Single-Asset Restaking excels at capital efficiency and simplicity because it leverages a single, established asset like ETH to secure multiple services. For example, a protocol like EigenLayer's initial model allowed staked ETH to be simultaneously used to secure Ethereum consensus and new AVSs like AltLayer or EigenDA, creating a powerful flywheel without requiring new capital. This model has attracted over $18B in TVL, demonstrating strong market validation for its efficiency.
LABS
Comparisons
EigenLayer's Dual Staking vs. Single-Asset Restaking: Economic Security Design
A technical comparison of two cryptoeconomic models for securing Actively Validated Services (AVSs). Analyzes EigenLayer's dual-token requirement against single-asset models, focusing on security, AVS bootstrapping, and capital efficiency for protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Dilemma in AVS Security
A foundational comparison of EigenLayer's dual staking model against traditional single-asset restaking, focusing on their divergent paths to securing Actively Validated Services (AVSs).
Dual Staking takes a different approach by mandating a dedicated AVS-specific token alongside a core asset like ETH. This strategy, as proposed for EigenLayer's future, results in a trade-off between deeper economic alignment and increased capital friction. The AVS token absorbs slashing risk first, protecting the core ETH stake, but requires AVSs to bootstrap a new token economy and for operators to manage a dual-asset portfolio, potentially reducing initial participation.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing immediate security budget and leveraging Ethereum's established trust, the single-asset model is superior. If you prioritize long-term, bespoke economic security where the AVS's own token is heavily skin-in-the-game, dual staking provides a more robust and aligned design. The choice hinges on whether you value bootstrapping speed or customized, sustainable cryptoeconomics.
tldr-summary
EigenLayer's Dual Staking vs. Single-Asset Restaking
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of economic security models, highlighting core trade-offs for protocol architects and stakers.
01
Dual Staking: Superior Security & Alignment
Introduces a dedicated AVS token: Creates a second, application-specific slashing layer beyond the base Ethereum stake. This matters for protocols like EigenDA or Omni Network that require hyper-specialized security guarantees and want to align incentives directly with their own ecosystem participants.
02
Dual Staking: Higher Yield Potential
Enables dual-reward streams: Stakers earn rewards from both the base Ethereum consensus layer (or LST) and the AVS's native token emissions. This matters for yield-optimizing operators and delegators seeking to maximize returns from providing specialized services, beyond generic validation.
03
Dual Staking: Complex Operator Economics
Introduces token management overhead: Operators must manage and secure a second, potentially volatile asset. This matters for operational simplicity and can be a barrier for smaller node operators, increasing the risk of slashing due to economic mismanagement of the AVS token.
04
Single-Asset: Capital Efficiency & Simplicity
Leverages existing Ethereum stake: Uses staked ETH (native or via LSTs like stETH, rETH) as the sole collateral. This matters for maximizing capital utility and lowering the barrier to entry for operators already securing Ethereum, requiring no additional token acquisition.
05
Single-Asset: Broader, More Liquid Security Pool
Taps into Ethereum's $100B+ staking market: Attracts a massive, diverse set of validators by not requiring a new token. This matters for AVSs seeking maximum economic security (TVL) and decentralization from day one, as seen with early adopters like Lagrange and Hyperlane.
06
Single-Asset: Shared Risk & "Weakest Link" Problem
Concentrates slashing risk on a single asset: A catastrophic failure in one AVS could lead to slashing that impacts a validator's entire Ethereum stake. This matters for risk-averse institutional stakers and creates correlated security dependencies across all AVSs using the same restaked capital.
ECONOMIC SECURITY DESIGN
Feature Comparison: Dual Staking vs. Single-Asset Restaking
Direct comparison of security models, capital efficiency, and risk profiles for restaking protocols.
| Metric | EigenLayer Dual Staking | Single-Asset Restaking |
|---|---|---|
Primary Staked Asset | ETH + LST | ETH only |
Capital Efficiency for Node Operators | ~2x (Leveraged Security) | 1x (Direct Security) |
Slashing Risk Concentration | Correlated (ETH + LST) | Isolated (ETH only) |
AVS Reward Multiplier Potential | ||
TVL Attraction (Current) | $20B+ | $5B+ |
Protocol Complexity | High | Medium |
Liquidity Fragmentation | Medium | Low |
pros-cons-a
Economic Security Design
Pros and Cons: EigenLayer's Dual Staking Model
A direct comparison of the economic trade-offs between EigenLayer's Dual Staking and traditional Single-Asset Restaking models for AVS security.
01
Dual Staking: Enhanced Security & Alignment
Correlated slashing for stronger guarantees: Penalizes both native (ETH) and liquid staking tokens (LSTs like stETH) simultaneously, creating a unified security pool. This matters for high-value AVSs like AltLayer or EigenDA that require maximum cryptoeconomic defense against correlated failures.
02
Dual Staking: Protocol Sovereignty
Native token utility and governance: Allows AVSs to bootstrap their own token's economic security while leveraging Ethereum's base layer. This matters for protocols like Omni Network seeking to establish a valuable, utility-driven token from day one, beyond just a governance tool.
03
Single-Asset Restaking: Capital Efficiency
Simplified liquidity and composability: Operators stake only in ETH or a single LST (e.g., stETH, rETH), maximizing reuse of existing DeFi positions. This matters for operators running multiple AVSs (e.g., via EigenLayer operatorsets) who need to manage collateral across chains like Ethereum and Arbitrum without fragmentation.
04
Single-Asset Restaking: Reduced Complexity & Risk
Eliminates native token volatility risk: Operators and delegators are not exposed to the price swings of a new AVS token. This matters for risk-averse institutional stakers and simplifies the slashing logic, reducing attack surfaces for AVSs in early stages like Lagrange state committees.
pros-cons-b
EigenLayer's Dual Staking vs. Single-Asset Restaking
Pros and Cons: Single-Asset Restaking Model
A technical breakdown of the economic security trade-offs between EigenLayer's dual-token model and simpler, single-asset alternatives like Babylon or Symbiotic.
01
Dual Staking: Enhanced Security & Alignment
EigenLayer's EIGEN + LST model creates a two-layer slashing mechanism. Native EIGEN slashing enforces protocol rules, while restaked ETH/LST slashing punishes forked-chain activity. This provides stronger sybil resistance and explicit cryptoeconomic alignment between operators and the EigenLayer DAO. It's ideal for high-value, permissionless AVSs like EigenDA or Omni Network that require robust, multi-faceted security.
02
Dual Staking: Complexity & Liquidity Fragmentation
Introducing a second staking token (EIGEN) adds significant protocol complexity for AVS developers and restakers. It creates liquidity fragmentation, as security is split between two asset pools. This can lead to higher capital inefficiency and a steeper learning curve for integration. Projects prioritizing rapid developer adoption or maximizing pure ETH-backed security may find this model cumbersome.
03
Single-Asset: Capital Efficiency & Simplicity
Models like Babylon (Bitcoin staking) or Symbiotic (multi-asset, single-token) use the base layer asset directly. This offers superior capital efficiency and lower integration complexity for AVSs. Developers only need to reason about one slashing condition. It's the best fit for specialized chains (e.g., Bitcoin timestamping) or teams seeking the fastest path to launch a secured service without managing dual-token economics.
04
Single-Asset: Limited Forking Security & Coordination
Security is inherently tied to the rules of the underlying chain (e.g., Bitcoin's consensus). This provides weaker cryptoeconomic security for cross-chain or forked-chain slashing. Enforcing slashing on a forked Ethereum chain is more straightforward with a dual model. It may also lead to weaker coordination mechanisms for the restaking ecosystem's governance compared to a dedicated protocol token like EIGEN.
ECONOMIC SECURITY TRADE-OFFS
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
EigenLayer's Dual Staking for AVS Developers
Verdict: The Strategic Choice for Maximum Security.
Strengths:
- Enhanced Slashable Capital: By requiring a dedicated AVS token alongside restaked ETH/LSTs, you create a deeper pool of slashable value, directly aligning operator incentives with your network's health. This is critical for high-value, high-risk services like new consensus layers (e.g., EigenDA) or cross-chain bridges.
- Protocol Sovereignty: The native token maintains governance control and value accrual within your AVS ecosystem, enabling sustainable economics beyond just renting Ethereum's security.
- Stronger Alignment: Operators have "skin in the game" specific to your service, reducing correlated failure risks present in a purely restaked model.
Weaknesses:
- Higher Bootstrapping Friction: Requires a liquid, valuable token from day one, which is a significant launch hurdle.
- Complex Tokenomics: Must design a dual-token incentive and slashing model that doesn't create antagonism between stakers.
Single-Asset Restaking for AVS Developers
Verdict: The Pragmatic Choice for Rapid Adoption.
Strengths:
- Lower Barrier to Entry: Operators can secure your network using only their existing restaked ETH positions, making it easier to attract a large, diverse operator set quickly. Ideal for middleware or oracles (e.g., Oracle services leveraging EigenLayer).
- Simpler Integration: No need to design and bootstrap a new token economy; you're purely leveraging Ethereum's established trust layer.
- Liquidity Efficiency: Operators' capital isn't locked into a new, potentially illiquid token.
Weaknesses:
- Lower Slashing Specificity: The cost of misbehavior is only the generic restake slashing, which may be insufficient deterrent for AVS-specific faults.
- Weaker Value Accrual: All economic value flows to ETH/LST holders and EigenLayer, not to your AVS's own token.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the security and economic trade-offs between EigenLayer's dual staking and single-asset restaking models.
Dual Staking excels at creating a robust, multi-layered security model by requiring both the native token (e.g., ETH) and the AVS's own token to be staked. This directly aligns the economic interests of restakers and AVS operators, as both have significant skin in the game. For example, a protocol like EigenDA or Lagrange can leverage this to create a cryptoeconomic security budget that scales with the value of its own ecosystem, potentially exceeding the security of its underlying consensus layer.
Single-Asset Restaking takes a different approach by leveraging the established security of a single asset, primarily Ethereum's ETH, which boasts over $120B in staked value. This results in a trade-off: it offers immediate, battle-tested security and simpler bootstrapping for new AVSs, but it decouples the AVS's token economics from its security budget. The security is a derived rental from Ethereum, not natively grown from the AVS's own value accrual.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing protocol-specific security and creating a strong, aligned token economy, choose Dual Staking. It's ideal for AVSs like new L2s or oracles where native token value and security must be intrinsically linked. If you prioritize leveraging Ethereum's immense, proven security from day one with lower complexity, choose Single-Asset Restaking. This suits infrastructure projects like middleware or co-processors where rapid deployment atop a secure base layer is critical.
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