Proportional to Work Done (e.g., EigenDA, Hyperlane) excels at aligning operator incentives with actual network utility and throughput. Rewards are tied to verifiable contributions like data blobs posted or cross-chain messages relayed. This creates a direct economic feedback loop where the most performant and reliable operators earn the most, optimizing for liveness and capacity. For example, an AVS processing 100,000 transactions per second (TPS) would distribute fees based on which operator validated which specific batches, not just their total stake.
LABS
Comparisons
Proportional to Work Done vs. Proportional to Stake Committed: AVS Fee Distribution Models
A technical comparison of two primary fee distribution models for Actively Validated Services (AVS) in restaking ecosystems. Evaluates the trade-offs between rewarding measurable operator performance and rewarding committed economic security.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Dilemma in AVS Economics
The fundamental choice between reward distribution models defines an AVS's security, decentralization, and economic efficiency.
Proportional to Stake Committed (a model common in many PoS-based restaking systems) takes a different approach by prioritizing capital security and sybil resistance. Rewards are distributed based on the amount of restaked ETH or other assets an operator has delegated, regardless of the specific workload they handle. This results in a trade-off: it strongly disincentivizes malicious behavior due to high slashing risks (securing billions in TVL), but can lead to capital inefficiency where large, passive stakes earn rewards without proportionally contributing to throughput.
The key trade-off: If your AVS priority is high-performance, utility-driven services (like a data availability layer or an oracle network requiring low-latency updates), choose a work-proportional model to attract performant operators. If your absolute priority is maximizing cryptoeconomic security and censorship resistance for a high-value, lower-frequency service (like a bridge or a shared sequencer), a stake-proportional model leverages the massive pooled security of restaked assets like ETH.
tldr-summary
Proportional to Work Done vs. Proportional to Stake Committed
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side breakdown of the core economic models for blockchain consensus and rewards.
01
Proportional to Work Done (PoW)
Rewards based on computational effort: Miners compete to solve cryptographic puzzles. The first to find a valid hash earns the block reward (e.g., Bitcoin's 6.25 BTC). This matters for security through raw energy expenditure, making 51% attacks extremely costly in real-world terms.
~200 EH/s
Bitcoin Hashrate
> $20B
Annual Mining Revenue
02
Proportional to Stake Committed (PoS)
Rewards based on capital at risk: Validators are chosen to propose/validate blocks based on the amount of native token they lock (stake). Rewards are distributed proportionally to stake. This matters for energy efficiency and capital-based security, where attacking the network requires acquiring and staking a majority of the token supply.
~99.9%
Lower Energy Use vs. PoW
$100B+
Total Value Locked (Ethereum)
CONSENSUS & REWARD MECHANISMS
Feature Comparison: Work Done vs. Stake Committed
Direct comparison of Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake consensus models, focusing on key operational and economic metrics.
| Metric / Feature | Proportional to Work Done (PoW) | Proportional to Stake Committed (PoS) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Resource Consumed | Computational Power (Hashrate) | Capital (Staked Assets) |
Energy Consumption per Tx | ~600-900 kWh | < 0.01 kWh |
Hardware Barrier to Entry | High (ASIC/GPU Farms) | Low (Staking Node Software) |
Finality Type | Probabilistic | Deterministic (with Checkpoints) |
Time to Finality | ~60 minutes (6 confirmations) | ~12.8 minutes (Ethereum), ~2 seconds (Solana) |
Validator/Node Count | ~10,000-15,000 (Bitcoin) | ~1,000,000+ (Ethereum) |
Slashing for Misbehavior | ||
Dominant Protocol Example | Bitcoin, Dogecoin | Ethereum, Cardano, Solana |
pros-cons-a
AUTHENTICITY VS. CAPITAL EFFICIENCY
Pros and Cons: Proportional to Work Done vs. Proportional to Stake Committed
A fundamental design choice for decentralized networks. Compare the core trade-offs between rewarding proven contributions versus securing the network with economic skin-in-the-game.
01
Proportional to Work Done: Pros
Direct Incentive Alignment: Rewards are tied directly to verifiable output (e.g., compute units, data stored, valid transactions). This matters for oracle networks like Chainlink and storage protocols like Arweave, where proof-of-work ensures data integrity and availability.
02
Proportional to Work Done: Cons
Resource Inefficiency & Centralization Risk: Requires continuous expenditure of real-world resources (electricity, hardware). This can lead to economies of scale, centralizing work among large operators, as seen in early Bitcoin mining pools and high-performance Filecoin storage providers.
03
Proportional to Stake Committed: Pros
Capital Efficiency & Sybil Resistance: Security is derived from slashing economic value, not burning real-world resources. This matters for high-throughput L1s like Solana and L2 rollups like Arbitrum, where validators secure the chain with staked assets, enabling faster, cheaper consensus.
04
Proportional to Stake Committed: Cons
Wealth Concentration & Passive Income: Rewards accrue to capital holders, not active contributors. This can lead to governance centralization, as seen in DeFi governance tokens and Cosmos Hub validators, where large stakers have disproportionate influence over protocol upgrades.
pros-cons-b
Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake
Pros and Cons: Proportional to Stake Committed
A fundamental trade-off in blockchain security: aligning rewards with computational work versus financial stake. Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Proof-of-Work Strength: Sybil Resistance
Specific advantage: Security is tied to real-world, tangible energy expenditure. This creates a high-cost barrier for attackers attempting to create multiple identities. This matters for permissionless networks like Bitcoin where establishing identity is impossible. The cost to acquire and run hardware (e.g., ASICs) is a direct, verifiable economic deterrent.
02
Proof-of-Work Weakness: Energy Inefficiency
Specific disadvantage: The security model requires massive, continuous energy consumption (e.g., Bitcoin's ~150 TWh/year). This leads to high operational costs and environmental concerns. This matters for protocols targeting ESG compliance or enterprise adoption, where energy footprint is a critical decision factor and a major point of regulatory scrutiny.
03
Proof-of-Stake Strength: Capital Efficiency & Scalability
Specific advantage: Validators secure the network by locking capital (stake) instead of burning energy. This enables higher transaction throughput (e.g., Ethereum's ~100k TPS post-danksharding vs. Bitcoin's ~7 TPS) and lower fees. This matters for high-frequency DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) and scalable L1s (Solana, Avalanche) where low-latency finality is critical.
04
Proof-of-Stake Weakness: Centralization Pressure
Specific disadvantage: Rewards proportional to stake can lead to wealth concentration, where the largest stakers (e.g., Lido, Coinbase) accumulate more influence over time. This matters for protocols prioritizing maximal decentralization and resistance to cartel formation. It introduces complex social governance challenges around slashing and validator set management.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Proportional to Work Done for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for permissionless, high-throughput applications. This model, exemplified by Solana and Sui, excels for DEXs like Raydium and Cetus requiring sub-second finality and massive order throughput. Its strength is predictable, low-cost execution for high-frequency actions (e.g., swaps, liquidations). However, it can be vulnerable to spam attacks if fee markets are poorly designed.
Proportional to Stake for DeFi
Verdict: Essential for high-value, security-critical applications. This model, foundational to Ethereum, Avalanche, and Cosmos, is the gold standard for protocols like Aave, Compound, and Lido managing billions in TVL. The economic security provided by staked capital is paramount for securing cross-chain bridges and oracle networks like Chainlink. The trade-off is higher and more variable gas fees during congestion.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on selecting a consensus mechanism based on your protocol's core economic and operational priorities.
Proportional to Work Done (PoW) excels at establishing robust, permissionless security through verifiable physical expenditure. For example, Bitcoin's network has maintained >99.98% uptime for over a decade, secured by an energy expenditure exceeding 100 Exahashes/second, making it the most attack-resistant settlement layer. This model is ideal for high-value, censorship-resistant stores of value where decentralization and security are non-negotiable, as seen in Bitcoin and early Ethereum.
Proportional to Stake Committed (PoS) takes a different approach by securing the network through locked economic value. This results in dramatically higher energy efficiency and scalability, with networks like Solana achieving 65,000 TPS and Ethereum post-merge reducing energy consumption by ~99.95%. The trade-off is a shift towards capital concentration risk and increased protocol complexity in slashing conditions and validator management, as managed by clients like Prysm and Lighthouse.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing raw, physics-backed security and decentralization for a base-layer asset, choose a PoW model. If you prioritize scalable throughput, low transaction fees, and energy efficiency for a high-activity dApp ecosystem, a modern PoS chain like Ethereum, Avalanche, or Solana is superior. For CTOs, the decision hinges on whether your protocol's value is derived from immutable finality (favoring PoW) or from high-frequency utility and composability (favoring PoS).
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