Obol Network excels at providing a permissionless, decentralized validation layer because it is built as a public protocol using Distributed Validator Technology (DVT). Its core product, the Charon middleware, allows operators to run validators across multiple nodes, significantly reducing single-point-of-failure risks. For example, its mainnet launch with over $1.5B in staked ETH demonstrates strong adoption by solo stakers and institutional operators seeking censorship resistance and protocol-native security.
LABS
Comparisons
Obol Network vs Figment's DVT Offering
A technical comparison between Obol's permissionless Distributed Validator Technology protocol and Figment's enterprise-grade staking-as-a-service solution with DVT.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Protocol vs. Service in DVT
Choosing between Obol Network's decentralized protocol and Figment's managed service reveals a core architectural trade-off for Ethereum staking infrastructure.
Figment's DVT Offering takes a different approach by providing a fully managed, enterprise-grade service. This results in a key trade-off: you gain operational simplicity, 24/7 monitoring, and guaranteed SLAs from a trusted infrastructure provider, but you introduce a centralized dependency. Figment leverages its established reputation as a top-tier non-custodial staking service, integrating DVT as a feature within its broader Hubble Stack to enhance reliability for its institutional client base.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing decentralization, protocol alignment, and long-term sovereignty over your validator setup, choose Obol Network. If you prioritize operational turnkey solutions, risk mitigation through SLAs, and integration with a full-service staking provider, choose Figment's managed service.
tldr-summary
Obol Network vs Figment's DVT Offering
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A high-level comparison of the two leading Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) solutions, focusing on core architectural and go-to-market trade-offs.
01
Obol's Strength: Protocol-First, Permissionless Design
Core advantage: Obol is a public, permissionless protocol (Obol Network) with its own token (OBOL). This enables decentralized coordination and credible neutrality, making it ideal for public goods, DAOs, and protocols building on top of DVT. It's the choice for Ethereum-native, composable infrastructure.
02
Obol's Trade-off: Higher Operational Complexity
Key consideration: Running an Obol Distributed Validator (DV) cluster requires self-assembly of node operators and technical coordination for key generation and slashing management. This offers maximal flexibility but demands more upfront effort, suited for sophisticated stakers or infrastructure teams.
03
Figment's Strength: Enterprise-Grade, Managed Service
Core advantage: Figment's DVT is a fully managed, white-glove service built on their proprietary infrastructure. It offers single-point support, SLAs, and seamless migration for institutional validators. This reduces operational overhead and risk, ideal for funds, exchanges, and enterprises prioritizing reliability.
04
Figment's Trade-off: Centralized, Vendor-Locked Solution
Key consideration: As a managed service, Figment's offering is more centralized and less composable. You rely on Figment's operator set and proprietary tooling, which can lead to vendor lock-in. It's less suitable for projects needing censorship resistance or wanting to integrate DVT as a primitive.
OBOL NETWORK VS FIGMENT DVT
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for Distributed Validator Technology solutions.
| Metric | Obol Network | Figment DVT |
|---|---|---|
Core Architecture | Open-source, community-driven protocol | Enterprise-grade, managed service |
Validator Client Support | All major clients (Lighthouse, Prysm, Teku, Nimbus, Lodestar) | Lighthouse, Prysm, Teku |
Minimum Validator Requirement | 4-of-7 (default) | 4-of-4 or 4-of-7 |
Time to Launch (Mainnet) | Q3 2024 (Charon v1.0) | Q2 2024 (Early Access) |
Slashing Risk Mitigation | True (Distributed Key Generation, BLS threshold signatures) | True (Multi-party computation, hardware security modules) |
Managed Service Option | False (Self-operated or via node operators) | True (Figment-operated infrastructure) |
Active Validators (Mainnet) | ~1,500+ | Pilot program (figures not public) |
Integration Complexity | Medium (Requires operator coordination) | Low (Managed service handles setup) |
pros-cons-a
Obol Network vs Figment's DVT Offering
Obol Network: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two leading Distributed Validator Technology providers.
01
Obol's Core Protocol Focus
Open-source, permissionless DVT protocol: Obol provides the foundational middleware (Charon client) for any operator to build on. This matters for teams seeking protocol-level control and integration into custom staking stacks, avoiding vendor lock-in.
02
Figment's Enterprise-Grade Service
Fully managed, white-glove DVT service: Figment bundles DVT with its institutional staking infrastructure, monitoring, and 24/7 support. This matters for large institutions and funds prioritizing operational simplicity, SLAs, and a single point of contact over self-hosting.
03
Obol's Ecosystem & Adoption
Broad Lido integration and growing network: Obol is the core DVT provider for Lido's Simple DVT module, securing a significant portion of its ~$30B TVL. This matters for validators seeking maximum network effects and alignment with the largest liquid staking protocol.
04
Figment's Institutional Trust & Compliance
Proven track record with top-tier clients: Figment serves institutions like Binance, Crypto.com, and Blockchain.com. This matters for regulated entities that require audited infrastructure, insurance, and a provider with a long history of serving enterprise clients.
05
Obol's Potential Complexity
Requires in-house DevOps expertise: Running Obol's Charon client demands knowledge of multi-party computation (MPC) and cluster management. This is a trade-off for decentralization, potentially increasing overhead for teams without dedicated SREs.
06
Figment's Service-Centric Model
Less direct protocol access and customization: As a managed service, Figment's offering abstracts away the underlying DVT layer. This is a trade-off for convenience, limiting teams who want to fork, modify, or deeply integrate the DVT client itself.
pros-cons-b
OBOL NETWORK VS FIGMENT DVT
Figment's DVT Offering: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocol architects choosing a Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) provider.
02
Obol Network: Mature Ecosystem & Tooling
Established launchpad and community: Obol's DV Launchpad has facilitated over 1,000+ Distributed Validator clusters. This matters for solo stakers and DAOs seeking a self-service, battle-tested suite with robust monitoring via Obol Splits.
1,000+
DV Clusters
04
Figment DVT: Integrated Staking Suite
Bundled with comprehensive infrastructure: Leverages Figment's existing Hubble validator client expertise, data APIs, and governance tools. This matters for teams already using Figment's Staking+ platform who want a single vendor for all staking needs, reducing integration complexity.
05
Obol Trade-off: Operator Responsibility
Requires in-house DevOps: While the protocol is robust, running a DV cluster demands technical expertise in node operations, networking, and key management. This is a con for teams lacking dedicated SRE/DevOps resources.
06
Figment Trade-off: Vendor Lock-in & Cost
Less protocol-level control: As a managed service, customization is limited compared to running the open-source Obol stack directly. Typically involves higher fee structures than self-operated models. This is a con for highly technical teams optimizing for cost and flexibility.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Obol Network for Protocol Architects
Verdict: The modular, permissionless choice for sovereign, composable security. Strengths: Obol's open-source, community-driven approach (Obol Mainnet) offers maximum flexibility. You can customize the DVT cluster setup, integrate directly with your node client, and avoid vendor lock-in. This is ideal for protocols like Lido, Rocket Pool, or EigenLayer that require deep integration and control over their validator infrastructure. The use of Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) standards ensures your staking operation is resilient and decentralized by design.
Figment's DVT Offering for Protocol Architects
Verdict: The enterprise-grade, managed service for teams prioritizing time-to-market and support. Strengths: Figment provides a fully managed, white-glove DVT service. This includes node operation, monitoring, and 24/7 support, abstracting away the complexity of running a DVT cluster. It's the optimal path for established protocols or institutions (e.g., Aave, Compound Treasury) that need to implement staking or restaking securely but lack the in-house DevOps bandwidth to manage a novel middleware layer. You trade some customization for a guaranteed SLA and expert oversight.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A direct comparison of Obol Network's permissionless, modular DVT and Figment's enterprise-grade, managed service.
Obol Network excels at providing a permissionless, modular, and composable DVT layer for protocols seeking maximum decentralization and self-custody. Its open-source Charon middleware and permissionless network allow any validator operator to participate, fostering a resilient and censorship-resistant ecosystem. For example, protocols like Lido and StakeWise have integrated Obol to create distributed validator clusters, leveraging its proven mainnet security with over 1.2 million ETH staked across its network.
Figment's DVT Offering takes a different approach by providing a fully managed, white-glove service built on its institutional-grade infrastructure. This results in a trade-off: you gain enterprise-level SLAs, dedicated support, and seamless integration with Figment's comprehensive staking suite (including Hubble for rewards data), but you operate within a more curated, permissioned network. This model prioritizes operational reliability and hands-off management for large-scale institutional validators.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum decentralization, protocol-native integration, and self-sovereign operations, choose Obol Network. Its modular design is ideal for DAOs and protocols building their own staking infrastructure. If you prioritize enterprise-grade reliability, managed services with guaranteed SLAs, and minimizing operational overhead, choose Figment. Its offering is tailored for institutions and foundations that require a turnkey, supported solution.
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