AVS bootstrapping is a subsidy. Protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon offer high initial yields to attract capital, creating a security credit line that must eventually be repaid with sustainable demand.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Why AVS Bootstrapping is a Subsidy for Weak Cryptoeconomics
The easy access to rented security via EigenLayer's Actively Validated Services (AVSs) allows protocols with flawed tokenomics to launch, creating a dangerous subsidy that delays inevitable market corrections until slashing or capital flight occurs.
introduction
THE BOOTSTRAP MYTH
Introduction: The Security Credit Line
AVS bootstrapping mechanisms are a temporary subsidy that masks underlying cryptoeconomic fragility.
This masks weak cryptoeconomics. The subsidy creates a false signal of health, similar to how unsustainable token emissions propped up early DeFi 1.0 protocols like SushiSwap before the inevitable correction.
The subsidy creates a cliff. When the bootstrapping period ends, the AVS faces a liquidity withdrawal event. Its true security budget is revealed, which is the protocol's own fee revenue.
Evidence: An AVS paying 15% APR from a grant fund while generating only 2% APR from fees has a 13% security deficit. This is the hidden liability on its balance sheet.
key-trends
AVS BOOTSTRAPPING
The Subsidy Mechanism: How Weak Projects Game the System
The AVS model, designed to bootstrap security, inadvertently creates a subsidy that props up projects with weak fundamentals.
01
The Rent-Seeking AVS
Projects launch with no real demand, using AVS staking as a revenue source instead of a security cost. They rely on restaking yield to attract capital, masking their lack of organic fees.\n- Key Problem: Security becomes a profit center, not a cost of doing business.\n- Key Consequence: Capital is misallocated to subsidize protocols no one uses.
0-10%
Fee Revenue
100%
Subsidy Reliance
02
The Yield-First Operator
Node operators chase the highest restaking yield, not the most secure or useful networks. This creates a security arbitrage where operators are indifferent to AVS quality.\n- Key Problem: Security is commoditized and detached from protocol performance.\n- Key Consequence: Weak AVSs can still attract security by offering inflationary token rewards.
$10B+
Deployed Capital
Yield > Risk
Operator Motive
03
The Tokenomics Smoke Screen
AVS tokens are issued not to users or builders, but to capital providers (restakers). This creates a circular economy where token value is propped up by the subsidy itself.\n- Key Problem: Token value accrual is decoupled from protocol utility.\n- Key Consequence: Projects fail when the subsidy ends, revealing the true economic demand was zero.
>80%
To Stakers
Inflationary
Emission Schedule
04
The Lido Problem at Layer 2
Just as Lido created systemic risk via stETH dominance, dominant AVS restaking pools (e.g., EigenLayer) could centralize security for hundreds of fragile networks.\n- Key Problem: A single point of failure secures dozens of interdependent systems.\n- Key Consequence: A failure or slashing event in one weak AVS could cascade through the entire restaked ecosystem.
1 Pool
Security Source
100+ AVSs
Dependent Systems
05
The Real Test: Post-Subsidy Viability
The only true metric for an AVS is its fee revenue per unit of security. When token emissions stop, can it pay for its own security from real user fees? Most cannot.\n- Key Problem: Current metrics like TVL or Total Value Secured (TVS) are meaningless vanity stats.\n- Key Solution: Measure Security Cost Coverage Ratio (Fee Revenue / Staking Rewards). A ratio <1.0 is a zombie project.
<1.0
Zombie Ratio
Fee/Security
True Metric
06
The Alt-Layer-1 Playbook Repeats
This is the 2018-2021 alt-L1 playbook: high inflation to bootstrap validators and TVL, followed by collapse when emissions slow. Avalanche, Fantom, and Near subsidies created temporary vibrancy, not permanent ecosystems.\n- Key Problem: History is repeating itself in the modular stack.\n- Key Warning: The coming 'AVS winter' will wash out projects built on subsidies, not demand.
90%+
TVL Decline
2024-2025
Correction ETA
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Slippery Slope: From Subsidy to Systemic Slashing
AVS bootstrapping rewards create a temporary subsidy that masks weak underlying cryptoeconomic security.
AVS token incentives are subsidies. They pay operators for a service the network's own staking yield should cover. This creates a perverse incentive misalignment where operators chase the highest subsidy, not the most secure network.
Bootstrapping rewards attract mercenary capital. This is identical to the yield farming cycles that plagued DeFi protocols like SushiSwap. Capital exits when rewards drop, leaving the AVS with inflated security assumptions.
The subsidy hides the true cost of slashing. An AVS with a $10M subsidy and a $1M slashable stake has a negative real yield for security. Operators face minimal penalty for failure, creating systemic risk.
Evidence: EigenLayer's early AVS, like AltLayer, launched with high restaking points multipliers. This demonstrates the market's reliance on subsidy-driven growth over sustainable cryptoeconomic design from day one.
AVS BOOTSTRAP ANALYSIS
The Subsidy Math: Comparing Native vs. Rented Security
Quantifying the hidden subsidy provided by restaking platforms to protocols with weak native token utility.
| Security & Economic Metric | Native Token Security (e.g., SOL, AVAX) | Rented Security via Restaking (e.g., EigenLayer AVS) | Pure Subsidy (No Staked Token) |
|---|---|---|---|
Capital Efficiency (Security per $1M TVL) | 1.0x (Base) | 10-100x (via leverage) | Infinite (Zero-Cost) |
Protocol Revenue Capture by Stakers | 100% (Fees, MEV, Inflation) | <10% (Service Fees Only) | 0% |
Slashing Risk for Validators | Protocol-specific (e.g., downtime) | Correlated (EigenLayer-wide slashing) | None (No Skin in Game) |
Token Utility Beyond Security | Governance, Gas, Fee Payment | None (Pure Security Rent) | N/A |
Exit Liquidity / Unstaking Period | Protocol-defined (e.g., 2-14 days) | 7+ days (EigenLayer Queue) | Instant |
Attack Cost as % of Staked Value | ~33% (Standard 1/3 Attack) | <1% (via Re-staking Leverage) | $0 |
Long-Term Viability Post-Subsidy | Sustainable (Aligned Incentives) | Unproven (Depends on Rent Payments) | None (Inherently Parasitic) |
case-study
WHY AVS BOOTSTRAPPING IS A SUBSIDY FOR WEAK CRYPTOECONOMICS
Case Studies in Subsidy Dependence
Protocols that rely on external incentives to bootstrap security or liquidity are masking fundamental flaws in their economic design.
01
The Alt-L1 Liquidity Mining Trap
Layer-1s like Avalanche and Fantom deployed $1B+ in token incentives to attract DeFi TVL. This created a temporary boom, but liquidity fled when subsidies dried up, revealing a lack of sustainable demand.
- Result: ~90% TVL drawdown post-incentives.
- Proof: Native DEX volumes collapsed, failing to reach Ethereum L2 levels organically.
$1B+
Subsidies Deployed
-90%
TVL Post-Subsidy
02
Oracle Networks & The Staking Dilemma
Projects like Chainlink require massive, low-yield staking to secure data feeds. The ~5% native token yield is insufficient to compete with DeFi, forcing reliance on foundation grants and ecosystem funds to bootstrap node operators.
- Problem: Security budget is a cost center, not a profit center.
- Risk: A bear market exposes the subsidy when token prices fall and node revenue evaporates.
~5%
Native Token Yield
Cost Center
Security Model
03
Modular DA Layers & The Airdrop Farm
Data Availability layers like Celestia and EigenDA bootstrap rollup adoption by distributing tokens to early users and developers. This creates a speculative airdrop economy rather than proving sustainable fee revenue from data publishing.
- Evidence: Post-TGE transaction activity often plateaus or declines.
- Test: Can the network sustain validators on fee revenue alone after the airdrop supply is exhausted?
Airdrop-Driven
Adoption Model
Fee Revenue?
Ultimate Test
04
Restaking: Recycling Security as a Subsidy
EigenLayer's restaking model allows AVSs to rent Ethereum's staked ETH security. This is a direct subsidy: AVSs avoid bootstrapping their own token-incentivized validator set. The long-term viability depends on AVS fee revenue > restaker opportunity cost.
- Risk: If AVS yields are low, restakers will withdraw, causing a rapid security collapse.
- This is not new security; it's subsidized security leasing.
Security Lease
Core Model
Yield > Cost
Critical Condition
counter-argument
THE SUBSIDY
Counter-Argument: "This is Just Efficient Capital Formation"
AVS bootstrapping is not efficient capital formation; it is a subsidy that masks weak cryptoeconomic design.
AVS bootstrapping is a subsidy. It uses external capital to artificially inflate security budgets, creating a false signal of economic viability. This distorts the market's ability to price risk for protocols like EigenLayer and AltLayer.
Efficient markets price risk. A healthy AVS should attract restakers based on its intrinsic fee model, not a temporary bounty. The current model resembles a venture capital subsidy more than a sustainable DeFi primitive.
Compare to Lido and MakerDAO. These protocols bootstraped security with their own token emissions and fee revenue, creating aligned, long-term staking economies. AVS bootstrapping outsources this critical phase.
Evidence: The projected $20B in restaked ETH for AVS security creates a massive, low-cost attack surface. This capital is mercenary and will flee at the first sign of better yields or perceived risk, as seen in past DeFi farming cycles.
takeaways
AVS BOOTSTRAPPING
Takeaways for Builders and Backers
The current AVS subsidy model is a temporary patch for protocols with weak demand-side flywheels.
01
The Subsidy Trap
AVS incentives are a capital-intensive bootstrapping tool, not a sustainable revenue model. They attract mercenary capital that exits when rewards dry up, exposing the underlying protocol's lack of organic demand.\n- Key Risk: Protocol TVL collapses >80% post-subsidy.\n- Key Insight: Subsidies are a signal of weak cryptoeconomics, not a feature.
>80%
TVL Risk
Mercenary
Capital
02
The EigenLayer Precedent
EigenLayer's ~$15B+ restaked TVL demonstrates the power of subsidized security. However, it creates a meta-game where AVS success is measured by their ability to attract and retain this pooled security, not by end-user fees.\n- Key Metric: AVS must pay >10% APR to be competitive for restaked capital.\n- Key Question: Can any AVS generate fees to cover this cost from day one?
$15B+
Restaked TVL
>10% APR
Cost Floor
03
Build for Fees, Not Subsidies
The only viable long-term strategy is to design protocols where the security budget is a fraction of captured value. This requires a first-principles focus on demand-side utility and fee generation, like successful DeFi primitives (Uniswap, Aave).\n- Key Design: Protocol fees must >2x security costs at scale.\n- Key Action: Model sustainable fee revenue before writing a line of AVS code.
>2x
Fee Multiplier
First Principles
Design
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