Ethereum Mainnet excels at providing unmatched security and decentralization because it leverages the full economic weight and validator set of the base layer. For example, an AVS like EigenLayer secures billions in TVL by inheriting Ethereum's consensus, making it the gold standard for protocols where cryptoeconomic security is non-negotiable, such as cross-chain bridges or restaking primitives. However, this comes with the trade-off of high transaction costs (often $10-$50+) and limited throughput (~15-30 TPS), which can constrain operational scalability.
LABS
Comparisons
Ethereum Mainnet vs. Ethereum L2 Rollups for AVS Deployment
A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing the security guarantees of Ethereum Mainnet against the cost and throughput advantages of L2 rollups for deploying Actively Validated Services (AVS).
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core AVS Deployment Dilemma
Choosing between Ethereum Mainnet and its L2 rollups for your Actively Validated Service (AVS) is a foundational decision that dictates your protocol's security, cost, and performance envelope.
Ethereum L2 Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) take a different approach by batching transactions off-chain and settling proofs on Mainnet. This results in a dramatic reduction in user and operator fees (often <$0.01) and a significant boost in throughput (2,000-10,000+ TPS). The trade-off is a modular security model; while inheriting Ethereum's data availability and finality, L2s introduce their own sequencer and prover dependencies, creating a slightly different trust profile compared to direct Mainnet deployment.
The key trade-off: If your AVS priority is maximum security and canonical settlement for high-value, low-frequency operations (e.g., a restaking hub), choose Ethereum Mainnet. If you prioritize low-cost, high-frequency interactions and can operate within a modular security model (e.g., a high-volume oracle network or keeper service), choose an Ethereum L2 Rollup.
tldr-summary
Ethereum Mainnet vs. L2 Rollups for AVS Deployment
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the foundational security and performance trade-offs for deploying an Actively Validated Service (AVS).
01
Ethereum Mainnet: Unmatched Security
Direct Ethereum Security: Inherits the full security of the Ethereum beacon chain's ~$100B+ staked ETH. This is the gold standard for high-value, trust-minimized AVS like cross-chain bridges (e.g., EigenLayer) or decentralized sequencers.
02
Ethereum Mainnet: Universal Composability
Native Interoperability: Seamless, atomic composability with the entire Ethereum ecosystem—DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap), oracles (Chainlink), and other AVSs. This is critical for AVSs requiring deep, synchronous integration without cross-chain bridges.
03
Ethereum L2: Scalability & Low Cost
High Throughput, Low Fees: Achieves 2,000-10,000+ TPS with transaction fees often < $0.01. This is essential for high-frequency, data-heavy AVS operations like off-chain DA layers (e.g., EigenDA) or frequent state updates for gaming AVSs.
04
Ethereum L2: Flexible Innovation
Customizable Stack: Choose an L2 stack (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, zkSync ZK Stack) to tailor your data availability, proof system, and governance. This is ideal for AVSs needing a specific VM (e.g., Starknet's Cairo) or rapid feature iteration.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Ethereum Mainnet vs. L2 Rollups for AVS Deployment
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for deploying Actively Validated Services (AVS).
| Metric | Ethereum Mainnet | Ethereum L2 Rollups |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $2.50 - $15 | < $0.01 |
Time to Finality | ~15 minutes | ~1-5 minutes |
Throughput (TPS) | ~15-30 | 2,000 - 10,000+ |
Inherits Ethereum Security | ||
Native Restaking (EigenLayer) | ||
Data Availability Cost | ~$1,000 per MB | ~$1 - $10 per MB |
Settlement Latency | Instant | ~1-2 hours (to L1) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Ethereum Mainnet vs. L2 Rollups for AVS Deployment
Key strengths and trade-offs for deploying an Actively Validated Service (AVS) at the base layer versus on a scaling solution.
01
Ethereum Mainnet: Ultimate Security
Direct access to Ethereum's full validator set: Inherits security from ~$100B+ in staked ETH and 1M+ validators. This matters for AVSs requiring maximum economic security and censor-resistance, such as cross-chain bridges or high-value oracle networks.
02
Ethereum Mainnet: Universal Composability
Native interoperability with all mainnet assets and protocols: Seamless integration with $50B+ DeFi TVL, major DEXs (Uniswap, Aave), and established infrastructure. This matters for AVSs whose utility depends on deep liquidity and direct access to the broadest ecosystem, like restaking primitives or settlement layers.
03
Ethereum Mainnet: High Cost & Latency
Prohibitively expensive for high-frequency operations: Base fees average $5-50+ and surge during congestion. Finality is ~12-15 minutes. This matters for AVSs that require frequent state updates or low-cost user interactions, making it unsuitable for gaming, high-frequency trading, or social applications.
04
Ethereum L2s (Rollups): Scalability & Low Cost
Orders of magnitude cheaper and faster: Transaction fees are often <$0.01 with sub-second to 2-second latency on Optimistic (Arbitrum, Optimism) or ZK Rollups (zkSync, Starknet). This matters for AVSs enabling mass adoption, micro-transactions, or real-time data attestation.
05
Ethereum L2s (Rollups): Inherited Security Model
Security derived from Ethereum with scalable execution: Data and proofs are posted to Mainnet, leveraging its consensus. This matters for AVSs that need strong security guarantees but cannot afford mainnet gas costs, offering a balanced trade-off for general-purpose services like decentralized sequencers or keeper networks.
06
Ethereum L2s (Rollups): Fragmentation & Maturity Risk
Ecosystem and liquidity are fragmented across multiple chains (Arbitrum, Base, etc.). Bridge risks and potential for chain-specific bugs exist. This matters for AVSs that require universal reach or are risk-averse, as dependencies on a single L2's tech stack and governance introduce new vectors of centralization and failure.
pros-cons-b
AVS DEPLOYMENT DECISION MATRIX
Ethereum L2 Rollups: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for deploying an Actively Validated Service (AVS) on Ethereum Mainnet versus its leading L2 Rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync).
01
Ethereum Mainnet: Unmatched Security & Finality
Direct Ethereum Security: Inherits the full security of the ~$500B Ethereum beacon chain and its 1M+ validators. This matters for AVSs where sovereignty and censorship resistance are non-negotiable, such as cross-chain bridges (e.g., Across) or foundational DeFi primitives.
~1M
Active Validators
$500B+
Securing ETH
02
Ethereum Mainnet: Universal Composability
Native Interoperability: Every smart contract and AVS lives in the same state environment. This matters for complex, interdependent DeFi systems (e.g., MakerDAO, Aave) where latency-free composability between protocols is critical for liquidations and arbitrage.
03
Ethereum L2s: 10-100x Lower Cost
Radically Cheaper Operations: Transaction fees are typically $0.01-$0.50 vs. Mainnet's $5-$50+. This matters for high-frequency or user-facing AVSs like gaming sequencers (e.g., Xai), social graphs, or per-transaction fee models where cost predictability is essential.
>100x
Cheaper vs Mainnet
04
Ethereum L2s: Superior Scalability & UX
High Throughput, Low Latency: Networks like Arbitrum Nova and zkSync Era support 100-2000+ TPS with sub-2 second confirmations. This matters for real-time applications like on-chain order books (e.g., dYdX v3), NFT marketplaces, and AVSs requiring fast state updates.
100-2000+
Transactions Per Second
05
Ethereum Mainnet: High Cost & Congestion
Prohibitive Gas Fees: Deploying and operating complex AVS logic can cost $10K+ in gas during peak demand. This is a critical trade-off for bootstrapped projects or services with thin margins, making iterative development and user onboarding expensive.
06
Ethereum L2s: Fragmented Liquidity & Security Assumptions
Ecosystem Silos & Withdrawal Delays: Liquidity is split across chains (Arbitrum, Base, etc.), and funds require a 7-day challenge period (Optimistic Rollups) or prover trust (zk-Rollups) to bridge to Mainnet. This matters for capital-efficient AVSs that require deep, unified pools or instant finality.
ETHEREUM MAINNET VS. L2 ROLLUPS
Technical Deep Dive: Security and Data Availability
For AVS (Actively Validated Services) deployment, the choice between Ethereum Mainnet and its L2 Rollups fundamentally trades off security guarantees for scalability. This section breaks down the technical trade-offs in data availability, finality, and trust assumptions.
Ethereum Mainnet provides the highest security guarantee. It offers economic finality secured by the entire Ethereum validator set (~30M ETH staked). L2 Rollups derive their security from Ethereum but introduce additional trust assumptions in their sequencers and provers. For AVS requiring maximal censorship resistance and the strongest settlement guarantees, Mainnet is the benchmark.
Key Differentiators:
- Mainnet: Trustless, decentralized consensus.
- L2 (Optimistic Rollups): 7-day fraud proof window introduces a delay to finality.
- L2 (ZK Rollups): Trust in the cryptographic validity proof system and its prover infrastructure.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your AVS Profile
Ethereum Mainnet for Cost Efficiency
Verdict: Prohibitively Expensive for most AVS operations. Strengths: The cost is justified only for AVS core logic requiring maximum security and censorship resistance, such as a cross-chain bridge's settlement layer or a high-value data availability oracle. The ~$50+ transaction fees act as a security barrier. Trade-offs: Deploying and interacting with complex, state-updating AVS modules is cost-prohibitive. A single function call to slash an operator or update parameters can cost hundreds of dollars, making frequent operations unsustainable.
Ethereum L2 Rollups for Cost Efficiency
Verdict: The default choice for operational and interactive AVS components. Strengths: Transaction fees are 10-100x cheaper (often $0.01-$0.50). This enables economically viable AVS designs with frequent state updates, slashing, reward distribution, and user interactions. Protocols like EigenLayer, AltLayer, and Hyperliquid leverage L2s for their operator coordination layers. Trade-offs: You inherit the L2's specific security and decentralization assumptions (e.g., Sequencer centralization). Cost savings are maximized on Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, and zkSync Era.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your infrastructure decision based on protocol priorities and budget constraints.
Ethereum Mainnet excels at providing unparalleled security and decentralization because it leverages the full economic weight of the base layer's validator set and consensus. For example, with over 29 million validators securing ~$50B in total value locked (TVL), it remains the gold standard for AVSs requiring maximum censorship resistance and finality guarantees, such as restaking protocols like EigenLayer or cross-chain bridges.
Ethereum L2 Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) take a different approach by inheriting security from Ethereum while executing transactions off-chain. This results in a fundamental trade-off: achieving 100-1000x higher throughput and ~90-99% lower transaction fees (often <$0.01), but introducing a slight delay in finality (minutes vs. ~12 minutes for Mainnet) and relying on the operational security of the sequencer and proof system.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute security, sovereign governance, and serving as a foundational trust layer for high-value, low-frequency operations, choose Ethereum Mainnet. If you prioritize user experience, scalable throughput for high-frequency interactions, and cost-effective deployment for applications like gaming, social, or high-volume DeFi, choose an Ethereum L2 Rollup. For many teams, a hybrid strategy deploying core trust logic on Mainnet and user-facing modules on an L2 offers the optimal balance.
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