Why Shared Security Models Dilute Rollup Token Value

Rollups using Ethereum for DA but Celestia for cheaper data availability create a value leak. The rollup token captures only transaction fees, while the underlying data value accrues to $TIA stakers. This bifurcates the security budget and commoditizes the rollup's core service.

• Value Leak: Data availability fees flow to an external chain.
• Weakened Moats: Competing rollups using the same DA layer become near-identical commodities.

Relying on canonical bridges from LayerZero or Axelar cedes control of the primary liquidity gateway. The rollup's token cannot capture fees from the critical bridging activity, which instead accrues to the bridge protocol's token ($ZRO, $AXL). This externalizes network effects.

• Value Leak: Bridging fees and message fees are extracted externally.
• Vendor Lock-in: The rollup's security depends on a third-party's validator set.

Arbitrum and zkSync demonstrate that controlling the full stack—sequencer, prover, bridge, and DA—creates a unified fee sink. All economic activity (gas, proving, bridging) is payable in and benefits the native token, creating a strong fee capture flywheel and sustainable security budget.

• Value Accrual: All L2 fees (gas, sequencing) are burned or go to the DAO treasury.
• Strong Moats: Full-stack control enables unique feature development and sticky liquidity.

Using a shared sequencer network like Astria or Espresso outsources the most profitable and strategically critical component. The rollup surrenders MEV capture and transaction ordering to a third party, whose token ($ASTRIA) captures the economic rent. This reduces the rollup to a mere execution environment.

• Value Leak: MEV and sequencing revenue is extracted.
• Strategic Risk: Cedes control over user experience and censorship resistance.

Celestia-based rollups and EigenLayer AVSs embrace shared security for bootstrapping but plan a pivot. The model uses cheap, external security to launch, then uses accrued fees to bootstrap an independent validator set (e.g., via restaking or a dedicated token). This is a time-bound subsidy, not a permanent leak.

• Strategy: Use shared security as a subsidy, not a dependency.
• Endgame: Transition to a captured fee model after achieving scale.

A rollup token that does not capture fees is a governance token with weak fundamentals, akin to Uniswap's $UNI. A token that captures fees is a product token with intrinsic cash flows, akin to Ethereum's $ETH. Shared security models overwhelmingly produce the former, diluting long-term value.

• Weak Model: Token votes on treasury funds only.
• Strong Model: Token is the required payment for core network services.

Using EigenLayer or AltLayer for security outsources your most critical function. Your token's utility is reduced to governance and fee payment, competing with hundreds of other rollups for the same pooled security.\n- Value Capture: Security spend flows to restakers (e.g., EigenLayer operators), not your token holders.\n- Differentiation: Your chain is just another config file on a shared sequencer set.

Maximize token utility by vertically integrating the stack. Force users and builders to bond your token for core services like data availability and transaction ordering.\n- Celestia/EigenDA Alternative: Use your token to pay for a dedicated, token-validated data availability committee.\n- Shared Sequencer Alternative: Run your own sequencer set with native token staking for liveness guarantees and MEV redistribution.

Treat services like EigenLayer, AltLayer, and Caldera as launchpads, not permanent infrastructure. The endgame is a sovereign chain where your token is the required collateral for the state machine.\n- Phase 1: Use shared security to reach $100M+ TVL and prove product-market fit.\n- Phase 2: Decouple. Fork the OP Stack or Arbitrum Nitro codebase and embed your token into the core protocol mechanics.