Shared Security Pools excel at maximizing capital efficiency and bootstrapping security for new chains. By aggregating restaked ETH from protocols like EigenLayer into a single, massive pool, they offer a high base level of security—often measured in billions in TVL—to all participating services. For example, a new L2 or oracle network can instantly access a security budget equivalent to Ethereum's economic weight, avoiding the cold-start problem. This model prioritizes broad, collective defense and simplified integration.
LABS
Comparisons
Shared Security Pools vs. Isolated Security Pools
A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing the capital efficiency and risk profiles of shared (multi-AVS) and isolated (single-AVS) restaking pool models.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Trade-off in Pooled Restaking
The fundamental choice between shared and isolated security models defines your protocol's risk, reward, and operational complexity.
Isolated Security Pools take a different approach by creating dedicated pools for specific applications or ecosystems, such as those managed by Babylon or dedicated AVS operators. This strategy results in a critical trade-off: it sacrifices some capital efficiency for superior risk isolation and tailored slashing conditions. A failure or attack on one application does not jeopardize the restaked assets in unrelated pools, protecting the broader ecosystem from contagion. This model grants operators and restakers precise control over their risk exposure.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid, cost-effective security bootstrapping and you operate in a trusted cohort, choose a Shared Security Pool. If you prioritize tailored slashing, risk containment, and regulatory clarity for a high-value application, choose an Isolated Security Pool. The decision hinges on whether you value the network effects of pooled capital or the sovereignty of dedicated security.
tldr-summary
Shared Security vs. Isolated Security
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the core architectural trade-offs between pooled and sovereign security models.
01
Shared Security (e.g., Rollups on Ethereum, Polkadot Parachains)
Inherited security from a base layer: Validators/stakers of the parent chain (e.g., Ethereum's 30M+ ETH staked) secure all connected chains. This matters for rapid deployment of new chains that need battle-tested security from day one without bootstrapping a new validator set.
30M+ ETH
Securing Assets
~$0
Validator Bootstrapping Cost
02
Isolated Security (e.g., Cosmos App-Chains, Avalanche Subnets)
Sovereign economic security: Each chain maintains its own validator set, allowing for full customization of consensus (e.g., Tendermint, Avalanche) and tokenomics. This matters for niche applications requiring specific hardware, governance, or fee models that a shared environment cannot provide.
100%
Consensus Control
Variable
Security Budget
03
Shared Security: Cost & Predictability
Fixed, predictable operational costs: Pay for security via fees or revenue sharing with the base layer (e.g., Ethereum L1 gas, Polkadot slot auctions). This matters for budget-conscious projects that prefer a known, recurring OpEx over the variable CapEx of incentivizing a sovereign validator set.
04
Isolated Security: Flexibility & Sovereignty
Unconstrained technical and economic design: Choose your VM (CosmWasm, EVM, Move), finality time, and token utility for staking/fees. This matters for high-performance dApps (e.g., gaming, DeFi with MEV capture) and enterprise chains that require complete control over their stack and governance.
05
Shared Security: Ecosystem Alignment
Native composability and liquidity flow: Built-in trust-minimized bridges to the hub chain's ecosystem (e.g., Ethereum's L2s via native bridges, Polkadot's XCM). This matters for DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap that thrive on deep, portable liquidity and shared user bases.
06
Isolated Security: Risk Containment
Fault isolation: A bug or exploit is typically contained to the app-chain, protecting the broader ecosystem. This matters for experimental protocols or regulated finance applications where a failure must not cascade to unrelated chains, providing a critical safety boundary.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Shared Security vs. Isolated Security Pools
Direct comparison of security, economic, and operational models for blockchain infrastructure.
| Metric | Shared Security Pools (e.g., Cosmos Hub, Polkadot) | Isolated Security Pools (e.g., Ethereum L2s, Avalanche Subnets) |
|---|---|---|
Security Source | Parent Chain Validators (e.g., ATOM stakers) | Dedicated Validator Set |
Capital Efficiency | High (reuses staked capital) | Low (requires new staking capital) |
Sovereignty & Control | Low (governed by parent chain) | High (independent governance) |
Time to Launch | < 1 week (using SDK) |
|
Cross-Chain Composability | ||
Validator Slashing Risk | Shared across all chains | Isolated to the subnet/L2 |
Typical Annual Staking Yield | 7-12% (from pool) | 15-25% (new chain premium) |
pros-cons-a
Shared vs. Isolated Security
Shared Security Pools: Advantages and Drawbacks
A data-driven comparison of pooled security models (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) versus traditional, isolated validator sets. Key trade-offs for CTOs evaluating protocol dependencies.
01
Shared Security: Capital Efficiency
Re-staking unlocks multiplicative security: Validators on Ethereum (~$80B TVL) can secure additional protocols like EigenDA or Omni Network without new capital. This creates a higher security floor for new chains versus bootstrapping a small, isolated validator set. Critical for fast-launching L2s and AVSs.
$80B+
Base Security Pool
03
Isolated Security: Tailored Consensus
Full control over validator incentives and slashing: Chains like Solana or Avalanche C-Chain optimize their consensus (Sealevel, Snowman++) for specific throughput (e.g., 5k+ TPS) and finality (<1 sec). This prevents shared risk contagion from unrelated protocol failures in a pooled system.
< 1 sec
Tailored Finality
04
Isolated Security: Sovereign Economics
Direct capture of security spend: All staking rewards and MEV accrue to the chain's native token holders and validators, fueling a self-reinforcing economic loop. This is preferable for protocols like dYdX Chain that require deep, dedicated liquidity and avoid the fee leakage of paying a shared security provider.
05
Shared Security: Systemic Risk
Introduces correlated failure modes: A catastrophic slashing event or bug in a major AVS (e.g., an oracle) could impact all restaked ETH, creating unpredictable cascading risks. This complexity demands rigorous, cross-protocol monitoring, a challenge for isolated chains.
06
Isolated Security: Bootstrapping Cost
High initial capital and time to secure: New L1s must attract significant token value (often $1B+ TVL) to achieve credible neutrality, a major hurdle. This often leads to centralized foundation staking in early stages, a trade-off avoided by tapping into Ethereum's established validator set.
$1B+
Typical Security Target
pros-cons-b
SHARED SECURITY VS. ISOLATED SECURITY
Isolated Security Pools: Advantages and Drawbacks
A technical breakdown of the core trade-offs between pooled validator sets and sovereign security models for blockchain architects.
01
Shared Security (e.g., Rollups, Polkadot Parachains)
Inherited Economic Security: Chains inherit the full validator stake of the parent chain (e.g., Ethereum's ~$100B+ staked ETH). This matters for high-value DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap V4 deployments that require maximum liveness and censorship resistance guarantees.
$100B+
Economic Security
~12 sec
Finality (Ethereum)
02
Shared Security Drawbacks
Limited Sovereignty & Congestion Risk: Execution is constrained by the host chain's rules and capacity. A surge on a major L2 like Arbitrum can increase fees for all chains in its ecosystem. This matters for niche app-chains needing custom fee markets or execution environments that diverge from the host (e.g., a gaming chain with free transactions).
Shared
Throughput Ceiling
03
Isolated Security (e.g., Cosmos Zones, Avalanche Subnets)
Full Sovereignty & Optimized Performance: Chains control their own validator set, virtual machine, and fee logic. This enables tailored optimization, like a DEX chain using a parallelized SVM for sub-second swaps or a privacy chain using custom ZK-circuits without host chain constraints.
10,000+
Max TPS (Optimized)
Custom
Fee Token
04
Isolated Security Drawbacks
Bootstrapping & Security Fragmentation: Requires recruiting and incentivizing a dedicated validator set from scratch, leading to lower initial security (often <$100M TVL). This matters for new protocols competing for staking capital in a crowded market, creating a significant attack surface during the launch phase.
$10M-$100M
Typical Bootstrapped TVL
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Shared Security Pools for DeFi
Verdict: The Default Choice for Mainnet-Grade Apps. Strengths: Inherited security from a high-value base chain (e.g., Ethereum via rollups, Cosmos Hub via Interchain Security) provides unparalleled trust for high-value, composable applications like Aave, Uniswap, or Compound. This model attracts massive TVL and sophisticated users, as seen with Arbitrum and Optimism. The shared economic security minimizes the risk of a catastrophic chain halt due to a localized validator attack. Weaknesses: Throughput and fee markets are coupled to the underlying chain's congestion. Transaction costs can spike during network-wide demand.
Isolated Security Pools for DeFi
Verdict: Niche Use for Specialized, High-Throughput Needs. Strengths: Sovereign chains like dYdX Chain or Sei can optimize their stack entirely for a specific DeFi primitive (e.g., orderbook DEX), achieving ultra-low latency and predictable fees. They avoid the fee volatility of the shared base layer. Weaknesses: Bootstrapping validator security and liquidity is a massive undertaking. The chain's safety is only as strong as its own, often smaller, validator set and token economics, presenting a higher tail risk for users holding large positions.
SHARED SECURITY POOLS VS. ISOLATED SECURITY POOLS
Technical Deep Dive: Slashing Mechanics and AVS Compatibility
Choosing between shared and isolated security models is a foundational architectural decision. This comparison analyzes their slashing mechanics, economic security, and compatibility with Actively Validated Services (AVS) like EigenLayer, Babylon, and Hyperliquid.
Isolated pools offer stronger, more predictable slashing guarantees. In an isolated model, a validator's stake is only at risk for the specific AVS or rollup it secures, creating a direct, high-consequence bond. Shared pools, like those in EigenLayer's restaking, aggregate risk; slashing for a failure in one AVS (e.g., a data availability layer) can impact stakers across many unrelated services. This pooled risk can dilute the economic penalty for any single fault, though it provides broader cryptoeconomic security for the ecosystem.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between shared and isolated security models is a foundational decision that dictates your protocol's sovereignty, cost, and long-term viability.
Shared Security Pools, exemplified by Ethereum's EigenLayer and Cosmos' Interchain Security (ICS), excel at providing robust, battle-tested security for new chains and services by leveraging the economic weight of an established validator set. For example, a rollup secured by EigenLayer inherits the full security of Ethereum's ~$100B+ staked ETH, drastically reducing the capital and time required to bootstrap a credible threat model. This model is ideal for protocols where security is the non-negotiable top priority and developer resources are better spent on application logic rather than validator recruitment and slashing mechanics.
Isolated Security Pools, the model used by sovereign chains like Solana, Avalanche's Subnets, and standalone Cosmos SDK chains, take a different approach by granting complete autonomy. This results in a critical trade-off: you gain full control over the validator set, fee market, and governance, but you must independently bootstrap and maintain a competitive security budget. A chain like dYdX V4, which migrated to its own Cosmos app-chain, now controls its entire fee revenue and upgrade path, but its security is directly tied to the value and performance of its native DYDX token.
The key trade-off is sovereignty versus security leverage and cost. If your priority is maximum security from day one, predictable operational costs, and rapid deployment, choose a Shared Security Pool like EigenLayer for Ethereum-aligned apps or ICS for the Cosmos ecosystem. If you prioritize absolute sovereignty, customizability of the stack (e.g., virtual machine, fee token), and long-term value capture for your native token, choose an Isolated Security model, prepared for the significant upfront and ongoing effort of validator incentivization and network defense.
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