Venture capital misallocates security budgets by funding centralized sequencers and validators instead of decentralized verification. This creates single points of failure that attackers target, as seen in the $200M Wormhole bridge hack. Capital should fund the cryptographic proofs that secure the system, not the trusted operators.
venture-capital-trends-in-web3
Blog
Why Venture Capital is Misallocated in Blockchain Security
An analysis of how venture capital's focus on point-solution tools and exploit-driven narratives systematically starves the foundational infrastructure and developer education that actually prevents hacks.
introduction
THE MISALIGNMENT
Introduction
Venture capital is funding the wrong security models, creating systemic risk for the entire blockchain ecosystem.
The security model is inverted. Projects like Polygon and Arbitrum spend millions on validator incentives, but the real security comes from the fraud-proof or validity-proof system underneath. Investors fund the marketing, not the math.
Evidence: Ethereum's security budget is ~$30B in staked ETH. An L2 like Optimism spends <1% of that on its fault-proof system, with the majority of funding directed towards sequencer operations and business development.
key-trends
VC MISALLOCATION IN SECURITY
Executive Summary: The Three Dysfunctions
Venture capital is pouring billions into redundant, misaligned, and non-composable security solutions, creating systemic risk and stifling innovation.
01
The Redundancy Trap: Forking is Not Innovation
VCs fund dozens of near-identical L1s and L2s, each with its own security budget and validator set. This fragments capital and talent, creating systemic risk through correlated failures.
- $50B+ TVL secured by forked EVM consensus.
- ~80% code reuse between major L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base.
- Creates validator fatigue and centralization pressure.
80%
Code Reuse
$50B+
Fragmented TVL
02
The Incentive Mismatch: Staking ≠Security
Billions are locked in staking derivatives (Lido, EigenLayer) chasing yield, not security. This creates economic centralization and misaligns slashing penalties with actual risk.
- $40B+ in LSTs creates a "too big to slash" problem.
- Slashing for downtime is trivial; slashing for fraud is politically impossible.
- Security becomes a liquidity game, not a cryptographic guarantee.
$40B+
LST TVL
0
Major Slashes
03
The Modular Blind Spot: Ignoring Shared Security
VCs fund monolithic app-chains (dYdX, Sei) that must bootstrap validator sets from scratch, instead of backing shared security layers (EigenLayer AVS, Cosmos ICS, Babylon).
- A new app-chain spends $50M+ on security marketing and incentives.
- Shared security layers can reduce this cost by 90%+.
- The future is sovereign rollups secured by Ethereum or Bitcoin, not isolated fortresses.
-90%
Cost Potential
$50M+
Chain Boot Cost
market-context
THE MISALIGNMENT
The Current State: Exploit-Driven Funding
Venture capital flows to security tools that generate headlines, not those that prevent the most loss.
Post-mortem capital dominates funding. Venture firms allocate capital reactively, investing in categories that just suffered a major exploit. This creates a lagging indicator market where funding follows catastrophe, not prevention.
Audits are a marketing expense. Projects treat security audits from firms like Trail of Bits or OpenZeppelin as a compliance checkbox for fundraising. The audit report is a risk transfer document, not a guarantee of safety.
Bug bounties are cost-ineffective. Platforms like Immunefi create perverse incentives where whitehats hoard critical bugs for maximum payout, while systematic architectural flaws go unreported. The model rewards finding holes, not building robust systems.
Evidence: In 2023, over $1.7B was stolen from DeFi. The subsequent funding surge went to exploit-specific tooling (e.g., Forta for monitoring) rather than formal verification or secure development frameworks.
VC INVESTMENT MISALLOCATION
Funding Allocation: Headlines vs. Foundations
A comparison of venture capital funding focus versus the foundational infrastructure that secures the blockchain ecosystem, measured by capital efficiency and systemic impact.
| Security Layer / Metric | Headline-Grabbing Apps (e.g., Consumer DApps, L2 Rollups) | Foundational Protocols (e.g., Ethereum Consensus, EigenLayer AVS) | Core Infrastructure (e.g., RPC Providers, MEV Relays) |
|---|---|---|---|
Typical VC Funding Round Size (2023-24) | $20-100M | $5-15M | $2-10M |
Capital Efficiency (Security $ / Total Value Secured) |
| < $0.01 per $1,000 | < $0.001 per $1,000 |
Direct Contribution to L1 Finality | |||
Enables Trustless Bridging (e.g., LayerZero, Across) | |||
Reduces Systemic MEV Risk (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) | |||
Median Developer Time to Integrate | 2-4 weeks | 6-12 months | 1-2 weeks |
Post-Funding Valuation Multiplier (Typical) | 50-100x | 10-20x | 5-15x |
Dependency Chain Length (Protocols Relying On It) | 1-10 | 100-1000+ | 1000+ |
deep-dive
THE CAPITAL MISMATCH
The Unfunded Foundation: Where Security Actually Lives
Venture capital floods application-layer tokens while the critical infrastructure securing them operates on economic margins.
Security is a public good that venture capital structurally underpays for. VCs fund token launches with billion-dollar valuations for speculative applications, but the validators, sequencers, and relayers that secure those applications earn fractions of a cent per transaction.
Economic security is not venture-scale. The $33B staked in Ethereum validators generates ~$1.6B in annual rewards, a sub-5% yield. This is a utility return, not the 100x venture return funds demand, creating a chronic underinvestment in core infrastructure.
Compare Lido and a rollup. Lido’s $20B+ TVL secures Ethereum itself, while an average rollup’s token might have a similar market cap for executing transactions. The capital allocates to the speculative wrapper, not the foundational trust layer.
Evidence: The top five L1/L2 tokens hold a $400B+ market cap. The entire professional staking and node operation sector is valued under $5B. Capital concentrates on the asset, not the service that makes the asset credible.
case-study
WHY VC FUNDS THE WRONG DEFENSES
Case Studies in Misallocation
Venture capital floods into headline-grabbing exploits, while the systemic, foundational security flaws that enable them remain chronically underfunded.
01
The Bridge Security Fallacy
VCs pour billions into isolated bridge protocols like LayerZero and Axelar, treating each as a unique fortress. This ignores the systemic risk: the entire cross-chain messaging layer is a fragmented attack surface.\n- Problem: Competing standards and siloed security models create $2B+ in cumulative bridge exploits.\n- Solution: Fund shared security layers and verification networks (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) that amortize trust across applications.
$2B+
Exploits
100+
Isolated Bridges
02
Over-Indexing on Formal Verification
Investors fund boutique firms to mathematically prove the safety of individual smart contracts (e.g., for a new DEX). This is a luxury good that doesn't scale to the ecosystem's attack vectors.\n- Problem: Audits are point-in-time and useless against novel economic attacks, oracle manipulation, or upstream compiler bugs.\n- Solution: Back continuous, runtime security platforms like Forta and OpenZeppelin Defender that provide real-time monitoring and response for $50B+ in protected TVL.
$50B+
TVL Monitored
>90%
Post-Audit Hacks
03
Ignoring the Validator Attack Surface
Capital concentrates on L1/L2 sequencers and dApps, while the underlying Proof-of-Stake validator infrastructure is critically under-secured. Centralization in clients (Geth) and MEV relays creates single points of failure.\n- Problem: >60% of Ethereum staking relies on a single consensus client (Prysm). A bug could halt the chain.\n- Solution: Fund client diversity initiatives, decentralized validator technology (DVT) like Obol and SSV, and robust MEV resistance research.
>60%
Client Risk
$100B+
Stake Exposed
04
The Smart Contract Wallet Blind Spot
VCs fund yet another EOA-based DeFi protocol while the root cause of ~$1B in annual private key theft remains unaddressed. User security is treated as an afterthought.\n- Problem: Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) are fundamentally insecure, leading to rampant phishing and seed phrase loss.\n- Solution: Back account abstraction stacks (ERC-4337) and smart contract wallet adoption (e.g., Safe, ZeroDev), which enable social recovery, transaction bundling, and gas sponsorship.
$1B/yr
Key Theft
~0%
AA Adoption
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Steelman: Why VCs Aren't Stupid
Venture capital is structurally misaligned with the long-tail, decentralized security model that blockchains require.
VCs optimize for equity returns, not protocol security. Their fiduciary duty is to generate venture-scale returns for LPs, which mandates chasing centralized points of control like sequencers (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) and liquid staking tokens (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool).
Security is a public good, but VCs are private equity investors. Funding a robust validator set or a decentralized oracle network (e.g., Chainlink) offers poor ROI compared to owning the core infrastructure that captures fees.
Evidence: The $2.6B+ invested in L1/L2 core development in 2023 dwarfed funding for client diversity or light client research, creating systemic risks like the Geth dominance problem on Ethereum.
investment-thesis
THE MISMATCH
The Correct Allocation: Funding the Immune System
Venture capital systematically overfunds application-layer features while starving the core security infrastructure that makes them viable.
Venture capital chases narratives like DeFi 2.0 or SocialFi, but these are built on brittle security foundations. This misallocation creates systemic risk, as seen in the $2.5 billion cross-chain bridge hacks.
Security is a public good that markets underfund. While a16z invests $50M in a new wallet, the teams building formal verification tools like Certora or runtime security layers like Forta operate on shoestring budgets.
The funding imbalance is structural. VCs seek 100x returns from a single app, but infrastructure ROI is diffuse. A secure base layer benefits all applications, creating value that is impossible to capture for a single investor.
Evidence: The total value secured (TVS) by major audit firms like OpenZeppelin and Quantstamp is in the trillions, yet their combined funding is a fraction of a single hyped L2's Series A.
takeaways
VC MISALLOCATION IN BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY
Takeaways for Builders and Allocators
Capital is flooding into redundant, low-impact security layers while foundational, high-leverage primitives remain underfunded.
01
The Problem: The Bridge Security Mirage
VCs have poured $1B+ into competing bridge protocols like LayerZero and Axelar, creating fragmented liquidity and systemic risk. The real security bottleneck is the underlying messaging layer, not another application-layer bridge.
- Redundant Risk: Each new bridge adds another $100M+ attack surface.
- Capital Inefficiency: Funds are spent on marketing and integrations, not cryptographic innovation.
- Solution Path: Allocate to secure cross-chain state proofs (zkBridge, Succinct) and shared security layers (EigenLayer, Babylon).
$1B+
VC Capital
50+
Major Bridges
02
The Solution: Fund the Base Layer, Not the Façade
Security is a vertical stack. Capital is misallocated to the top (applications) instead of the base (cryptography). The highest leverage is in ZK proving systems, secure multi-party computation (MPC), and trusted execution environments (TEEs).
- Exponential Leverage: A 10% improvement in proof generation speed (e.g., RISC Zero, Succinct) benefits every ZK-rollup.
- Underfunded Primitive: TEE-based oracles (HyperOracle) and MPC networks receive <5% of bridge funding but secure $10B+ in DeFi TVL.
- Action: Shift focus from 'who has the most integrations' to 'who has the best crypto-economic security model'.
10x
Leverage Multiplier
<5%
Primitive Funding
03
The Metric: Security Per Dollar Deployed
VCs evaluate teams and TAM, not security ROI. The correct metric is economic security per dollar of capital at risk. A $50M raise for a new L2 with a $200M TVL is inefficient versus a $10M raise for a shared sequencer securing $2B in rollup volume.
- Misaligned Incentives: Fundraises are sized for runway, not for the capital required to honestly secure the network.
- Better Heuristic: Compare TVL Secured / VC Raised. Protocols like EigenLayer and Espresso Systems score orders of magnitude higher.
- Builder Takeaway: Design for capital efficiency in your cryptoeconomics; it's your most defensible moat.
TVL / $ Raised
Key Metric
20x
Efficiency Gap
04
The Reality: Active Security > Passive Staking
$40B+ is locked in passive L1/L2 staking, providing minimal incremental security. Meanwhile, active security services—like slashing-enabled validation for rollups, oracles, and bridges—are starved. This is where EigenLayer's restaking model correctly aligns incentives.
- Passive Glut: Ethereum staking yields are compressed to ~3%, indicating capital saturation.
- Active Deficit: High-slash, high-yield services for AVSs (Actively Validated Services) are the new frontier.
- Allocator Mandate: Fund protocols that convert idle stake into productive, slashed security for critical infrastructure.
$40B+
Passive Stake
~3%
Yield Saturation
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