Direct Control over AVSs, as exemplified by protocols like EigenLayer, excels at providing tangible governance power because operators actively manage node software and security parameters. For example, a protocol like EigenDA or Omni Network can directly vote on slashing conditions, upgrade paths, and fee structures, influencing the AVS's economic and technical roadmap directly. This hands-on model is critical for protocols whose core value proposition is tightly coupled with the underlying infrastructure's performance and policy.
LABS
Comparisons
Direct Control over AVSs vs Indirect Exposure to AVSs: Influence
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects on the trade-offs between direct governance and operator selection in native restaking versus passive exposure through Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs).
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Governance Dilemma in Restaking
Choosing between direct AVS control and indirect exposure hinges on your protocol's need for governance influence versus operational simplicity.
Indirect Exposure to AVSs, through mechanisms like liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) from Kelp DAO, Renzo, or Ether.Fi, takes a different approach by abstracting operator management. This results in a significant trade-off: users gain diversified exposure and liquidity but cede direct governance influence. The LRT protocol's governance (e.g., EigenLayer's eigenlayer.eth multisig or LRT DAO votes) makes aggregate decisions on AVS allocations and risk parameters, which individual restakers must accept.
The key trade-off: If your priority is protocol-level sovereignty and direct influence over the security and economics of your chosen infrastructure, choose a Direct Control model. If you prioritize capital efficiency, diversification, and minimizing operational overhead, choose an Indirect Exposure strategy via LRTs. The former suits foundational protocol architects; the latter suits integrators and applications seeking composable yield.
tldr-summary
Direct Control vs. Indirect Exposure
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of governance and economic influence models for Active Validation Services (AVSs) on EigenLayer.
01
Direct Control (e.g., Native Restaking)
Full Governance & Slashing Authority: Operators have direct voting power and slashing rights over the AVSs they secure. This matters for protocols requiring deep technical alignment, like a new L2's sequencer set or a cross-chain bridge's validator committee.
02
Direct Control (e.g., Native Restaking)
Tailored Risk & Reward Optimization: Operators can perform due diligence on each AVS, selecting for specific slashing conditions and reward rates. This matters for sophisticated stakers building a custom portfolio, balancing yield against code audit quality and economic security.
03
Indirect Exposure (e.g., via LSTs/LRTs)
Capital Efficiency & Liquidity: Users gain AVS exposure without locking capital or managing node ops, via liquid tokens like stETH or ether.fi's eETH. This matters for DeFi users and funds who prioritize composability and need to use restaked assets in protocols like Aave, Curve, or Pendle.
04
Indirect Exposure (e.g., via LSTs/LRTs)
Professionalized Risk Management: Delegation to expert node operators (e.g., Figment, Chorus One) who handle AVS selection and slashing monitoring. This matters for institutions and passive holders who lack the technical bandwidth to evaluate individual AVS smart contract risk.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON: INFLUENCE OVER AVS OPERATIONS
Feature Comparison: Direct Control vs. Indirect Exposure
Direct comparison of governance, risk, and operational control mechanisms for AVS (Actively Validated Services) integration.
| Metric | Direct Control (e.g., EigenLayer) | Indirect Exposure (e.g., Restaking Vaults) |
|---|---|---|
Direct Governance Voting Rights | ||
AVS Operator Selection & Slashing | Validator-level control | Vault manager discretion |
AVS Reward Claim & Distribution | Direct to staker | Through vault share (e.g., 10-20% fee) |
Protocol-Specific Risk Management | Customizable per AVS | Aggregated pool risk |
Capital Efficiency for Exposure | Capital locked per AVS | Single stake, multi-AVS exposure |
Technical Overhead for Staker | High (run nodes, monitor) | Low (delegate to vault) |
Time to Adjust AVS Allocations | Immediate (self-custody) | Vault withdrawal period (e.g., 7 days) |
pros-cons-a
Direct Control vs. Indirect Exposure
Pros and Cons: Direct Control over AVSs
Key strengths and trade-offs for teams deciding between building/managing their own AVS or leveraging pooled security models.
01
Direct Control: Protocol-Level Sovereignty
Full autonomy over slashing conditions and upgrades: You define the rules (e.g., EigenLayer's slashing contract). This is critical for highly specialized protocols like Lagrange (ZK coprocessors) or Hyperlane (interoperability) that require custom fault proofs.
02
Direct Control: Tailored Economic Security
Optimize for your specific risk/reward profile: Set your own stake requirements and reward schedules. For example, a high-value bridging AVS might mandate 10x higher stake than a data availability layer, directly aligning security with the value at risk.
03
Indirect Exposure: Capital Efficiency
Leverage pooled security without overhead: Access shared validator sets from networks like EigenLayer or Babylon. This reduces the bootstrapping cost from millions to thousands, ideal for early-stage projects like AltLayer rollups or Oracles (e.g., Pyth) seeking rapid launch.
04
Indirect Exposure: Operational Simplicity
Offload validator management and slashing enforcement: Rely on established ecosystems (e.g., EigenLayer's cryptoeconomic security) to handle node operations. This reduces DevOps burden for teams focused on core dApp logic, such as social or gaming protocols.
05
Direct Control: Cons - High Overhead & Cost
Significant resource commitment required: You must bootstrap and manage your own validator set, slashing logic, and monitoring tools. This can incur >$500K+ in initial staking capital and ongoing engineering costs, a barrier for all but the best-funded teams.
06
Indirect Exposure: Cons - Shared Risk & Generic Rules
Subject to ecosystem-wide failures and one-size-fits-all parameters: A slashing event in another AVS (e.g., an oracle fault) can impact your security. You also cede control over upgrade timing and economic policy, which may not fit novel use cases.
pros-cons-b
INFLUENCE OVER AVS SELECTION
Pros and Cons: Direct Control vs. Indirect Exposure via LRTs
Evaluating the trade-offs between direct staker governance and passive exposure through Liquid Restaking Tokens (LRTs) like Ether.fi's eETH, Renzo's ezETH, and Kelp's rsETH.
01
Direct Control: Strategic AVS Curation
Full governance rights: Direct stakers vote on AVS slashing conditions, fee structures, and upgrades. This matters for protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon where early AVS selection can yield outsized rewards and strategic alignment.
02
Direct Control: Tailored Risk/Reward
Precise risk management: Choose specific AVSs (e.g., Omni Network for interoperability, EigenDA for data availability) to build a custom portfolio. This is critical for institutional operators managing specific risk tolerances and yield targets.
03
Indirect Exposure (LRTs): Delegate to Specialists
Professional operator selection: LRT protocols like Ether.fi and Renzo employ dedicated teams to vet AVSs, optimize points strategies, and manage slashing risk. This matters for developers and DAOs who lack the bandwidth for constant AVS monitoring.
04
Indirect Exposure (LRTs): Liquidity & Composability
Instant liquidity and DeFi integration: Tokens like ezETH and rsETH can be used as collateral on platforms like Aave, Pendle, and Curve immediately. This is essential for yield farmers and leveraged strategies seeking capital efficiency beyond native restaking.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Approach
Direct Control over AVSs for Protocol Architects
Verdict: The default choice for foundational infrastructure. Strengths: Full autonomy over security parameters, slashing conditions, and upgrade paths. Enables building custom middleware like decentralized sequencers (e.g., Espresso, Astria), oracle networks (e.g., HyperOracle), or specialized VMs. Direct integration with EigenLayer's cryptoeconomic security allows for bespoke, high-value services like shared sequencers for rollups. Trade-offs: Requires significant in-house R&D, operational overhead for node management, and deep expertise in cryptoeconomics. You are responsible for your AVS's security and liveness.
Indirect Exposure to AVSs for Protocol Architects
Verdict: A powerful tool for rapid feature integration. Strengths: Leverage existing, battle-tested AVSs as composable modules. For example, integrate a pre-built data availability layer or oracle without running nodes. Dramatically reduces development time and complexity, allowing you to focus on core application logic. Trade-offs: You inherit the risk profile and upgrade schedule of the AVS operator. Less control over fee structures and potential for integration bottlenecks.
AVS INFLUENCE
Technical Deep Dive: Mechanism and Implementation
This section breaks down the fundamental architectural choice between directly managing an Active Validation Service (AVS) versus integrating with one, analyzing the trade-offs in control, risk, and operational overhead for protocol architects.
Direct control means you operate the AVS software, while indirect exposure means you rely on a third-party operator. With direct control, your protocol runs its own validator set for services like EigenLayer, managing slashing conditions and upgrades directly. Indirect exposure involves staking your protocol's native token or liquidity into an existing AVS, like using Ether.fi's eETH to gain exposure to EigenLayer's security without running infrastructure. The former offers maximal influence; the latter offers convenience.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Strategic Recommendations for Builders
A final assessment of the architectural trade-offs between direct AVS control and indirect AVS exposure, guiding strategic infrastructure decisions.
Direct Control over AVSs excels at protocol sovereignty and performance optimization because builders manage the entire stack, from the consensus client to the execution environment. For example, protocols like EigenLayer allow operators to run AVSs like EigenDA with configurable parameters, enabling bespoke data availability guarantees and slashing conditions tailored to a dApp's specific risk model. This hands-on approach is critical for high-stakes DeFi protocols or gaming ecosystems where predictable latency and custom security are non-negotiable.
Indirect Exposure to AVSs takes a different approach by leveraging aggregated security through liquid restaking tokens (LRTs). This strategy results in a significant trade-off between ease of integration and granular control. Builders integrate with platforms like Renzo, Kelp DAO, or Ether.fi, gaining exposure to a basket of AVSs (e.g., EigenDA, AltLayer, NearDA) without operational overhead. However, this abstracts away the ability to influence individual AVS parameters or slashing logic, relying on the LRT provider's curation and risk management.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum control, custom security models, and performance tuning for a mission-critical application, choose Direct Control. This path suits CTOs building novel L1s, high-frequency DeFi, or infrastructure protocols. If you prioritize rapid development, diversified security exposure, and minimizing DevOps complexity, choose Indirect Exposure via LRTs. This is optimal for application-layer teams launching on EVM L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism who need reliable data availability without building a validator set.
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