Proof-of-stake networks generate immense data, but this data lacks a common verification language. Validator performance, slashing events, and reward distribution are trapped in siloed, non-comparable formats.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Why the Staking Industry Needs a Common Verification Framework
The explosive growth of liquid staking and restaking is creating a verification crisis. Isolated security audits and proprietary models are insufficient. We argue for a shared, open-source verification framework as the only scalable path to ecosystem-wide security.
introduction
THE VERIFICATION GAP
Introduction
The staking ecosystem's growth is outpacing its ability to provide standardized, verifiable proof of performance.
This fragmentation creates systemic risk for institutional allocators. A fund managing stakes across Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos must reconcile incompatible reports, increasing operational overhead and audit complexity.
The solution is a shared framework, akin to ERC-20 for tokens or the Beacon Chain API for consensus data. This framework will standardize the attestation of staking metrics.
Evidence: Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH dominate liquid staking, yet their on-chain proof of underlying validator health remains proprietary and non-portable.
thesis-statement
THE SYSTEMIC RISK
The Core Argument: Verification Fragmentation is a Ticking Bomb
The absence of a common verification framework for staking infrastructure creates systemic risk and cripples innovation.
Fragmented verification standards create systemic risk. Each staking provider, from Lido to Rocket Pool, implements its own validator attestation logic. This lack of a shared, auditable standard makes the entire network's security opaque and unmeasurable.
Operational complexity stifles innovation. New entrants must rebuild verification from scratch for every provider, a massive integration tax. This prevents the emergence of specialized risk engines and capital-efficient derivatives markets that require a single source of truth.
The data proves the point. The Ethereum Beacon Chain has over 1 million validators, but no unified framework exists to programmatically verify their performance across clients like Prysm or Teku. This is a scalability bottleneck for institutional adoption.
key-trends
THE STAKING INFRASTRUCTURE GAP
The Verification Crisis in Three Trends
As staking scales to secure $100B+ in assets, the lack of a common verification standard is creating systemic risk, inefficiency, and opacity.
01
The Fragmented Data Problem
Every staking provider, from Lido to Coinbase, runs custom attestation logic. This creates siloed data, making it impossible to audit the entire system or benchmark performance objectively.\n- No Single Source of Truth: Inconsistent metrics for slashing, uptime, and rewards.\n- Opaque Performance: Operators can't be ranked on a level playing field, hiding poor performers.
100B+
TVL at Risk
0
Universal Metrics
02
The Manual Audit Trap
Institutions and DAOs manually scrape Discord, block explorers, and proprietary dashboards to verify operator claims. This process is slow, error-prone, and doesn't scale.\n- High Overhead: Teams spend weeks on due diligence for a single operator.\n- Unactionable Data: Findings are static reports, not real-time, programmable signals for re-staking or slashing.
Weeks
Due Diligence Time
High
Human Error Risk
03
The Solution: A Common Verification Layer
A neutral, open-source framework that standardizes how staking data is collected, verified, and scored—turning raw chain data into a universal reputation graph. Think of it as a Bloomberg Terminal for Web3 validators.\n- Machine-Readable Truth: Enables automated, real-time delegation and slashing.\n- Composability: Serves as a base layer for EigenLayer AVSs, restaking pools, and risk markets.
10x
Faster Audits
-90%
Ops Cost
WHY VERIFICATION IS BROKEN
The Fragmentation Matrix: A Tale of Three Staking Protocols
Comparing the core verification mechanisms of Lido, Rocket Pool, and EigenLayer, highlighting the lack of a common framework for proving stake security and slashing.
| Verification Feature / Metric | Lido (Curated Set) | Rocket Pool (Decentralized Node Operators) | EigenLayer (Restaking) |
|---|---|---|---|
Node Operator Verification | DAO-vetted whitelist | 16 ETH + 1.6 ETH RPL bond | Restaked collateral (AVS-specific) |
Slashing Proof Format | Custom, DAO-governed | RPL-specific smart contract | AVS-defined, no standard |
Withdrawal Credential Control | DAO-controlled 0x00 | Node Operator 0x00 | Dual: 0x00 (EigenPod) + AVS |
Real-time Liveness Proofs | Oracle-based (RPL) | AVS responsibility | |
Cross-Client Fault Proofs | Relies on consensus client | Relies on consensus client | AVS-specific implementation |
Slashing Dispute Window | Governance vote (7+ days) | Oracle challenge period (~2.5 days) | AVS-defined, often N/A |
Verification Gas Cost for Integrators | ~80k gas (stETH balance) | ~120k gas (multiple checks) | Variable, often >200k gas (AVS + EigenLayer) |
deep-dive
THE FRAGILITY
The Slippery Slope: From Fragmented Tools to Systemic Failure
The current patchwork of staking verification tools creates systemic risk by obscuring validator performance and security.
Fragmented data silos create blind spots. Each staking provider, explorer like Rated Network, and analytics tool uses proprietary metrics, preventing a unified view of validator health. This opacity allows poor performance to go unnoticed until a slashing event.
Inconsistent verification standards enable risk contagion. A validator's failure on a liquid staking derivative like Lido's stETH can cascade to protocols like Aave or Compound that use it as collateral. Without a common framework, assessing this systemic exposure is impossible.
The MEV-Boost relay ecosystem exemplifies the danger. Relays like BloXroute and Ultra Sound operate with varying levels of transparency and censorship resistance. A lack of standardized attestation data hides the network's true decentralization and censorship risk.
Evidence: Ethereum's 2023 Holesky testnet incident, where a bug in a minority client caused a chain split, demonstrated how uncoordinated client diversity metrics across tools failed to predict the failure vector.
counter-argument
THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE
Steelman: "Competition Breeds Better Tools"
A fragmented staking market necessitates a common verification standard to unlock institutional capital and protocol-level innovation.
Fragmentation creates systemic risk. Each staking provider (Coinbase, Lido, Rocket Pool) operates a unique, opaque verification stack. This forces protocols and users to trust black-box attestations, creating a single point of failure for the entire DeFi ecosystem built on top.
Standardization enables composability. A common framework like Obol's Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) or SSV Network's architecture provides a shared language for verifiable proof-of-stake. This allows protocols like EigenLayer to programmatically assess restaking security, and DApps to trustlessly verify validator states.
Competition shifts to execution. With a shared verification baseline, the battleground moves from proprietary security claims to measurable performance: uptime slashing, fee optimization, and client diversity. This mirrors how TCP/IP standardized the internet, letting competition flourish on higher layers.
Evidence: The Ethereum Beacon Chain's 18% solo staking rate highlights the market's demand for verifiable, non-custodial options. Protocols adopting DVT, like Lido's Simple DVT Module, demonstrate the industry's move towards this standardized, resilient infrastructure layer.
protocol-spotlight
THE VERIFICATION LAYER
Blueprint for a Framework: Who's Building the Primitives?
Staking's $100B+ TVL is secured by opaque, siloed verification. A common framework is the missing infrastructure to unlock composability and trust.
01
The Problem: Opaque Slashing is a Systemic Risk
Every staking provider runs custom, non-auditable slashing detection. This creates blind spots and prevents shared security intelligence, leaving the network vulnerable to correlated failures.
- No Standardized Telemetry: Can't compare validator performance or risk profiles across providers.
- Fragmented Enforcement: A slashing event on Provider A may go undetected by Provider B for days.
- Manual Reconciliation: Operators waste thousands of hours manually verifying attestations and proposals.
1000s
Manual Hours
High
Correlation Risk
02
The Solution: A Universal Attestation Proof Standard
Define a canonical data schema and proof format for validator actions (attestations, block proposals, sync committee duties). This turns subjective behavior into objective, verifiable claims.
- Interoperable Proofs: Enables trust-minimized communication between EigenLayer, Lido, Rocket Pool, and solo stakers.
- Automated Auditing: AVSs can programmatically verify operator history before delegation.
- Liquid Staking Boost: LSTs like stETH can be underwritten by provable, real-time performance data.
100%
Auditability
Near-0
Integration Friction
03
Obol Network: Distributed Validator Middleware
Obol is building the primitive for trust-minimized staking clusters (DV clusters). Their work on distributed key generation and multi-operator validation is a core precursor to a verification framework.
- DVT as a Data Source: Provides a cryptographically verifiable record of multi-operator consensus actions.
- Fault Proofs: Creates unambiguous, on-chain attestations of validator liveness or malfeasance.
- Foundation for AVSs: Projects like EigenLayer can use DVT proofs to assess operator reliability for restaking.
4+
Operator Fault Tolerance
~$1B
TVL Secured
04
The Problem: Restaking Relies on Reputation, Not Proof
EigenLayer's security marketplace currently operates on social consensus and opaque operator reputations. This limits scalability and introduces subjective risk for Actively Validated Services (AVSs).
- Inefficient Capital Allocation: AVSs cannot precisely price risk without standardized performance proofs.
- Centralized Curation: A small set of node operators dominate, creating re-staking centralization.
- Slow Onboarding: Manual due diligence for each new AVS-operator pair doesn't scale to thousands of services.
$15B+
TVL at Risk
Manual
Due Diligence
05
The Solution: On-Chain Verification Oracles
Specialized oracles (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth, or a new primitive) that consume beacon chain data and emit verified slashing/performance events. This creates a canonical truth layer for the staking economy.
- Universal Truth Source: Replaces dozens of custom indexers with one verifiable feed.
- Enables DeFi Composability: Enables undercollateralized lending against staking yields, based on proven history.
- Automated Slashing Insurance: Protocols like Uno Re can trigger payouts automatically via oracle attestations.
~12s
Epoch Latency
100+
Integrated Protocols
06
EigenLayer & The AVS Verification Mandate
EigenLayer's success depends on solving this. They are the largest forced buyer of a verification framework. Expect them to pioneer standards or heavily sponsor primitives that provide proof-of-compliance for their ecosystem.
- In-House Primitive Build: Likely developing an internal attestation proof system for AVS operators.
- Market Catalyst: Their scale will define the standard, similar to how Uniswap defined the AMM interface.
- Interoperability Driver: Will push for frameworks that work across Ethereum, EigenLayer, and other L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism.
$15B+
Economic Weight
100+
AVSs Requiring Proofs
takeaways
THE VERIFICATION DILEMMA
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The $100B+ staking economy is fragmented by bespoke, non-portable slashing proofs, creating systemic risk and stifling innovation.
01
The Slashing Proof Silos
Every major chain—Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana—has its own opaque slashing logic. This forces liquid staking protocols like Lido and Jito to build custom, high-maintenance monitoring infrastructure for each network, a $10M+ annual industry-wide cost.
- Risk: A missed slashing event on a minor chain can cascade into a major LST depeg.
- Inefficiency: No re-use of security audits or verification logic across ecosystems.
$10M+
Wasted Spend
10+
Unique Systems
02
The Universal Verifier Blueprint
A common framework standardizes slashing proof formats and verification logic, akin to EIPs for consensus faults. This turns security from a cost center into a composable primitive.
- Portability: A proof verified once (e.g., for Cosmos double-sign) is valid for any app (insurance, LST, DEX) on any chain.
- Innovation: Enables new primitives like trust-minimized cross-chain staking derivatives and on-chain slashing insurance markets.
90%
Dev Time Saved
1 → N
Audit Leverage
03
The EigenLayer Precedent
EigenLayer's restaking market is a case study in demand for pooled, verifiable security. A common framework is the missing piece to make slashing risk a truly liquid, tradable asset class.
- Liquidity: Enables standardized slashing bonds and cover, similar to Nexus Mutual for smart contract risk.
- Scale: Reduces the integration barrier for AVS (Actively Validated Services) developers, accelerating the restaking ecosystem.
$20B+
TVL Signal
New Asset Class
Enabled
04
The Interoperability Mandate
Without a common framework, cross-chain staking (e.g., Stride on Cosmos, LayerZero OFT for LSTs) remains a security nightmare. Verification must be chain-agnostic to match asset flow.
- Security: Provides a single, high-assurance root of truth for slashing events across IBC, Wormhole, CCIP messaging layers.
- Composability: Allows a Solana LST to be safely used as collateral in an Ethereum DeFi pool, with clear, automatable slashing risk parameters.
0
Current Standards
Universal
Goal
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