EigenLayer is the new Binance. It aggregates capital not for trading, but for security-as-a-service, creating a unified cryptoeconomic layer that protocols like EigenDA and AltLayer rent.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Restaking Protocols Are Becoming the New Centralized Exchanges
By aggregating security and liquidity, protocols like EigenLayer are creating powerful, centralized hubs for governance and fee extraction, following the same evolutionary path as major CEXs. This analysis breaks down the mechanics and risks.
introduction
THE POWER SHIFT
Introduction
Restaking protocols are centralizing economic security and becoming the new liquidity hubs, mirroring the role of centralized exchanges.
The yield source has flipped. CEXs offered yield from order flow; restaking offers yield from validation and slashing risk. This shifts power from traders to stakers.
Evidence: EigenLayer has over $15B in TVL, surpassing most L2s. Its restaked ETH now secures more value than the native tokens of many top-50 protocols.
key-trends
LIQUIDITY & CONTROL
The CEX Playbook, Replayed
Restaking protocols are replicating the core business model of centralized exchanges: capturing and monetizing the most valuable on-chain resource—liquidity.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Security Budgets
New L2s and AVS need capital-efficient security but face a cold-start. Bootstrapping a $1B+ validator set from scratch is impossible, creating a massive market gap.
- EigenLayer and EigenDA solved this by commoditizing Ethereum's staked ETH.
- Result: AVSs can rent security for a fraction of the cost, mirroring how CEXs provided instant liquidity to new tokens.
$18B+
TVL Secured
50+
AVSs Launched
02
The Solution: Liquidity as a Service (LaaS)
CEXs profit by being the central liquidity hub. Restaking protocols like EigenLayer and Karak are building the decentralized version.
- They aggregate idle staked capital and direct it to the highest-yielding AVSs (e.g., oracles, bridges, co-processors).
- The protocol captures fees from this capital allocation, just as a CEX captures trading fees.
5-15%
Avg. Yield
One-Click
Deployment
03
The New Order Flow: AVS Staking Wars
Just as CEXs compete for token listings and user deposits, restaking protocols will compete for AVS integrations.
- EigenLayer's first-mover advantage is being challenged by Karak, Swell, and Renzo.
- The battleground shifts from TVL to quality of integrated services and restaker yields.
>60%
Market Share
Multi-Chain
Expansion
04
The Endgame: Protocol-Controlled Value
The ultimate CEX playbook move: controlling the capital stack. By issuing liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) like ezETH or rsETH, protocols create a self-reinforcing flywheel.
- LRTs become the preferred collateral across DeFi (money markets, DEXs, derivatives).
- This creates a captive economic zone more powerful than any CEX balance sheet.
$5B+
LRT Market
Composability
MoAT
deep-dive
THE NEW EXCHANGES
The Mechanics of Centralization
Restaking protocols are consolidating economic security into a single, dominant clearinghouse for trust, mirroring the centralizing forces of traditional finance.
Ethereum is the new custodian. EigenLayer and Karak do not create new security; they rehypothecate the existing security of the Ethereum validator set. This creates a centralized clearinghouse for cryptoeconomic trust, where a single slashing condition governs hundreds of protocols.
Liquidity follows the highest yield. Protocols like Renzo and Ether.fi aggregate user deposits into the dominant restaking pool, creating winner-take-most dynamics. This capital centralization mirrors how CEX orderbooks attract the deepest liquidity, creating systemic dependencies.
The slashing committee is the new exchange operator. A small set of operators running Actively Validated Services (AVSs) for EigenLayer will control the execution and slashing for major rollups and oracles. This operator oligopoly replicates the centralized governance of a CEX's matching engine.
Evidence: EigenLayer holds over $15B in TVL, representing a significant portion of all staked ETH. Its market share in the restaking sector exceeds 80%, a concentration level that would trigger antitrust scrutiny in TradFi.
THE NEW POWER CENTERS
Centralization Metrics: CEXs vs. Restaking Hubs
Comparing the concentration of economic and technical control between traditional custodians and emerging decentralized finance primitives like EigenLayer, Karak, and Symbiotic.
| Metric / Feature | Centralized Exchange (e.g., Binance, Coinbase) | Native Restaking Hub (e.g., EigenLayer) | L2 Restaking Hub (e.g., Karak, Symbiotic) |
|---|---|---|---|
Validator Client Control | 100% centralized (proprietary) | Decentralized (Ethereum consensus) | Decentralized (underlying L1) |
Governance Token Ownership (Top 10 holders) |
| ~40% (EigenLayer) | ~55% (Karak, Symbiotic - early stage) |
Operator Set Size (Active) | 1 (internal team) | ~200,000 (Ethereum validators) | ~100 (curated whitelist) |
TVL Concentration (Top 3 Protocols) |
|
|
|
Withdrawal Finality | Instantly reversible (admin keys) | ~7 days (Ethereum withdrawal queue) | ~1-7 days (L1 bridge delay + queue) |
Censorship Resistance | |||
Slashing Authority | Centralized (Terms of Service) | Decentralized (EigenLayer DAO + AVS) | Decentralized (Hub DAO + AVS) |
Yield Source Transparency | Opaque (internal market-making) | Transparent (AVS rewards on-chain) | Transparent (AVS rewards on-chain) |
counter-argument
THE GOVERNANCE ILLUSION
The Decentralization Defense (And Its Flaws)
Restaking protocols replicate the centralization vectors of traditional finance under a decentralized facade.
Protocols are governance aggregators. EigenLayer and Karak do not create new security; they concentrate existing ETH and AVAX stake. This creates a single governance layer that controls dozens of AVSs, mirroring how a CEX's board governs multiple products.
The slashing veto is centralized power. AVS operators must opt into slashing conditions set by the restaking protocol. This creates a de facto approval committee where a few core developers decide which services are 'safe', a power analogous to a CEX's listing department.
Liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) are the new exchange tokens. Protocols like Ether.fi and Renzo issue LRTs that abstract underlying stake. This creates systemic dependency on a handful of LRT issuers for liquidity and oracle pricing, replicating the CEX token model.
Evidence: EigenLayer's initial AVS whitelist and the ~$15B TVL managed by the top three LRT protocols demonstrate this concentrated gatekeeping and liquidity power.
risk-analysis
RESTAKING'S CENTRALIZATION TRAP
The Slippery Slope: Systemic Risks
EigenLayer's success has created a new financial primitive, but its design is replicating the systemic fragility of centralized exchanges.
01
The EigenLayer Black Hole
EigenLayer's ~$20B TVL creates a gravitational pull that drains liquidity and talent from smaller networks. It centralizes economic security, creating a single point of failure for dozens of AVSs.\n- Concentration Risk: A single slashing event could cascade across the ecosystem.\n- Innovation Tax: New L1s must compete with EigenLayer's subsidized security, stifling diversity.
~$20B
TVL
40+
AVSs
02
LSTs Are the New Exchange Tokens
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like stETH and cbETH are becoming the de facto collateral for restaking, mirroring how CEX tokens like BNB and FTT powered their ecosystems. Their failure would be catastrophic.\n- Collateral Contagion: A depeg or exploit in a major LST would implode the entire restaking stack.\n- Vendor Lock-in: Protocols are incentivized to integrate dominant LSTs, reinforcing centralization.
>90%
LST Dominance
Terra-Like
Risk Profile
03
The Oracle Problem on Steroids
Actively Validated Services (AVSs) like EigenDA and Omni rely on decentralized oracle committees for slashing. This creates a meta-game where operators collude to avoid penalties, undermining security guarantees.\n- Collusion Incentives: It's economically rational for operators to form cartels.\n- Security Theater: The perceived security is not cryptographically enforced at the base layer.
Social Consensus
Weak Link
High Stakes
Slashing
04
Interchain Security as a Mirage
The promise of 'shared security' for Cosmos-like chains via restaking is flawed. It exports Ethereum's liveness assumptions but not its full-state security, creating hybrid models with unclear failure modes.\n- Partial Security: Chains get liveness, not full consensus security.\n- Complex Attack Vectors: Adversaries can now attack via the restaking layer's slashing logic.
Hybrid Model
Increased Risk
Cross-Chain
Contagion
05
The Rehypothecation Time Bomb
Nested restaking (e.g., EtherFi's eETH restaked in EigenLayer) creates layers of leverage where the same ETH secures multiple systems simultaneously. This is the DeFi equivalent of rehypothecated collateral in 2008.\n- Unwind Cascade: A forced liquidation at one layer triggers liquidations across all layers.\n- Opacity: Risk is obscured by complex, interlocking smart contracts.
3x+
Leverage
Systemic
Liquidation
06
Regulatory Bullseye
By aggregating stake and selling 'security-as-a-service', restaking protocols like EigenLayer are constructing the exact type of centralized, intermediating financial entity that regulators target.\n- Securities Law: AVS tokens and operator rewards look like investment contracts.\n- Single Point of Enforcement: Regulators can cripple the entire ecosystem by targeting one protocol.
High
Regulatory Risk
Centralized
Control
future-outlook
THE POLITICAL VECTOR
The Inevitable Regulator and The Modular Counter-Move
Restaking protocols are consolidating economic security into systemic choke points, inviting regulatory scrutiny and forcing a modular architectural response.
EigenLayer is a systemic risk. It aggregates ETH's security to back new services, creating a concentrated point of failure and control that regulators will target as a securities issuer or money transmitter.
The modular counter-move is fragmentation. Projects like AltLayer and Lagrange avoid monolithic restaking by sourcing security from specific, isolated validator sets, reducing regulatory surface area and contagion risk.
This mirrors CEX decentralization. Just as DEXs like Uniswap fragmented exchange custody, modular restaking fragments security provisioning, making the system more resilient but less capital-efficient.
Evidence: The SEC's lawsuits against Coinbase and Kraken establish precedent for policing staking-as-a-service, a model EigenLayer's pooled security directly extends.
takeaways
RESTAKING'S POWER GRAB
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Restaking protocols are not just yield farms; they are building the capital and security backbone for the modular stack, centralizing economic power in a way that mirrors the influence of top CEXs.
01
EigenLayer: The New Security Marketplace
EigenLayer commoditizes Ethereum's validator security, allowing it to be rented by new protocols (AVSs). This creates a winner-take-most market for cryptoeconomic security.
- Capital Efficiency: Projects bootstrap security via $18B+ TVL instead of bootstrapping a new token.
- Centralized Point of Failure: AVS operators are incentivized to restake with the largest, most trusted pools, leading to centralization akin to CEX orderbook liquidity.
$18B+
TVL
100+
AVSs
02
The Problem: Fragmented Security Silos
Every new L2, oracle, and bridge must bootstrap its own validator set and token, leading to capital inefficiency and weaker security for smaller chains.
- High Cost: Launching a secure chain requires $1B+ in token incentives to attract honest validators.
- Weak Security: New networks often start with <100 validators, making them vulnerable to cheap attacks.
$1B+
Launch Cost
<100
Weak Validators
03
The Solution: Shared Security as a Service
Restaking pools Ethereum's staked ETH to secure a multitude of external systems (AVSs), from L2s like EigenDA to oracles and bridges.
- Instant Security: New protocols tap into ~$70B of slashed ETH from day one.
- Yield Stacking: Restakers earn fees from multiple AVSs on top of base Ethereum staking yield, creating a powerful economic flywheel.
~$70B
Securing Power
5-15%
Stacked Yield
04
The New Centralized Risk: Operator Cartels
Just as CEXs control order flow, a handful of large node operators (e.g., Figment, Coinbase) will control the majority of restaked ETH and AVS validation duties.
- Censorship Risk: Operators can collude to censor transactions on dependent L2s or bridges.
- Systemic Slashing: A bug in a major AVS could trigger cascading slashing across the ecosystem, freezing billions in capital.
>60%
Top 5 Operators
Cascading
Slashing Risk
05
Builders: You Are Now a Tenant
Building an L2? Your security budget is now a recurring fee paid to restaking pools. Your innovation is limited by the governance and slashing logic of the restaking protocol.
- Vendor Lock-in: Switching security providers is a high-friction migration event.
- Protocol Design Constraint: You must design for the restaking middleware's specific fault proofs and slashing conditions.
Recurring
Security Fee
High
Switching Cost
06
Investors: Bet on the Middleware, Not the DApp
The value accrual shifts from end-user applications to the restaking infrastructure layer, similar to how CEXs captured more value than most tokens they listed.
- Fee Machine: Restaking protocols take a cut of all AVS revenue, creating a predictable cash flow business model.
- Moat via Liquidity: The $18B+ TVL moat is harder to replicate than any single dApp's network effects. The play is EigenLayer, LRTs like Kelp, and dominant operators.
Infrastructure
Value Layer
$18B+
TVL Moat
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