EigenDA vs Arbitrum AnyTrust (BOLD): Restaked DA vs. Optimistic Rollup Committee DA

Blob-based pricing: Inherits Ethereum's blob fee market, offering significantly lower costs (~$0.10 per MB) than calldata. This matters for high-throughput applications like gaming or social feeds where posting large data batches is critical.

Integrated L2 stack: Offers a full, battle-tested rollup client (Nitro) with a single security model, tooling (The Graph, Blockscout), and wallet support. This matters for projects prioritizing rapid deployment and a smooth dev/user experience over modular flexibility.

Radically lower cost per byte: Built on Ethereum's restaking security, EigenDA decouples data availability costs from mainnet gas fees. This enables 10-100x cheaper DA for high-volume rollups like Layer 2s and Hyperchains. This matters for protocols like Mantle Network or Celo that require massive, sustained data posting for sub-cent transaction fees.

Security via economic restaking: Leverages the pooled security of EigenLayer, with $15B+ in restaked ETH securing the network. Slashing conditions punish operators for data withholding. This matters for applications like perpetuals DEXs (e.g., Hyperliquid) or high-value NFT markets where data liveness is as critical as consensus security.

Native, seamless DA for Arbitrum stack: AnyTrust is the default DA layer for Arbitrum AnyTrust chains (like Nova) and a configurable option for Orbit chains. It offers sub-second finality for data posts and is proven at scale, supporting $1B+ TVL on Nova. This matters for teams building an Arbitrum Orbit L3 who prioritize a fully integrated, supported stack from a single provider.

Committee-based model with fallback: Relies on a trusted committee (DAC) for fast data posting, with a fallback to posting full data to Ethereum L1 if the committee fails. This provides a practical balance of speed and robust security. This matters for gaming apps, social networks, or consumer dApps on Arbitrum Nova that need low latency and high throughput without the complexity of managing cryptoeconomic security.

You are building a high-throughput sovereign rollup or L2 and cost is the primary constraint. You are comfortable with emerging cryptoeconomic security models and want maximum alignment with Ethereum's validator set. Ideal for: General-purpose L2s, Data-intensive L3s, New rollup stacks.

You are building within the Arbitrum ecosystem (Orbit/Nova) and want a tightly integrated, production-ready DA solution. You prefer a simpler trust model with a reputable committee and value the safety net of an Ethereum L1 fallback. Ideal for: Arbitrum Orbit L3s, Gaming/Social dApps, Projects migrating from Arbitrum Nova.

Specific advantage: Sub-cent transaction costs at 10+ MB/s data throughput, leveraging Ethereum's pooled security via EigenLayer restaking. This matters for high-volume, cost-sensitive applications like gaming, social feeds, and microtransactions where traditional rollup calldata fees are prohibitive.

Specific advantage: Data availability confirmed by a trusted committee (DAC) in seconds, not waiting for Ethereum block confirmations. This matters for applications requiring near-instant finality, such as high-frequency trading (HFT) DeFi, real-time gaming state updates, or payment channels where user experience is critical.

Specific disadvantage: Security is cryptoeconomic via slashing on restaked ETH, not Ethereum's full consensus. While robust, it introduces a new trust model distinct from L1 settlement. This matters for ultra-conservative DeFi protocols (e.g., multi-billion dollar money markets) that may prefer the maximal security of Ethereum calldata.

Specific disadvantage: Relies on honesty of a Data Availability Committee (DAC). While members are reputable (e.g., Google Cloud, Quicknode), it's a weaker trust model than Ethereum or EigenLayer's decentralized set. This matters for permissionless purists and applications where committee collusion (however unlikely) is an unacceptable risk.