Users and integrators cannot easily audit the layered dependencies between the base chain, restaking pool, and bridge implementation.
- Opaque Risk Stack: Security depends on EigenLayer's slashing committees, AVS code, and bridge logic.
- Validator Overload: Operators run dozens of AVS binaries, increasing attack surface and operational errors.
3+ Layers
Trust Stack
~0
Direct Audits
04
The Centralization Pressure Problem
Restaking amplifies the "rich get richer" dynamic of PoS. Large node operators (e.g., Lido, Coinbase) can dominate AVS committees, creating de facto cartels that control multiple bridges and oracles.
- Committee Capture: A few entities can control the slashing decisions for critical infrastructure.
- Governance Attacks: Control over bridges via restaking can be leveraged for cross-chain MEV or censorship.
>33%
Threshold Risk
5-10
Dominant Operators
05
The Innovation Stagnation Problem
Restaking's dominance as the "only viable model" crowds out research into alternative bridge security designs (e.g., MPC networks, light client incentives).
- Capital Monoculture: All security capital flows into the same restaking primitive.
- Single Point of Research Failure: The entire ecosystem becomes dependent on the continued correctness of a few core teams (EigenLayer, Babylon).
1
Dominant Model
90%+
Market Share
06
The Regulatory Kill-Switch Problem
A regulated entity gaining control of a significant portion of restaked ETH could be compelled to censor or freeze bridge transactions, breaking neutrality.
- Sanctions Compliance: A bridge using restaked ETH from a regulated custodian becomes a censorship tool.
- Protocol-Level Blacklist: Slashing could be weaponized to enforce regulatory diktats across multiple chains.
OFAC
Compliance Vector
Global
Cascade Effect
future-outlook
THE ECONOMIC PRIMITIVE
Future Outlook: The End of Isolated Bridge Security
Restaking emerges as the only viable economic model for securing cross-chain infrastructure.
Isolated security is a failure. Bridges like Multichain and Wormhole have proven that siloed validator sets are vulnerable to low-cost, high-impact attacks. The capital required to secure billions in TVL is unsustainable for individual bridge operators.
Restaking provides shared security. Protocols like EigenLayer allow the pooled security of Ethereum validators to be extended to networks like Across and Stargate. This creates a unified security budget that scales with the value it protects, not the bridge's marketing budget.
The alternative is systemic risk. Without a shared security layer, the cross-chain ecosystem remains a collection of weak links. Each new bridge fragments capital and attack surfaces, making the entire system less secure. This is the fundamental flaw of the current multi-bridge model.
Evidence: EigenLayer has secured over $15B in restaked ETH. This capital is now available to secure AVSs (Actively Validated Services), creating a new security market where bridges must compete on economic efficiency, not just brand recognition.
takeaways
RESTAKING IS THE ECONOMIC PRIMITIVE
TL;DR: Key Takeaways
Traditional bridge security models are broken. Restaking is the only model that provides the capital efficiency and credible neutrality required for secure, scalable interoperability.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Security Silos
Every major bridge (LayerZero, Wormhole, Across) operates its own validator set, creating $30B+ in stranded capital. This is economically inefficient and creates systemic risk as security budgets are diluted across chains.\n- Capital Inefficiency: Each silo must over-collateralize to be secure.\n- Attack Surface: A bridge with $1B TVL is a juicier target than a $50B shared security pool.
$30B+
Stranded Capital
10-100x
Security Multiplier
02
The Solution: EigenLayer & Shared Security
EigenLayer allows ETH restakers to opt-in to secure new systems like bridges, creating a shared cryptoeconomic security pool. This turns Ethereum's $100B+ staked ETH into a reusable resource for securing the entire interop layer.\n- Capital Efficiency: One stake secures multiple services (AVS).\n- Credible Neutrality: Security is decoupled from application logic, reducing trust assumptions.
$100B+
Base Security Pool
>15%
Yield for Restakers
03
Omni Network: The First Proof-of-Concept
Omni is building the first intent-based interoperability layer secured by EigenLayer restakers. It validates all rollup states, enabling unified liquidity and composability. This is the architectural blueprint for the future.\n- Intent-Based: Users express outcomes (like UniswapX).\n- Universal State: Aggregates all rollup states into a single verifiable context.
~1s
Finality
-90%
Gas vs. Bridges
04
The Economic Flywheel: Stakers → Security → Fees
Restaking creates a sustainable economic loop that other models (native tokens, MPC) cannot match. High bridge fees attract more restakers, which increases slashing penalties, which makes the system more secure, which attracts more users.\n- Sustainable Yield: Fees from L2s & dApps flow to restakers.\n- Slashing as Deterrent: A $10B slashing penalty is a credible threat against a $50M attack.
$1B+
Annual Fee Pool
10x
ROI vs. Solo Staking
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