Base Layer Staking (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) excels at securing a single, well-defined state machine. Audits focus on core consensus logic, slashing conditions, and validator client implementations (like Prysm, Lighthouse). The security model is bounded and mature, with clear metrics like network participation rate (e.g., Ethereum's ~99% post-Merge) and slashing penalties quantified in native ETH. The attack surface is largely confined to the protocol's own economic security.
LABS
Comparisons
Audit for Re-staking Protocols (e.g., EigenLayer) vs Audit for Base Layer Staking
A technical comparison of security audit complexity, scope, and cost for novel re-staking protocols that introduce additional trust layers versus established native staking contracts.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The New Frontier of Staking Security
A technical breakdown of the distinct risk models and audit requirements between base-layer staking and the novel re-staking paradigm.
Re-staking Protocols (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) introduce a radically different paradigm by allowing staked capital to secure additional services (AVSs - Actively Validated Services). This creates a multiplicative security model but expands the audit surface exponentially. Audits must now cover: the re-staking contract suite, the economic security of each integrated AVS (like EigenDA, Omni Network), and the complex slashing logic that bridges multiple systems. The total value secured (TVL) is a key metric, with EigenLayer exceeding $15B, representing both its utility and its systemic risk concentration.
The key trade-off: If your priority is isolated, battle-tested security for a single chain's consensus, choose a Base Layer Audit. Your risk is protocol-specific. If you prioritize capital efficiency and modular security to bootstrap a new network or middleware service, an Audit for Re-staking Protocols is mandatory. Here, you must audit not just the base, but the entire interconnected mesh of smart contracts and external dependencies your service will rely upon.
tldr-summary
AUDIT FOR RE-STAKING VS. BASE LAYER STAKING
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. The security model, attack surface, and operational complexity differ fundamentally.
01
Re-staking Audit: Focus on Slashing Logic
Core Focus: Validating the correctness of slashing conditions and Operator/AVS interactions. Auditors must analyze complex smart contracts like EigenLayer's DelegationManager and AVS-specific modules for logic flaws that could lead to unjust penalties or fund loss.
This matters for protocols building on EigenLayer, Babylon, or Karak, where a bug could slash the same capital across multiple networks.
02
Base Layer Audit: Focus on Consensus & Core Protocol
Core Focus: Verifying the consensus mechanism (e.g., Ethereum's Casper FFG, Cosmos' Tendermint) and the staking contract's economic security. This includes deposit handling, validator lifecycle management, and fork-choice rule correctness.
This matters for L1 foundations and core developers ensuring the bedrock security of the chain's native asset (e.g., auditing Ethereum's Deposit Contract, Cosmos SDK staking module).
03
Re-staking: Multi-Chain & Composability Risk
Specific advantage: Audits must assess cross-chain message verification and shared security assumptions. A vulnerability in an AVS like EigenDA or Omni Network could propagate slashing events back to the main chain.
This matters for teams evaluating systemic risk; the audit scope expands beyond a single blockchain to include interchain security and oracle dependencies.
04
Base Layer: Battle-Tested & Isolated Scope
Specific advantage: Audits target a mature, well-defined codebase with limited external dependencies. The attack surface is more contained, focusing on core protocol rules rather than composable DeFi logic.
This matters for projects prioritizing stability and proven security models; the audit is a deep dive on a single, critical system (e.g., Solana's Staking Program, Avalanche's P-Chain).
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Audit for Re-staking Protocols vs. Base Layer Staking
Direct comparison of security audit focus areas for EigenLayer-like re-staking versus traditional base layer (e.g., Ethereum) staking.
| Audit Focus Area | Re-staking Protocol (e.g., EigenLayer) | Base Layer Staking (e.g., Ethereum) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Risk Vector | Smart Contract & Slashing Logic | Consensus Client & Validator Software |
TVL at Risk per Bug | $10B+ (Pooled Capital) | ~$40K (Individual Validator) |
Audit Complexity | High (Cross-chain, Multi-protocol) | Focused (Single-chain Logic) |
Key Audit Targets | AVSs, Operator Nodes, Delegation | Beacon Chain, MEV-Boost, Withdrawals |
Slashing Condition Scope | Custom (AVS-defined) | Protocol-defined (e.g., Double Vote) |
Time to Finality for Slashing | Variable (AVS-dependent) | Fixed (~15 min for Ethereum) |
Audit Cost Range | $50K - $200K+ | $20K - $75K |
pros-cons-a
AUDIT FOCUS COMPARISON
Pros and Cons: Auditing Re-staking Protocols
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for security reviews of novel re-staking systems versus established base layer staking.
01
Re-staking Audit: Complexity & Novelty
Pros: Audits focus on smart contract risk (slashing conditions, withdrawal queues) and economic security of pooled capital. This is critical for protocols like EigenLayer, where a single bug can cascade across multiple Actively Validated Services (AVSs).
Cons: Introduces new attack vectors like correlated slashing and operator centralization risk. Auditors must assess novel cryptoeconomic models, requiring deep expertise in both DeFi and consensus layers.
02
Base Layer Audit: Maturity & Standardization
Pros: Focuses on node client software (e.g., Geth, Prysm) and network protocol security. The audit surface is well-defined, with established benchmarks for finality, liveness, and fork choice rules. Tools like slasher implementations are battle-tested.
Cons: Less relevant for application-layer risks. An audit of Ethereum's consensus doesn't address the smart contract risks inherent in a re-staking protocol's manager contracts or AVS integrations.
03
Re-staking Audit: Use-Case Fit
Choose this audit for:
- Launching or integrating an AVS (e.g., oracle, data availability layer).
- Developing a liquid re-staking token (LRT) protocol like Kelp DAO or Renzo.
- Evaluating the security of operator middleware and delegation managers.
Key Question: How does the system handle a mass exit event or a bug in a slashing contract?
04
Base Layer Audit: Use-Case Fit
Choose this audit for:
- Running a validator client or staking pool infrastructure.
- Developing staking-as-a-service tooling.
- Assessing the core security of a Proof-of-Stake chain like Ethereum, Cosmos, or Solana.
Key Question: Does the node software correctly implement the consensus rules and resist long-range attacks or balance attacks?
pros-cons-b
AUDIT FOCUS COMPARISON
Pros and Cons: Auditing Base Layer Staking
Key strengths and trade-offs for auditing traditional staking (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) versus novel re-staking protocols (e.g., EigenLayer, Karak).
01
Auditing Base Layer Staking (Pros)
Mature, battle-tested security model: Audits focus on a single, well-defined state transition (e.g., Ethereum's consensus and execution clients). This matters for teams prioritizing regulatory clarity and institutional-grade risk assessment against a known threat surface.
02
Auditing Base Layer Staking (Cons)
Limited scope for protocol differentiation: The core mechanics (slashing, delegation) are standardized. An audit provides baseline security but offers no competitive edge for a staking provider's unique features, like MEV optimization or cross-chain strategies.
03
Auditing Re-staking Protocols (Pros)
High-impact for novel risk surfaces: Audits here are critical for smart contract vulnerabilities, orchestrator logic, and slashing condition design (e.g., EigenLayer's AVS penalties). This matters for protocols whose entire value proposition depends on secure, programmable trust.
04
Auditing Re-staking Protocols (Cons)
Complex, systemic risk profile: Audits must evaluate cascading failures, inter-AVS dependencies, and economic security of newly minted points/tokens. This creates higher cost, longer timelines, and requires auditors with deep DeFi and cryptoeconomic expertise.
RESTAKING VS. BASE LAYING
Technical Deep Dive: Critical Audit Vectors
Auditing a re-staking protocol like EigenLayer involves fundamentally different risk vectors than auditing a base layer's native staking. This comparison breaks down the critical security questions for CTOs and architects.
Re-staking introduces systemic and smart contract risks absent in base layer staking. Base layer staking (e.g., Ethereum's Beacon Chain) primarily risks consensus-level bugs and slashing conditions. Re-staking protocols like EigenLayer add layers of risk: smart contract vulnerabilities in the protocol itself, slashing condition conflicts between Actively Validated Services (AVS), and the potential for correlated failures across the DeFi ecosystem due to pooled security. The attack surface expands from the consensus layer to the application and economic layers.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which Audit Approach
Audit for Base Layer Staking\nVerdict: The gold standard for foundational security.\nFocus: Core consensus logic, slashing conditions, and validator lifecycle management. Audits for protocols like Lido or Rocket Pool prioritize bulletproof, formal verification-grade security for the staking primitive itself. The threat model is narrow but critical: a single bug can lead to catastrophic fund loss or network instability. Expect deep dives into cryptographic signatures, withdrawal credential management, and MEV resistance.\n\n### Audit for Re-staking Protocols\nVerdict: A complex, multi-layered security assessment.\nFocus: Interoperability, economic security, and cascading failure risks. Auditing EigenLayer or Kelp DAO requires evaluating the security of the Actively Validated Services (AVS) ecosystem, not just the core contracts. The audit must assess the re-staking contract's interaction with the base layer, the slashing logic for multiple AVSs, and the economic game theory of pooled security. The attack surface is exponentially larger, involving cross-chain messaging and shared collateral pools.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
Choosing the right audit strategy depends on whether your primary risk is in the base consensus or the novel economic layer.
Audit for Base Layer Staking excels at validating foundational security and consensus logic because its attack surfaces—like slashing conditions and validator client bugs—are well-understood. For example, an audit for an Ethereum staking pool focuses on preventing penalties from double-signing or downtime, which are quantifiable risks with clear historical precedents like the $20M slashing incident on the Prysm client in 2021. The goal is bulletproof reliability for a mature, high-value asset.
Audit for Re-staking Protocols (e.g., EigenLayer) takes a different approach by focusing on novel systemic risks introduced by cryptoeconomic composability. This results in a trade-off: you gain coverage for complex, interdependent failures—like cascading slashing across multiple Actively Validated Services (AVSs) or governance attacks on the restaking pool—but must audit a less battle-tested, rapidly evolving codebase where total value locked (TVL) creates massive new attack vectors, as seen with EigenLayer's $15B+ in restaked ETH.
The key trade-off: If your priority is capital preservation and minimizing slashing risk for a pure staking operation, choose a base layer audit for its proven methodologies. If you prioritize enabling innovative DeFi primitives, oracle networks, or cross-chain bridges by securing them with restaked ETH, an EigenLayer-focused audit is non-negotiable to model the unique failure domains of your chosen AVSs and the shared security pool.
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