Percentage-based fee models, as pioneered by protocols like EigenLayer, align protocol revenue directly with the value secured. Fees are a cut of the rewards generated by Actively Validated Services (AVSs), creating a powerful incentive for the protocol to attract high-quality, high-yield services. For example, a protocol charging a 10% fee on an AVS generating 15% APY for operators would earn 1.5% of the total restaked TVL. This model scales revenue with ecosystem success, making it ideal for fostering a diverse and valuable service marketplace.
LABS
Comparisons
Restaking Protocol Fee Models: Percentage-Based vs. Fixed-Fee
A technical analysis comparing revenue models for restaking protocols like EigenLayer, Babylon, and Karak. Evaluates alignment, scalability, and sustainability for AVS operators and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Economic Tension in Restaking
The choice between percentage-based and fixed-fee models defines the economic alignment and scalability of a restaking protocol.
Fixed-fee models, such as a flat ETH-denominated cost per AVS or operator, offer predictable, low-cost onboarding. This strategy results in a clear, upfront cost structure that is advantageous for bootstrapping new services with uncertain initial yield, like novel oracle networks or light-client bridges. The trade-off is that protocol revenue is decoupled from the economic success of the AVSs it secures, potentially capping long-term upside in favor of stability and accessibility for builders.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing protocol revenue alignment and incentivizing high-value AVS curation, a percentage-based model is superior. If you prioritize predictable costs and lowering barriers to entry for early-stage, experimental AVSs, a fixed-fee structure is the pragmatic choice. The decision fundamentally shapes whether the protocol optimizes for quality or quantity in its secured services.
tldr-summary
Restaking Protocol Fee Models
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the two dominant fee structures in restaking, highlighting their core operational and economic trade-offs.
01
Percentage-Based Model (e.g., EigenLayer)
Aligns incentives with protocol growth: Fees are a % of operator rewards or AVS revenue. This creates a direct, scalable revenue stream for the protocol as the ecosystem expands.
Ideal for: Protocols betting on massive, long-term Total Value Secured (TVL) growth and a diverse AVS (Actively Validated Service) marketplace.
02
Fixed-Fee Model (e.g., Babylon, Symbiotic)
Predictable costs for operators: A flat, upfront fee (e.g., in BTC or ETH) to secure an AVS. Eliminates variable cost uncertainty.
Ideal for: AVS teams with stable, forecastable budgets and protocols targeting institutional adoption where cost certainty is paramount.
03
Percentage-Based Drawback
Variable, uncapped costs for AVSs: As an AVS becomes more successful and generates more rewards, its fee burden increases proportionally. This can disincentivize high-reward applications.
Risk for: High-throughput AVSs like oracles (e.g., Chainlink) or rollups (e.g., Arbitrum) where fee overhead could become significant.
04
Fixed-Fee Drawback
Protocol revenue doesn't scale with usage: The protocol's income is capped per AVS, regardless of how much value it secures or revenue it generates. Early, low-usage AVS can be expensive.
Risk for: The restaking protocol itself if it fails to attract a high volume of new AVS deployments to drive growth.
RESTAKING FEE MODELS
Head-to-Head: Fee Model Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of percentage-based and fixed-fee models for restaking protocols.
| Metric / Feature | Percentage-Based Model | Fixed-Fee Model |
|---|---|---|
Fee Predictability for Operators | ||
Fee Predictability for Stakers | ||
Protocol Revenue at Scale (>$1B TVL) | Scales with TVL | Capped by usage |
Typical Fee Range | 5-20% of rewards | $50-$500 per AVS/month |
Incentive for High-Performance AVSs | High (revenue share) | Low (flat rate) |
Gas Cost Overhead | On-chain settlement per epoch | Off-chain billing common |
Primary Adoption Example | EigenLayer | AltLayer, Babylon |
pros-cons-a
RESTAKING FEE ARCHITECTURES
Percentage-Based vs. Fixed-Fee: Protocol Fee Models
A direct comparison of the two dominant fee models for restaking protocols, highlighting their economic incentives, scalability, and suitability for different network participants.
01
Percentage-Based: Protocol Scalability
Aligns protocol revenue with network growth: Fees scale directly with the Total Value Secured (TVS). For example, EigenLayer's 10% fee on operator rewards from a $20B TVS pool generates significant, sustainable revenue for protocol development and security. This matters for protocols aiming for long-term viability without constant governance votes to adjust rates.
$20B+
EigenLayer TVS
02
Percentage-Based: Stakeholder Alignment
Creates shared upside for restakers and the protocol: As operators earn more from Actively Validated Services (AVSs), both they and the protocol treasury benefit proportionally. This model is used by protocols like Karak and Symbiotic to incentivize the curation of high-quality, high-yield AVSs, fostering a healthier ecosystem.
03
Fixed-Fee: Predictable Costs
Provides cost certainty for operators and AVSs: A flat fee (e.g., 100 ETH/month) makes financial planning straightforward, regardless of slashing events or reward fluctuations. This matters for enterprise-grade AVSs like AltLayer or Omni Network that require stable operational overhead for budgeting and service pricing.
04
Fixed-Fee: Early-Stage Advantage
Lower barrier to entry for new AVSs: Before generating significant revenue, a new service isn't penalized by a percentage cut. Protocols like EigenDA initially benefit from this model, allowing them to bootstrap security and usage without a heavy fee burden. This matters for innovation and onboarding the next wave of restaked services.
05
Percentage-Based: Potential for Over-Extraction
Risk of disincentivizing operator participation at scale: As TVS grows into the tens of billions, a 10% fee can represent a massive absolute cost, potentially pushing operators to seek alternatives. This matters for protocols competing on operator loyalty and cost efficiency in a multi-protocol restaking landscape.
06
Fixed-Fee: Misaligned Incentives at Scale
Protocol fails to capture value from network growth: A protocol securing $100B in TVS collects the same fee as one securing $1B, capping its revenue and potentially underfunding security and development. This matters for long-term protocol competitiveness and its ability to fund critical upgrades and ecosystem grants.
pros-cons-b
RESTAKING FEE MODELS
Fixed-Fee Model: Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of the two dominant fee structures in restaking: percentage-based revenue sharing versus flat-rate fees. The choice impacts protocol revenue predictability, operator incentives, and ecosystem scalability.
01
Percentage-Based Model (e.g., EigenLayer)
Protocol-aligned incentives: Fees scale directly with Actively Validated Service (AVS) revenue, creating a strong flywheel. This matters for protocols seeking to maximize long-term value capture and align operator success with ecosystem growth.
>90%
Of major restakers
02
Percentage-Based Model (e.g., EigenLayer)
High revenue ceiling in bull markets: Captures a share of all AVS rewards (e.g., 10-20%). For a high-performing AVS like EigenDA or Omni Network, this can generate significantly more fees than a flat rate during peak demand.
03
Fixed-Fee Model (e.g., Babylon, Symbiotic)
Predictable costs & revenue: Operators pay or earn a known, fixed amount (e.g., 0.5 ETH/month). This matters for enterprise budgeting and stable protocol treasury forecasting, eliminating reward volatility risk.
$0.5M+
Predictable annual fee per 10K ETH staked
04
Fixed-Fee Model (e.g., Babylon, Symbiotic)
Lower barrier for small/experimental AVSs: New services like alt-L1 bridges or oracle networks can attract operators without promising a percentage of uncertain future revenue. This fosters ecosystem innovation and diversity.
05
Percentage-Based Drawback
Revenue volatility: Protocol income is tied to AVS performance and crypto market cycles. A bear market or AVS failure can lead to fee evaporation, impacting treasury sustainability for protocols like EigenLayer.
06
Fixed-Fee Drawback
Potential misalignment & ceiling: Operators may prioritize fee payment over AVS performance. High-fee AVSs can't share超额收益 with operators, potentially capping adoption for premium services compared to percentage-based rivals.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?
EigenLayer for DeFi
Verdict: The Strategic Choice for Deep Liquidity. Strengths: Unmatched TVL (over $15B), battle-tested security model, and deep integration with the Ethereum DeFi ecosystem (Aave, Compound). The percentage-based fee (e.g., 10-20% of operator rewards) aligns incentives for high-value, security-critical AVSs like oracle networks (e.g., AltLayer, EigenDA). This model scales with success, making it ideal for protocols where security is the primary product. Trade-offs: Fees can become significant for highly profitable operations. Complex slashing conditions require rigorous operator vetting.
Babylon for DeFi
Verdict: The Cost-Effective Workhorse for High-Throughput Services. Strengths: Predictable, fixed-fee model (e.g., a flat BTC-denominated cost per epoch). This provides superior cost certainty for data availability layers, light clients, or fast-finality services that generate high transaction volume but lower margins per unit. It's optimal for cost-sensitive DeFi primitives that require reliable, unbundled security. Trade-offs: Less native alignment with Ethereum's DeFi yield ecosystem. May attract operators seeking stable yield over upside potential.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Aligning Fee Structure with Strategic Goals
Choosing between percentage-based and fixed-fee restaking models is a strategic decision that impacts protocol sustainability, user incentives, and long-term growth.
Percentage-based fee models, as used by protocols like EigenLayer and Kelp DAO, excel at aligning protocol revenue with network growth because they scale directly with the total value restaked (TVL). For example, a 10% fee on staking rewards from a $10B TVL generates predictable, substantial revenue to fund protocol development and security. This model is highly attractive for early-stage protocols seeking to bootstrap a robust ecosystem, as it directly ties financial success to user adoption and capital inflow.
Fixed-fee models, employed by services like Stader Labs and certain Lido modules, take a different approach by charging a flat rate per validator or a fixed percentage of a stable amount. This results in predictable, stable revenue for the service provider and predictable costs for the user, regardless of market volatility or reward fluctuations. The trade-off is a potential misalignment during bull markets, where protocol revenue may not capture the full upside of soaring staking yields, potentially limiting reinvestment capacity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is protocol-led growth and ecosystem alignment, where you want revenue to scale with success and fund aggressive development, choose a percentage-based model. If you prioritize predictable, stable costs for institutional users or are building a lean infrastructure service where fee simplicity is a selling point, choose a fixed-fee model. The decision ultimately hinges on whether you value revenue scalability or cost certainty for your stakeholders.
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