Sovereignty is a spectrum defined by a chain's ability to unilaterally enforce its state transition rules. Today's rollups, like Arbitrum or Optimism, delegate finality and data availability to Ethereum. This creates a permissioned execution layer where the L1 can, in theory, censor or fork the rollup's state.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Why AVSs Will Create the First Truly Sovereign Rollups
Current rollups are L1 vassals. By combining a decentralized AVS for data availability with a restaked validator set for sequencing, a new class of rollup can achieve unprecedented technical and economic sovereignty.
introduction
THE FALLACY
The Sovereign Lie
Current rollups are not sovereign; they are permissioned by their underlying L1s, a constraint that AVS-based architectures will permanently break.
AVSs enable true exit by decoupling the core components of a blockchain into modular services. A rollup can source data availability from Celestia or EigenDA, sequencing from Espresso or Radius, and security from EigenLayer. This multi-provider architecture removes any single L1's veto power over the rollup's existence.
The counter-intuitive insight is that sovereignty increases with modularity. A monolithic chain like Solana is sovereign but fragile. A maximally modular rollup, built on AVSs, achieves sovereignty with resilience by creating competitive markets for each critical function, a design pioneered by projects like AltLayer and Saga.
Evidence: The $15B+ restaked in EigenLayer demonstrates massive economic demand to secure new systems outside of Ethereum's core consensus. This capital is the fuel for a new generation of chains that are politically and technically sovereign from their parent L1s.
thesis-statement
THE SOVEREIGNTY ENGINE
The AVS Sovereignty Stack
Actively Validated Services (AVSs) provide the modular components that will enable rollups to achieve true technical and economic sovereignty.
Sovereignty is modular execution. Today's rollups are sovereign in name only, as they rely on a single sequencer for execution and data availability. The AVS model unbundles these functions, allowing a rollup to source sequencing from Espresso, DA from Celestia, and proving from RiscZero. This creates a competitive marketplace for each function, eliminating single points of failure and control.
Economic alignment replaces governance capture. In monolithic L2s, protocol upgrades and fee capture are dictated by a core team. A sovereign rollup built with AVSs enforces alignment via slashing. If an AVS like AltLayer's decentralized sequencer network censors transactions, its staked capital is destroyed. This shifts power from subjective governance votes to objective, automated cryptoeconomic security.
The stack is already live. The infrastructure for sovereign rollups exists today. EigenLayer enables the pooling of restaked ETH to secure new AVSs. AltLayer and Caldera provide rollup SDKs to configure these components. The first production AVS-based rollups will launch in 2024, proving the model's viability and creating a new design space for application-specific chains.
key-trends
WHY AVSs WILL CREATE THE FIRST TRULY SOVEREIGN ROLLUPS
The Three Pillars of the Sovereign Stack
Active Validation Services (AVSs) are the missing component that allows rollups to break their final dependency on L1 sequencers and achieve genuine sovereignty.
01
The Problem: L1 Sequencer Monopolies
Today's rollups are tenants, not owners. Their sequencer is a single, L1-controlled point of failure and rent extraction.\n- Finality is leased: Rollups cannot finalize blocks without L1 consensus, creating a ~12s latency floor.\n- Revenue is captured: L1 validators extract MEV and sequencing fees that should belong to the rollup's own ecosystem.
~12s
Latency Floor
100%
Fee Capture
02
The Solution: Dedicated AVS Networks
An AVS like EigenLayer or Babylon allows a rollup to bootstrap its own decentralized validator set from established L1 stakers.\n- Sovereign Finality: The AVS attests to rollup state, enabling instant, autonomous finality independent of L1 block times.\n- Aligned Security: Validators are slashed for malicious behavior, creating a cryptoeconomic security budget that scales with the rollup's own TVL.
$10B+
Security Pool
~500ms
Finality
03
The Result: Unbundled Execution & Settlement
A sovereign rollup uses L1 (Ethereum, Bitcoin) solely as a high-security data availability layer, mirroring the Celestia model.\n- Execution Sovereignty: The rollup's AVS validates and orders transactions. Fork choice rules are defined by the rollup, not the L1.\n- Settlement Sovereignty: Disputes are resolved within the AVS's slashing logic, not by L1 smart contracts. This enables FuelVM, Move, or any VM to be a true peer to the EVM.
-90%
Settlement Cost
Any VM
Flexibility
ROLLUP GOVERNANCE ARCHITECTURE
The Sovereignty Spectrum: From Vassal to King
A comparison of governance control across rollup models, from shared sequencers to AVS-enabled sovereign chains.
| Sovereignty Vector | Shared Sequencer Rollup (Vassal) | Traditional Sovereign Rollup (Duchy) | AVS-Powered Sovereign Rollup (King) |
|---|---|---|---|
Sequencer Control | External Committee (e.g., Espresso, Astria) | Self-Operated (Single Entity) | AVS Marketplace (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) |
Forced Inclusion / Censorship Resistance | Limited (Self-Censorship Risk) | ||
Upgrade Authority | Governed by L1 (e.g., Optimism Governance) | Sovereign Multisig / DAO | Sovereign Multisig / DAO |
Data Availability Cost | ~$0.10-0.30 per tx (L1 Blobs) | ~$0.10-0.30 per tx (L1 Blobs) | Variable ($0.01-0.50) via AVS (e.g., EigenDA, Celestia) |
Settlement & Dispute Layer | Parent L1 (e.g., Ethereum) | Parent L1 (e.g., Ethereum) | Any Verifiable Layer (L1, Alt-DA, Bitcoin via Babylon) |
Time-to-Finality | ~12 minutes (L1 Challenge Period) | ~12 minutes (L1 Challenge Period) | ~2-5 minutes (AVS Fast Finality) |
Economic Security Sourcing | Borrowed from L1 | Native Token + High Capital Cost | Rented from L1 (e.g., $15B+ EigenLayer TVL) |
Key Enabling Tech | Interop Sequencers | Rollup SDK (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit) | Restaking, Light Clients, ZK Proofs |
deep-dive
THE SOVEREIGNTY STACK
Architecting the Exit: DA and Sequencing Unbundled
AVS-based rollups will achieve true sovereignty by unbundling data availability and sequencing into competitive markets.
Sovereignty requires exit options. A rollup is only sovereign if it can credibly threaten to leave its current providers. The AVS model on EigenLayer creates this threat by commoditizing core services like data availability and sequencing.
Data availability becomes a commodity. Rollups no longer need a single provider like Celestia or Ethereum. They can permissionlessly switch between EigenDA, Avail, or a zk-validated DA layer based on cost and security.
Sequencing is the next battleground. Shared sequencers like Espresso and Astria create a competitive market for block building. This unbundling prevents the sequencer from becoming a single point of control or rent extraction.
Evidence: The modular stack is already here. Arbitrum uses Ethereum for DA, Optimism uses Celestia via the Orbit stack, and dYmension uses Avail. AVSs formalize this into a permissionless, swappable marketplace.
counter-argument
THE SOVEREIGNTY DIFFERENCE
Objection: Isn't This Just Another L1?
AVS-based rollups are not L1s; they are sovereign execution environments that inherit security without inheriting governance.
Sovereignty is not consensus. An L1 like Solana or Ethereum bundles execution, settlement, and consensus. A sovereign rollup built on an AVS like EigenLayer decouples these layers, outsourcing consensus and data availability while retaining full execution autonomy. This is the modular stack in practice.
The governance trap is avoided. L1s force you into their political and technical roadmap. A sovereign rollup using EigenDA and Espresso for sequencing controls its own upgrade keys and fee market. You fork the chain, not the community.
Evidence: Celestia’s design philosophy proves the demand. Its ecosystem of rollups like Dymension and Saga demonstrates that developers choose sovereignty when given the tools. AVS-based rollups are the next logical step, adding programmable cryptoeconomic security.
risk-analysis
WHY AVSs CREATE TRUE SOVEREIGNTY
The Sovereign's Burden: New Risks and Attack Vectors
Shared sequencing and data availability shift the security calculus, forcing rollups to own their core infrastructure risk.
01
The Problem: Shared Sequencer Centralization
Outsourcing sequencing to a single provider like Espresso or Astria creates a single point of failure and censorship. The rollup's liveness is now a function of a third-party's uptime and honesty.
- Risk: Censorship of user transactions or MEV extraction.
- Consequence: Loss of credible neutrality, the core value proposition of a blockchain.
1
Single Point of Failure
100%
Liveness Dependency
02
The Solution: Proposer-Builder-Separation (PBS) for Rollups
Decouple block building from proposing via an auction-based marketplace. This mirrors Ethereum's PBS, creating a competitive landscape for sequencers.
- Benefit: Censorship resistance via permissionless block building.
- Result: Sequencer revenue (MEV) is commoditized, aligning incentives for decentralization.
N>1
Competitive Builders
MEV
Auctioned
03
The Problem: Data Availability (DA) Provider Risk
Relying on a single DA layer like Celestia, EigenDA, or Avail outsources data integrity. A malicious or faulty DA provider can permanently corrupt the rollup's state.
- Risk: State cannot be reconstructed, breaking the bridge to L1.
- Exposure: Rollup's security is capped at the DA layer's $10B+ staked security budget.
$10B+
Security Cap
Permanent
State Risk
04
The Solution: Multi-DA and Proof Curation
Post blocks to multiple DA layers (Ethereum + Celestia + EigenDA) and require fraud/validity proofs to reference all. This creates redundancy and forces attackers to compromise multiple systems.
- Benefit: Security is the sum of its parts, not the weakest link.
- Example: Near DA uses data sharding, EigenDA uses restaking economics.
2-3x
Security Surface
Redundant
Data Copies
05
The Problem: L1 Re-org Attacks on Bridges
Sovereign rollups using an external DA layer have a weak bridge to Ethereum. If the L1 re-orgs past the DA attestation, the bridge can be tricked into accepting invalid state transitions.
- Vector: Adversary with >33% of L1 stake can force a short re-org.
- Result: Stolen funds from the L1 bridge contract, the rollup's primary value anchor.
>33%
Attack Threshold
Bridge
Primary Target
06
The Solution: Delay-and-Verify Bridges with ZK Proofs
Implement a challenge period for state roots, allowing fraud proofs to be submitted if the DA layer attests to invalid data. For validity rollups, use ZK proofs that verify state transitions directly against the posted DA data.
- Benefit: Bridge security becomes a function of proof system + DA attestation, not just L1 consensus.
- Entity: zkSync, Starknet, and Polygon zkEVM exemplify this model.
ZK Proof
Verification
7 Days
Challenge Window
takeaways
WHY AVS-BASED ROLLUPS WIN
TL;DR for the Time-Poor Architect
Active Validation Services (AVSs) are the missing piece for rollup sovereignty, decoupling execution from monolithic sequencer control.
01
The Problem: Sequencer Monopolies
Today's rollups are L2s in name only, with centralized sequencers acting as a single point of failure and rent extraction. This recreates the very custodial risk crypto aims to solve.
- Single point of censorship and MEV capture
- Vendor lock-in to a single operator's roadmap
- No credible neutrality for high-value state (e.g., DeFi, gaming)
1
Operator
100%
Control
02
The Solution: AVS-as-a-Service
AVSs, like those secured by EigenLayer, allow rollups to outsource their validation to a decentralized, economically secured network of operators. This creates a plug-and-play security and sequencing layer.
- Permissionless operator sets via restaking
- Slashable security for liveness and correctness
- Modular specialization (e.g., ZK-provers, fast-finality networks)
$15B+
Restaked TVL
100s
Operators
03
The Outcome: Sovereign Execution Environments
With AVS-based sequencing and validation, a rollup becomes a truly sovereign chain that merely leases security. It controls its own stack, from VM to fee market, without being an L2 subordinate.
- Full tech stack autonomy (MoveVM, SVM, etc.)
- Capture 100% of sequencer fees and MEV
- Interoperability via Intents with networks like Across and LayerZero
0
L2 Tax
Owned
Economic Flow
04
The Catalyst: Shared Security Economics
The capital efficiency of pooled security via restaking breaks the cold-start problem. New rollups bootstrap security comparable to Ethereum for a marginal cost, not a $10B+ token launch.
- Security as a variable operating cost, not fixed capital
- Instant cryptoeconomic security from day one
- Aligned operators earning fees across multiple AVSs
>100x
Capital Efficiency
Day 1
Security
05
The Architecture: Intent-Centric Design
Sovereign AVS-rollups naturally adopt intent-based architectures. Users express desired outcomes, and a decentralized network of solvers (operators) competes to fulfill them most efficiently.
- Native MEV resistance via batch auctions
- Optimal cross-chain UX inspired by UniswapX and CowSwap
- Solver markets drive execution quality and cost down
-90%
User Ops
Auctions
MEV Redist.
06
The Reality: It's Already Happening
Projects like Eclipse and Saga are building with this model today. They are not 'Ethereum L2s' but sovereign chains using Ethereum for data availability and AVSs for validation.
- Eclipse: SVM rollup with Celestia DA and EigenLayer AVS
- Saga: Chainlets with shared security
- The new stack: Rollup Framework + DA Layer + AVS Network
Live
Testnets
2024
Mainnet
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