AVS-Specific Token Emissions excel at creating targeted, high-octane growth loops by directly aligning token rewards with protocol participation. For example, an oracle AVS like RedStone or a rollup sequencer set can bootstrap a dedicated validator set and user base by offering its native token as staking rewards, creating a powerful flywheel for early adoption. This model provides maximum control over the economic parameters and security budget of the AVS itself.
LABS
Comparisons
AVS-Specific Token Emissions vs Shared Restaking Pool Emissions
A technical and economic comparison for protocol architects and CTOs deciding between issuing a native AVS token or relying on a shared restaking pool for security provider incentives.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Economic Design Decision for AVS Builders
Choosing between dedicated token incentives and pooled security is the foundational economic choice that defines an AVS's growth, security, and capital efficiency.
Shared Restaking Pool Emissions take a different approach by leveraging the pooled economic security of a platform like EigenLayer or Babylon. This results in superior capital efficiency for operators (who can restake the same ETH or other assets across multiple AVSs) and faster security bootstrapping for the AVS, but introduces shared risk and competition for stake within the pool. The AVS pays in a liquid restaked token (e.g., LRTs like eigenPIE or ether.fi's eETH) rather than its own, often illiquid, token.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereign economic design and aggressive, dedicated community bootstrapping, choose a dedicated token emission model. If you prioritize rapid security acquisition, capital efficiency for operators, and avoiding the overhead of bootstrapping a new token economy from zero, choose the shared restaking pool model. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether you need a custom economic engine or prefer to plug into an existing security marketplace.
tldr-summary
AVS-Specific vs. Shared Pool Emissions
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of token emission models for decentralized networks, highlighting core trade-offs in incentives, security, and complexity.
01
AVS-Specific Emissions: Tailored Incentives
Direct alignment: Each Actively Validated Service (AVS) mints its own token (e.g., EigenLayer, AltLayer) to reward operators for its specific service. This creates a direct, high-stakes bond between the AVS's success and its stakers. Best for new protocols needing to bootstrap a dedicated, high-loyalty security pool and community.
02
AVS-Specific Emissions: Protocol Sovereignty
Full economic control: The AVS team retains complete control over tokenomics, inflation schedule, and governance. This allows for agile adjustments to respond to market conditions or attack vectors. Best for projects with complex, evolving security requirements that demand fine-tuned economic policy.
03
AVS-Specific Emissions: High Bootstrapping Friction
Cold-start problem: New AVSs must attract capital and operators from scratch against established competitors, creating a significant launch barrier. Liquidity for the new token is initially low. Worst for simple middleware or services where shared security is sufficient and speed-to-market is critical.
04
Shared Pool Emissions: Capital Efficiency
Liquidity flywheel: Operators restake a base asset (e.g., ETH, stETH) into a shared pool (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) and can simultaneously secure multiple AVSs, earning aggregated fees. This maximizes yield for stakers and lowers capital costs for AVSs. Best for AVSs prioritizing rapid adoption and leveraging the security of an established asset.
05
Shared Pool Emissions: Faster Integration
Plug-and-play security: AVSs can tap into an existing pool of billions in restaked capital and a ready set of node operators, drastically reducing time-to-security. Best for rollups (e.g., leveraging EigenDA), oracles (e.g., eoracle), and bridges needing instant, credible security.
06
Shared Pool Emissions: Shared Risk & Slashing Complexity
Correlated slashing risk: A fault in one AVS can lead to slashing penalties across the shared pool, creating systemic risk. Designing and enforcing fair, multi-AVS slashing logic is a major technical challenge. Worst for highly experimental or high-risk AVSs where failure could undermine confidence in the entire shared ecosystem.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
AVS-Specific Token Emissions vs Shared Restaking Pool Emissions
Direct comparison of token emission models for securing Actively Validated Services (AVSs) in restaking ecosystems.
| Metric | AVS-Specific Emissions | Shared Pool Emissions |
|---|---|---|
Emission Control & Targeting | Direct to AVS stakers | Pro-rata to pool stakers |
Capital Efficiency for AVS | High (targeted incentives) | Low (diluted incentives) |
Staker Flexibility | Low (requires commitment) | High (single stake, multiple AVSs) |
AVS Bootstrap Speed | Fast (direct reward pull) | Slower (requires pool adoption) |
Emission Sourcing | AVS treasury / token | Pool rewards / protocol treasury |
Slashing Risk Isolation | ||
Typical Use Case | High-security, specialized AVSs (e.g., EigenDA, Omni) | General-purpose, interoperable AVSs |
pros-cons-a
Comparing Emission Strategies
Pros and Cons: AVS-Specific Token Emissions
A direct comparison of token emission models for Actively Validated Services (AVS). Choose between targeted incentives and shared security.
01
AVS-Specific Emissions: Pros
Direct Incentive Alignment: Emissions are tied directly to the AVS's native token, creating a powerful flywheel for its specific ecosystem. This matters for bootstrapping new networks like EigenDA or Omni Network, where initial staker/operator participation is critical.
Precise Economic Control: AVS developers can fine-tune tokenomics (e.g., emission schedules, slashing conditions) without external coordination. This is essential for protocols with unique security needs or those competing on service quality.
02
AVS-Specific Emissions: Cons
Liquidity Fragmentation: Each AVS creates a new, often illiquid token, increasing complexity and volatility for operators. This is a major hurdle for operators managing a diversified portfolio across multiple AVSs.
Higher Bootstrapping Cost: The AVS team must design, audit, and market a new token from scratch, a significant upfront capital and time investment. This is a barrier for lean teams or MVP-stage projects.
03
Shared Pool Emissions: Pros
Capital Efficiency for Operators: Operators earn rewards in a single, high-liquidity token (e.g., ETH, LSTs, EigenLayer points), simplifying portfolio management and reducing volatility risk. This is optimal for large node operators or institutional stakers seeking a consolidated yield stream.
Reduced AVS Launch Friction: New AVSs can tap into an existing pool of secured capital without creating a token, accelerating time-to-market. Ideal for infrastructure-focused AVSs like oracles (e.g., a potential Chainlink AVS) or interoperability layers.
04
Shared Pool Emissions: Cons
Weaker AVS-Specific Incentives: Rewards are not directly tied to the AVS's success, potentially leading to mercenary capital that chases the highest yield pool, not the best-performing service.
Governance and Value Capture Challenges: The AVS may struggle to build a dedicated community or capture value for its developers if all rewards flow to a third-party token. This is a critical trade-off for AVSs aiming to become standalone ecosystems with their own governance.
pros-cons-b
AVS-Specific vs. Shared Pool
Pros and Cons: Shared Restaking Pool Emissions
Key strengths and trade-offs for two dominant token distribution models in restaking. Choose based on your AVS's stage, tokenomics, and growth strategy.
01
AVS-Specific Emissions: Pro
Direct Incentive Alignment: Emissions are exclusively directed to operators and stakers of your specific AVS. This creates a powerful, targeted flywheel for bootstrapping security and usage, as seen with EigenDA and Omni Network. This matters for new protocols needing to attract a dedicated security base.
02
AVS-Specific Emissions: Con
High Bootstrapping Cost & Fragmentation: Requires significant upfront token treasury to fund emissions. Competing for operator attention against established AVS can be expensive, leading to liquidity fragmentation and inefficient capital allocation across the ecosystem.
03
Shared Pool Emissions: Pro
Capital Efficiency & Unified Security: Emissions are distributed from a collective pool (e.g., EigenLayer's restaked ETH pool) to all integrated AVSs. This dramatically lowers the bootstrapping cost for new AVSs and creates a shared security moat, similar to how Cosmos Hub secures consumer chains. This matters for rapid ecosystem expansion and cost-conscious builders.
04
Shared Pool Emissions: Con
Reduced Direct Incentive & "Free Rider" Risk: Emissions are diluted across many AVSs, weakening the direct reward link for securing any single service. High-performing AVSs may subsidize the security of less-used ones, creating potential moral hazard. This matters for AVSs requiring guaranteed, high-spec security like a decentralized sequencer.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
AVS-Specific Token Emissions for Architects
Verdict: Choose for maximum control and economic alignment. Strengths: Directly aligns staker incentives with your AVS's security and performance. Enables custom tokenomics (e.g., inflationary rewards for early bootstrapping, fee-sharing models). Provides a dedicated security budget and a native asset for governance (e.g., EigenLayer's native restaking for a new ZK-Rollup). Trade-offs: Requires significant effort to bootstrap liquidity and value for a new token. Faces higher volatility and the cold-start problem. Examples: A novel L2 (e.g., a gaming-focused chain like Immutable) using its own token to reward validators.
Shared Restaking Pool Emissions for Architects
Verdict: Choose for rapid security bootstrapping and capital efficiency. Strengths: Instantly taps into Ethereum's established economic security (e.g., billions in ETH/LST restaked). Eliminates the need to bootstrap a new token economy from scratch. Simplifies the staker experience—one stake secures many services. Examples: A new oracle network or bridge (like Omni Network) leveraging EigenLayer's pooled security to launch with robust guarantees. Trade-offs: Less direct economic control; your AVS competes for attention within the pool. Rewards are denominated in the pooled asset (e.g., ETH, stETH), not a proprietary token.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between AVS-specific and shared pool tokenomics is a foundational decision for protocol security and growth.
AVS-Specific Token Emissions excel at creating direct, high-stakes alignment between a service and its restakers. By issuing a dedicated token (e.g., EigenLayer's eigen for its core services, or a hypothetical oracleAVS), the protocol can precisely target incentives to bootstrap its own security and community. This model has proven effective for new networks like Celestia, which used targeted TIA emissions to secure its data availability layer, achieving over $1B in restaked value dedicated to its specific use case. The direct economic link fosters a strong, vested ecosystem.
Shared Restaking Pool Emissions take a different approach by leveraging a unified, liquid staking token (like ezETH from Renzo or stETH). This strategy results in superior capital efficiency and composability for restakers, as a single stake can secure multiple AVSs simultaneously. However, the trade-off is a potential dilution of incentive alignment; restakers are economically motivated by the pool's aggregate yield, not the success of any single AVS. Protocols like EigenLayer's early-stage operators benefit from this liquidity but compete for attention within a generalized pool.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing dedicated security and cultivating a sovereign ecosystem for a novel, high-value service, choose AVS-Specific Emissions. This path is optimal for foundational infrastructure (DA layers, oracles) requiring deep, committed capital. If you prioritize rapid integration, leveraging existing liquidity, and minimizing friction for operators, choose a Shared Restaking Pool. This is the superior choice for applications where security is a commodity and time-to-market is critical, such as deploying a new bridge or middleware atop established networks like Ethereum or Cosmos.
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