Validator Cartels are Inevitable: The economic design of secured chains like EigenLayer and Babylon incentivizes large, coordinated validator sets to maximize staking yield. This concentration creates a natural vector for collusion, moving the threat from a theoretical attack to a predictable market force.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
The Validator Cartel Problem in Secured Chain Governance
A first-principles analysis of how delegated proof-of-stake models in shared security systems like Cosmos Interchain Security and Polkadot create economic incentives for validator cartels to form and capture governance, undermining the sovereignty of appchains.
introduction
THE CARTEL THREAT
Introduction
The security model of secured chains creates an inherent governance vulnerability where validators can form cartels to extract value and censor users.
Governance is the Attack Surface: Cartels do not need to break cryptographic security. They can use their super-majority voting power to manipulate governance proposals, extract MEV, or censor transactions within the rules of the protocol, as seen in early-stage concerns around Osmosis and other Cosmos SDK chains.
The Staking Paradox: The very mechanism that secures the chain—delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS)—creates its central point of failure. High staking yields attract capital, which consolidates into a few large node operators, replicating the miner centralization problems of early Proof-of-Work networks like Ethereum pre-merge.
key-trends
SECURED CHAIN GOVERNANCE
The Cartel Formation Engine
Economic incentives designed for security can inadvertently create dominant validator coalitions, centralizing control and creating systemic risk.
01
The Capital Efficiency Trap
Staking derivatives like Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH abstract stake, but concentrate voting power in a few node operators. This creates a single point of failure for governance across chains like Ethereum and Cosmos.
- Risk: Top 3 providers control >50% of staked ETH.
- Consequence: Cartels can censor or extract MEV at scale.
>50%
Stake Controlled
3 Entities
Critical Mass
02
The MEV Cartel Endgame
Validators with >33% stake can form a cartel to manipulate block ordering, extracting maximal value through MEV-Boost relays and private orderflows. This undermines the credibly neutral base layer.
- Mechanism: Cartel members can enforce exclusive, profitable transaction bundles.
- Result: User transaction costs and slippage increase, benefiting the cartel.
33%
Cartel Threshold
$1B+
Annual MEV
03
The Governance Attack Vector
Cartelized stake translates directly into protocol governance power. On Cosmos SDK chains or Optimism's Citizen House, a validator cartel can hijack upgrades, treasury funds, and parameter changes.
- Example: A cartel could vote to slash honest validators or mint infinite inflation.
- Defense: Requires novel mechanisms like EigenLayer slashing or veto councils.
1 Vote
1 Tokenized Stake
Irreversible
Upgrade Risk
04
Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Hard-forking Ethereum to mandate PBS at the protocol level severs the link between block proposal and construction. This prevents validators from forming MEV cartels based on stake alone.
- How it works: Proposers commit to the highest bid from a competitive builder market.
- Outcome: Decentralizes MEV revenue and reduces censorship power.
~2025
Ethereum ETA
Open Market
Builder Competition
05
Solution: Distributed Validator Technology (DVT)
Networks like Obol and SSV Network split a validator's key among multiple operators, requiring a threshold to sign. This breaks the monolithic power of large node providers.
- Mechanism: A single validator is run by a 4-of-7 committee of independent nodes.
- Impact: Eliminates single points of failure and dilutes cartel formation.
4-of-7
Fault Tolerance
>99.9%
Uptime Guarantee
06
Solution: Slashing for Governance Attacks
Restaking protocols like EigenLayer can introduce cryptoeconomic slashing for off-chain governance collusion. Validators who vote as a cartel risk having their restaked assets slashed across multiple AVSs.
- Deterrent: Makes cartel formation financially irrational.
- Scale: Slashing applies to $10B+ in restaked capital.
$10B+
Slashable TVL
Cross-Chain
Deterrence
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Slippery Slope from Security to Capture
The economic design of Proof-of-Stake secured chains creates a direct path for validators to capture governance, turning security providers into protocol owners.
Validator governance power is a direct function of stake. This creates a perverse incentive where the largest capital providers, like Lido or Coinbase, are structurally rewarded with outsized voting power, conflating security and governance roles.
Cartel formation is rational. Validator pools like Chorus One or Figment maximize profit by voting on proposals that increase their revenue, such as higher inflation or reduced slashing penalties, directly opposing user interests.
The Nakamoto Coefficient fails. A chain's decentralization metric is meaningless if 5 entities control 66% of the stake; they form a de facto cartel without explicit collusion, as seen in early Cosmos Hub governance.
Evidence: On the Cosmos Hub, a 2022 proposal to reduce validator commission caps failed after top validators voted 'No', protecting their revenue stream despite clear user benefit.
SECURED CHAIN VALIDATOR DYNAMICS
Governance Capture Risk Matrix: Cosmos ICS vs. Polkadot
Quantifies the risk of a validator cartel capturing governance on a consumer or parachain, comparing the security models of Interchain Security (ICS) and Shared Security.
| Governance Risk Vector | Cosmos Interchain Security (Consumer Chain) | Polkadot Shared Security (Parachain) | Solo Chain (Baseline) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Security Provider | Cosmos Hub Validator Set | Polkadot Relay Chain Validator Set | Chain's Own Validator Set |
Validator Set Overlap with Provider | 100% (Identical Set) | 100% (Identical Set) | 0% |
Provider Validator Count (Approx.) | 180 | 297 | Varies (e.g., 100) |
Cartel Threshold for Governance Attack |
|
|
|
Cost to Attack (Relative Capital) | Hub Stake (~$1.6B ATOM) | Relay Chain Stake (~$12B DOT) | Chain's Native Stake (Variable) |
Chain-Specific Slashing | |||
Provider Can Unilaterally Halt Chain | |||
Consumer/Parachain Has Veto Power | N/A |
counter-argument
THE GOVERNANCE DIFFERENTIAL
The Rebuttal: Isn't This Just Staking?
Secured chain governance is not staking; it is a distinct mechanism that separates economic security from political control to prevent validator cartels.
Staking secures consensus, not policy. Traditional staking, as seen in Proof-of-Stake networks like Ethereum, uses bonded capital to secure the state transition function. Secured chain governance, as implemented by EigenLayer and Babylon, uses that same capital to secure a separate, sovereign governance layer, creating a new security primitive.
The cartel problem is a political failure. A validator cartel controlling both consensus and governance can censor transactions and extract rent via MEV. Secured governance introduces a separation of powers, where the economic security layer (staking) is a commodity, and the political layer (governance) is a competitive market of sovereign chains.
Evidence: The Cosmos Hub's Interchain Security model demonstrates the risk, where a single validator set governs multiple chains, creating systemic political risk. In contrast, a secured rollup using EigenLayer AVS can source its validator set from a diverse pool of Ethereum stakers, diluting any single chain's political influence.
risk-analysis
THE VALIDATOR CARTEL PROBLEM
The Bear Case for Appchain Builders
Appchains promise sovereignty but often replicate the centralized governance risks they sought to escape, creating a new class of entrenched validator cartels.
01
The Problem: Concentrated Economic Power
Appchain validators are often the same large staking providers (e.g., Figment, Chorus One) across multiple chains. This creates a cross-chain oligopoly where ~5-10 entities can control consensus for $10B+ in combined TVL. Their economic interest is in maintaining the status quo, not the appchain's specific success.
5-10
Key Entities
$10B+
Controlled TVL
02
The Problem: Governance Capture & Stagnation
Validator voting power dictates protocol upgrades. A cartel can:
- Block contentious forks that threaten their fee revenue.
- Prioritize their own MEV strategies over user experience.
- Stall innovation that requires validator-set changes, creating governance deadlock. This turns 'sovereignty' into a bottleneck controlled by third-party rent-seekers.
>66%
Attack Threshold
Slow
Upgrade Velocity
03
The Problem: The Shared Security Illusion
Using a Cosmos SDK with Interchain Security (ICS) or an EigenLayer AVS doesn't solve the cartel problem—it centralizes it further. You're now dependent on the security and governance of the provider chain (e.g., Cosmos Hub, Ethereum restakers), whose validator set has zero economic alignment with your app's niche. You trade one cartel for a larger, more indifferent one.
ICS/AVS
Provider Model
Low
Alignment
04
The Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Architect the chain to separate block building from validation. This limits validator power to censorship, not transaction ordering or fee extraction. Forces cartels to compete in a builder market, similar to Ethereum's post-EIP-1559 and PBS roadmap. Requires deep protocol design, not just SDK defaults.
PBS
Core Design
High
Complexity Cost
05
The Solution: Progressive Decentralization via DVT
Use Distributed Validator Technology (Obol, SSV Network) from day one. It fragments a single validator's key across multiple operators, making cartel formation and coordinated action technically harder. Lowers the 32 ETH-equivalent staking barrier, enabling a more diverse set of node operators to participate meaningfully.
DVT
Key Tech
32 ETH
Barrier Lowered
06
The Solution: App-Specific Slashing & Incentives
Move beyond generic "uptime" slashing. Program the consensus to slash for application-layer failures (e.g., censoring specific tx types, failing oracle updates). Align validator rewards with key app metrics like trade volume or active users, not just inflation. Makes passive cartel participation unprofitable.
App-Layer
Slashing
Active
Alignment
future-outlook
THE CARTEL PROBLEM
Beyond Delegation: The Next Wave of Shared Security
Delegated Proof-of-Stake creates structural incentives for validator cartels to capture governance, a flaw that new security models must solve.
Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) structurally centralizes power. Token holders delegate to a small set of professional validators, creating concentrated voting blocs. This concentration is the root cause of governance capture.
Cartels form to extract maximum value. Aligned validators coordinate to vote for inflationary rewards or protocol changes that benefit their stake. The Cosmos Hub's Prop 82 is a canonical example of validators voting against community sentiment for direct profit.
The security model is the governance model. Shared security frameworks like EigenLayer and Babylon must design for cartel resistance. Their success depends on slashing conditions that penalize anti-network behavior, not just liveness failures.
Evidence: On Cosmos, the top 10 validators control over 45% of the voting power. This level of concentration makes protocol capture a statistical certainty, not a theoretical risk.
takeaways
THE VALIDATOR CARTEL PROBLEM
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
When a small group of validators controls governance, the 'secured' chain becomes a permissioned cartel. Here's how to break it.
01
The Problem: Economic Capture
A super-majority cartel can censor transactions, extract MEV, and enforce rent-seeking protocol changes. This defeats the purpose of a decentralized network.\n- Risk: >33% stake concentration creates systemic risk.\n- Outcome: Governance becomes a rubber stamp for validator interests.
>33%
Attack Threshold
0
User Sovereignty
02
The Solution: Enshrined Governance
Bake core governance rules (e.g., slashing, upgrades) directly into the consensus layer. This removes subjective, multi-sig controlled upgrade paths.\n- Mechanism: Use fork-choice rule to adopt user-activated soft forks (UASF).\n- Example: Bitcoin's BIP-9 activation, where economic nodes signal readiness.
L1 Native
Execution
Code is Law
Upgrade Path
03
The Solution: Dual-Layer Voting
Separate consensus voting (block production) from governance voting (protocol changes). Use a separate token or stake-weighted system with long lockups for governance.\n- Model: Inspired by Cosmos' liquid staking derivatives separating voting power.\n- Benefit: Breaks the direct validator → governance pipeline.
2-Tier
Voting System
Long Lock
Time Preference
04
The Solution: Fork as Ultimate Governance
Design the system so the credible threat of a user-led chain fork is the final check. This requires cheap state synchronization and portable liquidity.\n- Requirement: Light client bridges and social consensus tools.\n- Precedent: Ethereum/ETC fork demonstrated the nuclear option.
Ultimate
Sovereignty
High
Exit Credibility
05
The Red Flag: Multi-sig 'Security' Councils
A 5-of-9 multi-sig controlling upgrades is a cartel by another name. It's a temporary fix that becomes a permanent centralized point of failure.\n- Vulnerability: Off-chain coordination replaces on-chain consensus.\n- Outcome: Creates regulatory attack surface and single points of coercion.
5-of-9
Cartel Size
Off-Chain
Coordination
06
Key Metric: Nakamoto Coefficient
The minimum number of entities needed to compromise the system. For governance, measure the entities controlling >33% of voting power. Aim for a high coefficient.\n- Analysis: Track this for both consensus and governance separately.\n- Goal: A coefficient >20 indicates robust decentralization.
N>20
Target Coefficient
Dual Track
Measurement
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