Primary Staking excels at providing direct, protocol-specific governance power because stakers vote directly on the network they secure. For example, an Ethereum validator with 32 ETH can participate in Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) via the consensus layer, wielding influence proportional to their stake. This creates a tight feedback loop where securing the network grants a direct say in its evolution, as seen in major upgrades like Dencun.
LABS
Comparisons
Governance Rights in Restaking vs Governance in Primary Staking
A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing governance power, delegation mechanisms, and risk exposure when staking natively versus restaking through protocols like EigenLayer.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Governance Power Dilemma
A data-driven comparison of governance rights in restaking versus primary staking, focusing on influence, risk, and protocol alignment.
Restaking takes a different approach by decoupling security from governance. Platforms like EigenLayer allow staked ETH to be reused to secure other protocols (AVSs), but this delegated security does not automatically confer governance rights in those consumer chains. This results in a trade-off: you gain yield diversification and ecosystem influence, but your direct voting power is often siloed to the restaking platform's governance token (e.g., EIGEN) rather than the underlying protocols you secure.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing direct, sovereign control over a specific core protocol like Ethereum or Solana, choose Primary Staking. If you prioritize influence across a broader ecosystem and are willing to delegate specific governance rights for enhanced yield and security utility, choose Restaking. The decision hinges on whether you value depth of control in one network or breadth of influence across many.
tldr-summary
Governance Rights in Restaking vs Primary Staking
TL;DR: Core Governance Trade-offs
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. Primary staking governance is foundational but limited; restaking governance is composable but introduces new risks.
01
Primary Staking: Protocol Sovereignty
Direct, non-transferable voting power: Governance rights are tied to staked native tokens (e.g., ETH for Ethereum, SOL for Solana). This ensures voters have direct skin-in-the-game for the underlying protocol's security and upgrades. This matters for protocol architects who require stable, aligned governance for core layer-1 decisions.
1:1
Vote-to-Stake Ratio
02
Primary Staking: Predictable Security
Clear slashing conditions and accountability: Governance actions and validator penalties are defined within a single protocol's consensus rules. This creates a predictable security model for CTOs managing institutional validators, as the risk surface is contained and auditable (e.g., Ethereum's slashing for double-signing).
Defined
Risk Boundary
03
Restaking: Governance Leverage & Yield
Amplified influence across multiple protocols: By restaking assets (e.g., via EigenLayer), a single stake can secure and vote on dozens of Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like oracles (e.g., Hyperlane, AltLayer) and DA layers. This matters for capital-efficient protocols seeking to bootstrap security and governance participation simultaneously.
10x+
Protocols Secured
04
Restaking: Composability Risk
Correlated slashing and governance attacks: A governance decision or slashing event in one AVS can cascade to others sharing the same restaked capital. This introduces systemic risk, making it critical for VPs of Engineering to rigorously assess the security and governance quality of every AVS in their portfolio.
Correlated
Failure Risk
RESTAKING VS PRIMARY STAKING
Governance Rights: Head-to-Head Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of governance rights, influence, and economic alignment for protocol decision-making.
| Governance Feature | Restaking (e.g., EigenLayer) | Primary Staking (e.g., Native ETH) |
|---|---|---|
Direct Protocol Voting Rights | ||
Vote-escrowed (ve) Token Model | ||
Governance Yield Multiplier | Up to 50% APR boost | 0% (No direct link) |
Slashing for Governance Failure | ||
Delegation to Professional Operators | ||
Average Voting Power Concentration | ~15-30% per major operator | ~1-5% per entity |
Cross-Protocol Influence |
pros-cons-a
Governance Rights in Restaking vs Governance in Primary Staking
Native (Primary) Staking: Governance Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of governance rights, power, and trade-offs between securing a base layer and participating in a restaking ecosystem.
01
Primary Staking: Direct Protocol Control
Direct voting power on core parameters: Stakers vote on protocol upgrades (e.g., Ethereum EIPs, Cosmos governance proposals). This matters for protocol architects who need to influence the foundational rules of the network they build on. Example: Lido DAO's stETH holders govern the largest liquid staking protocol on Ethereum.
Direct
Voting Mechanism
02
Primary Staking: Clear Value Alignment
Incentives are singularly focused on the security and success of the native chain. There is no dilution of attention or capital. This matters for CTOs prioritizing maximum security for their treasury or protocol holdings, as the staker's reward is perfectly correlated with the chain's health.
03
Restaking: Governance Leverage & Diversification
Amplified governance influence across multiple protocols by reusing stake. A single ETH restaked via EigenLayer can secure and grant voting rights in AVSs like EigenDA, Lagrange, and more. This matters for VPs of Engineering building cross-chain applications who need governance sway in multiple infrastructure layers simultaneously.
Multi-Protocol
Governance Scope
04
Restaking: Complex Risk & Dilution
Governance attention and slashing risks are fragmented. Voting on numerous AVS proposals creates operational overhead. More critically, poor governance in one AVS can lead to slashing that impacts all restaked positions. This matters for risk-averse institutions where capital preservation is paramount, as rewards come with compounded governance and slashing risks.
pros-cons-b
Governance Rights in Restaking vs Primary Staking
Restaking (EigenLayer): Governance Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of governance trade-offs when securing multiple protocols via restaking versus a single L1/L2. Key metrics and protocol examples illustrate the decision matrix.
01
Pro: Amplified Influence & Portfolio Governance
Single stake, multiple votes: By restaking ETH via EigenLayer, you can delegate governance rights to multiple Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like EigenDA, Espresso, and Lagrange. This creates a governance portfolio, allowing influence over data availability, sequencing, and interoperability layers from one capital position. This matters for large stakers and DAOs seeking broad ecosystem influence without fragmenting capital.
40+
AVSs (Q2 2024)
02
Pro: Economic Alignment Over Speculation
Skin-in-the-game governance: Restakers' votes are backed by slashed capital, creating stronger incentive alignment than token-weighted voting common in primary staking (e.g., Uniswap, Compound). This model, pioneered by EigenLayer's cryptoeconomic security, matters for protocols prioritizing security (e.g., oracle networks, bridges) where governance failure leads to direct financial loss for voters.
03
Con: Diluted Focus & Responsibility
Governance overload risk: A restaker securing 10+ AVSs faces complex, competing governance proposals, potentially reducing voting diligence per protocol. This contrasts with primary staking on Ethereum or Cosmos, where governance is focused on a single chain's upgrades (e.g., EIPs, Cosmos Hub proposals). This matters for operators who value deep, informed participation over broad but shallow influence.
1 vs 10+
Focused vs. Fragmented Governance
04
Con: Protocol-Dependent Rights (No Standard)
Inconsistent power structures: Governance rights are defined per AVS, not by EigenLayer. Some may offer direct voting (e.g., EigenDA's Data Availability Committee), others indirect delegation. This fragmentation contrasts with the standardized governance of primary staking on chains like Solana (real-time voting) or Polygon (PIPs). This matters for developers seeking predictable governance integration for their dApps.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Governance in Primary Staking for Architects
Verdict: Choose for foundational protocol control. Strengths: Direct, sovereign control over the core protocol's upgrade path (e.g., Ethereum's EIPs, Cosmos Hub's Prop 82). Governance tokens like UNI or AAVE grant voting power on treasury management, fee switches, and core parameter changes. This model is ideal for protocols where security and long-term roadmap alignment are paramount. The attack surface is contained within the primary chain's consensus.
Governance Rights in Restaking for Architects
Verdict: Choose for building cross-chain security services. Strengths: Enables the creation of Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like EigenLayer, where staked ETH secures new middleware (e.g., oracle networks like eOracle, data availability layers). Governance here is about curating the AVS whitelist and slashing parameters. It's a meta-governance layer, trading direct protocol control for the ability to bootstrap security for an entire ecosystem of new protocols from a shared pool of capital.
GOVERNANCE RIGHTS
Technical Deep Dive: Slashing, Delegation, and Composability
Understanding governance rights is critical when choosing between restaking and primary staking. This section breaks down the key differences in voting power, proposal influence, and protocol control.
No, restakers typically have less direct voting power than primary stakers. In primary staking (e.g., on Lido, Rocket Pool), stakers directly vote on protocol upgrades and treasury allocations. In restaking (e.g., EigenLayer), governance rights are often delegated to the underlying Actively Validated Service (AVS) operators. The restaker's influence is indirect, filtered through the operator's decisions on which proposals to support, which can dilute individual voter weight.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of governance rights in restaking versus primary staking to guide infrastructure decisions.
Primary Staking Governance excels at providing direct, protocol-specific influence because it is natively integrated into a single blockchain's consensus and upgrade process. For example, a validator with 32 ETH on Ethereum Mainnet has a direct vote on Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) and can participate in DAOs like Lido or Rocket Pool for specific protocol decisions. This model offers high clarity, as governance power is directly proportional to the native stake and its economic security is tightly coupled to the success of that single chain.
Restaking Governance takes a different approach by decoupling and re-delegating governance rights across multiple protocols. This results in a trade-off between amplified influence and increased complexity. By restaking ETH via EigenLayer, a staker can simultaneously vote on proposals for diverse AVSs like EigenDA, Espresso, and Lagrange, effectively multiplying their governance footprint. However, this creates layered risk and requires active management across multiple governance frameworks, with slashing conditions that are more intricate than primary staking.
The key trade-off is focus versus breadth. Primary staking governance, with its clear alignment and simpler risk profile, is ideal for protocols seeking deep, dedicated influence on a single core chain—think a CTO building a major L2 on Ethereum who needs to steer its base layer development. Restaking governance is superior for infrastructure builders or funds aiming to shape the broader modular ecosystem, as it allows a single capital base to secure and govern multiple services like oracles, data availability layers, and co-processors, as evidenced by the rapid growth to over $15B in TVL on EigenLayer.
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