Operator centralization creates systemic risk. The EigenLayer model outsources validation to a limited set of node operators, concentrating the power to slash or censor across hundreds of Actively Validated Services (AVSs). This creates a single point of failure for the entire restaking ecosystem.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Why Operator Centralization is the Achilles' Heel of Restaking
Restaking promises to scale crypto security, but its economic and technical design funnels power to a handful of high-uptime operators. This analysis deconstructs the centralization vectors in EigenLayer and other AVS networks, arguing they create systemic risks that contradict the foundational premise of decentralized security.
introduction
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
Introduction
Restaking's promise of shared security is undermined by the unchecked centralization of node operators.
Decentralization is not transitive. A decentralized set of stakers delegating to a centralized operator pool does not create a decentralized network. The security model collapses to the trustworthiness of the few entities, like Figment or Kiln, controlling the validating keys.
The slashing dilemma is real. A major operator fault could trigger en-masse slashing across unrelated AVSs, creating contagion risk that dwarfs the isolated failure of a single app-chain or rollup. The economic disincentive is not a sufficient safeguard against technical or coordinated failure.
key-insights
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
Executive Summary
Restaking's promise of shared security is undermined by the centralization of operators, creating systemic risk and stifling innovation.
01
The Problem: The Lido-ification of Restaking
A handful of operators like P2P.org and Figment control the majority of stake, mirroring Lido's dominance in Ethereum staking. This creates a single point of slashing failure and grants outsized governance influence.
- >33% of EigenLayer TVL can be controlled by a few entities.
- Centralized operators become veto points for new AVS integrations.
>33%
TVL Control
1
Slashing Vector
02
The Solution: Decentralized Operator Sets (DOS)
Protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon must enforce permissionless, sybil-resistant operator sets. This requires moving beyond simple stake-weighting to proof-of-work, proof-of-bandwidth, or verifiable compute models.
- EigenDA's design mandates a decentralized operator set for data availability.
- Forces competition on performance, not just capital.
1000+
Target Operators
Sybil-Resistant
Core Mechanism
03
The Consequence: Slashing Centralization Risk
If a top-5 operator is slashed, it triggers a cascade of insolvency across all AVSs it secures. This creates a too-big-to-fail dynamic where the network cannot afford to punish misbehavior.
- Correlated slashing events become a systemic threat.
- AVS developers are forced to choose between security and decentralization.
Correlated
Failure Mode
Too-Big-To-Fail
Result
04
The Innovation: Intent-Based Restaking & Marketplace Layers
Solutions like Kelp DAO and Renzo abstract operator selection, but centralize it in their own strategies. The endgame is an intent-based marketplace where restakers specify constraints (e.g., 'no operator >5% share') and solvers like Across or UniswapX find optimal allocations.
- Separates the economic interest from the validation duty.
- Creates a liquid market for decentralized security.
Intent-Based
Paradigm
Marketplace
Solution Layer
05
The Metric: Nakamoto Coefficient for AVSs
The true measure of restaking security is not total TVL, but the minimum number of operators needed to compromise an AVS. Most current AVS designs have a Nakamoto Coefficient of 1-3, which is catastrophically low.
- EigenLayer's cryptoeconomic security is only as strong as its weakest AVS.
- VCs must audit this coefficient, not just whitepapers.
1-3
Current Coefficient
Critical Metric
For VCs
06
The Fork: AltLayer vs. Native Restaking
Projects like AltLayer are building restaked rollups with tightly controlled, permissioned operator sets for performance. This creates a fork in the road: optimized, centralized security vs. decentralized, slower security. The market will split between high-throughput appchains and credibly neutral base layers.
- Celestia-inspired modular design influences this split.
- Not all security is fungible.
Two Tracks
Market Fork
Performance vs. Neutrality
Trade-off
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL FLAW
The Centralization Thesis
Restaking's economic security is a mirage, as its core dependency on centralized operators creates a single point of failure.
The operator is the root. The entire restaking security model collapses if the node operator controlling the validator keys is malicious or incompetent. EigenLayer's shared security is only as strong as the weakest operator's key management.
Centralization is the default. The capital efficiency of restaking creates a winner-take-most market. Large, institutional operators like Figment and Chorus One will consolidate stake, replicating the Lido dominance problem on Ethereum.
Slashing is a paper tiger. Complex, subjective slashing conditions for Actively Validated Services (AVS) are unproven. A coordinated operator failure could drain pooled capital before any slashing mechanism reacts.
Evidence: Lido commands 32% of Ethereum stake. The same economic forces will drive AVS selection towards the largest, lowest-cost operators, creating systemic risk.
market-context
THE DATA
The Current State: Centralization in Plain Sight
Ethereum's restaking ecosystem is consolidating power into a handful of dominant node operators, creating systemic risk.
Operator centralization is structural. The capital efficiency of pooled restaking via EigenLayer and liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) like ether.fi and Renzo Protocol concentrates stake. This creates a meta-slashing risk where a single operator's fault cascades across hundreds of AVSs.
The LRT model accelerates this. Protocols compete on points and yield, not decentralization. They delegate to the same top-tier node operators (e.g., Figment, Chorus One) to minimize slashing risk and maximize rewards, creating a centralized validator cartel.
The data proves the point. The top five operators on EigenLayer control over 60% of delegated stake. This concentration mirrors the pre-Merge mining pool problem, where a few entities could theoretically collude or fail catastrophically.
WHY OPERATOR CENTRALIZATION IS THE ACHILLES' HEEL OF RESTAKING
Centralization Drivers: A Comparative Analysis
A feature and risk matrix comparing the centralization vectors inherent to major restaking protocols. This is the core trade-off between capital efficiency and systemic fragility.
| Centralization Vector | EigenLayer | Karak | Symbiotic |
|---|---|---|---|
Active Validator Set (AVS) Approval | Permissioned (EigenDA, EigenLabs) | Permissionless (Anybody can deploy) | Permissioned (Mellow & Symbiotic Labs) |
Operator Set Size (Current) | ~200 | ~100 | < 50 |
Top 5 Operators' Share of TVL |
|
|
|
Native Slashing Implementation | |||
Minimum Operator Stake Required | 0 ETH | 0 ETH | 32 ETH |
LST Dominance (e.g., stETH, cbETH) | High (Lido Finance, Coinbase) | Medium | Very High (Lido Finance only) |
Cross-Chain Restaking Support | Native (via Karak Network) |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Slippery Slope: How Decentralization Unravels
The economic design of restaking inherently concentrates power in a few professional operators, creating systemic risk.
Operator centralization is inevitable because restaking rewards professionalization. Solo stakers cannot compete with the capital efficiency and uptime guarantees of institutional operators like Figment or P2P.org. The economic pressure to delegate to these entities is overwhelming for most token holders.
The AVS security model is flawed. It assumes a decentralized set of operators, but capital flows to the few with the best reputations and infrastructure. This creates a single point of failure where a handful of operators secure hundreds of AVSs, mirroring the validator centralization seen in early EigenLayer and Babylon.
Proof-of-Stake centralization repeats itself. The same forces that consolidated Ethereum validators into Lido and Coinbase are now amplified in restaking. Operators aggregate stake to maximize yield from multiple AVSs, creating super-nodes with systemic influence over the entire ecosystem.
Evidence: As of Q1 2024, over 60% of EigenLayer's restaked ETH is delegated, not natively staked. The top five operators consistently command the majority of delegations, a trend that accelerates as more AVSs launch.
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Rebuttal: Can Decentralization Be Engineered?
Restaking's economic design creates a structural incentive for operator centralization, undermining its security guarantees.
Operator centralization is inevitable because the restaking model rewards capital efficiency over geographic and client diversity. Large node operators like Figment and Chorus One consolidate stake to maximize yield from multiple Actively Validated Services (AVS), creating systemic risk.
The security promise is illusory when a handful of operators run critical infrastructure for protocols like EigenDA and AltLayer. This recreates the trusted third-party problem that cryptographic consensus was designed to eliminate.
Decentralization cannot be retrofitted. Protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool demonstrate that liquidity begets centralization. Post-launch governance tweaks fail against the prisoner's dilemma of rational economic actors.
Evidence: In early 2024, the top five operators on EigenLayer controlled over 60% of restaked ETH, a concentration level that invalidates the Byzantine Fault Tolerance assumptions of the underlying AVSs.
risk-analysis
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
Systemic Risks of a Centralized Operator Set
Restaking's core innovation—reusing ETH security—is undermined when the operator layer becomes a centralized cartel, creating systemic vulnerabilities that threaten the entire ecosystem.
01
The Cartelization of Validation
A small, dominant group of operators (e.g., Lido, Figment, P2P) can control a supermajority of restaked ETH, enabling censorship, MEV extraction, and protocol capture. This mirrors the validator centralization problem in Ethereum's PoS but with amplified consequences across dozens of AVSs.
- Risk: >33% of TVL controlled by top 3 operators creates liveness failure risk.
- Consequence: AVS slashing becomes politically untenable, neutering security.
>33%
TVL Control
0
Slash Events
02
The Metastable Liquidity Bomb
Centralized operators create correlated withdrawal points. A failure or malicious action by a major operator could trigger a mass, synchronous unstaking event across all integrated AVSs, collapsing liquidity and causing a death spiral in restaking derivatives like eigenlayer's LSTs.
- Trigger: Technical bug, regulatory action, or governance attack.
- Amplifier: $10B+ TVL locked in a handful of node configurations.
$10B+
Correlated TVL
Hours
Withdrawal Time
03
The AVS Security Illusion
AVSs (Active Validation Services) believe they are buying decentralized security from Ethereum, but are actually renting it from a handful of node operators. This creates a false sense of security; the effective cost to attack an AVS is the cost to corrupt its top operators, not the total restaked ETH.
- Reality: Security = Weakest Operator's Integrity.
- Example: A zk-rollup or oracle network secured by 5 operators is only as strong as the most corruptible one.
5
Critical Operators
100x
Lower Attack Cost
04
Protocol Governance Capture
Operators with delegated voting power become the de facto governors of the restaking ecosystem. They can veto slashing proposals, set extractive fees, and dictate AVS integration, turning the protocol into a rent-seeking infrastructure monopoly. This stifles innovation and entrenches incumbents.
- Mechanism: Token-holder apathy leads to voting power delegation to operators.
- Outcome: The EigenLayer ecosystem becomes governed by Figment and Lido, not ETH stakers.
>50%
Delegated Votes
1
Proposal Veto
05
The Interoperability Fragility
A centralized operator set becomes a single chokepoint for cross-chain systems. Bridges, oracles, and messaging networks (like LayerZero, Wormhole) that rely on these operators inherit their centralization. An exploit or collusion here compromises security across all connected chains.
- Contagion: One operator failure breaks dozens of AVSs simultaneously.
- Surface Area: Reduces the multi-chain security promise to a single, fragile hub.
Dozens
AVSs Exposed
1
Failure Point
06
The Regulatory Kill Switch
Geographic concentration of operators (e.g., US & EU-based) creates a clear target for regulators. A SEC action or OFAC sanction against a major operator could legally compel them to censor transactions or freeze assets, effectively imposing blacklists on the entire restaking ecosystem and its AVSs.
- Precedent: Tornado Cash sanctions show willingness to target infrastructure.
- Result: Decentralized finance becomes subject to centralized legal jurisdiction.
2
Jurisdictions
100%
Enforcement Risk
future-outlook
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
The Inevitable Consolidation and Regulatory Capture
Restaking's economic design inherently funnels power to a few dominant operators, creating systemic risk and a clear target for regulators.
The winner-take-all economics of pooled staking directly translate to restaking. Operators with the largest stakes attract the most delegations and AVS rewards, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop of centralization. This is not a bug but a feature of proof-of-stake mechanics.
Regulators target central points of failure. The SEC's actions against Lido and Coinbase for their staking services establish a precedent. A handful of dominant node operators like Figment, Chorus One, or P2P Validator controlling the majority of restaked ETH creates a single, identifiable point of legal attack for the entire ecosystem.
Decentralization theater fails under stress. While protocols like EigenLayer promote permissionless operator sets, the economic reality is consolidation into a few mega-pools. During a slashing event or a regulatory crackdown, this centralized layer will be the failure point, not the distributed network of solo stakers.
Evidence: Lido commands over 30% of all staked ETH. In restaking, this dominance is projected to amplify, with early data showing the top 5 operators securing a disproportionate share of early AVS deployments like EigenDA and Lagrange.
takeaways
THE RESTAKING DILEMMA
Architect's Takeaways
Restaking's core security promise is undermined by the centralization of node operators, creating systemic risk and economic inefficiency.
01
The Lido Problem, Reincarnated
EigenLayer's top 5 operators control >60% of delegated stake, mirroring the validator centralization risks of Ethereum's Beacon Chain. This creates a single point of failure for hundreds of AVSs.
- Concentration Risk: A fault in a major operator can slash thousands of validators simultaneously.
- Governance Capture: Dominant operators can dictate terms and pricing for new AVSs.
- Market Inefficiency: Stakers are incentivized to delegate to the largest, 'safest' operators, reinforcing centralization.
>60%
Top 5 Operators
1 Fault
Systemic Risk
02
The Slashing Dilemma
Operator centralization makes slashing politically and technically impractical. A major operator failure would cause catastrophic, chain-wide slashing events the ecosystem cannot absorb.
- Too Big to Fail: The economic and social fallout from slashing a major operator is prohibitive.
- Collateral Damage: Honest stakers delegating to a faulty operator are penalized, breaking the security model.
- Incentive Misalignment: Operators face de minimis personal slashing risk, while delegators bear the full brunt.
Political
Slashing Impractical
Delegator Risk
Asymmetric Penalty
03
The AVS Monoculture
AVSs are forced to accept the same set of centralized operators, creating correlated security failures. A diverse security landscape is impossible when all services rely on the same few nodes.
- Correlated Failure: An outage at a major operator takes down every AVS it secures.
- No Specialization: Operators are generic service providers, not experts in the specific AVS's security needs.
- Rent Extraction: Centralized operators can charge high fees due to lack of competitive, specialized alternatives.
Correlated
Security Risk
Generic
No Specialization
04
The Capital Efficiency Mirage
The promised capital efficiency of restaking is a myth if the underlying security is fragile. Centralized operators represent a single slashing liability securing hundreds of services.
- False Multiplier: Security is not magically multiplied; it is dangerously concentrated.
- Systemic Contagion: A failure in one AVS can trigger slashing that cascades to all other AVSs on the same operator set.
- Real Cost: The hidden cost is systemic fragility, which will be priced in by sophisticated AVS developers and users.
Fragile
Security Base
Contagion
Cascade Risk
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