TEE-based AVSs excel at providing a high-performance, single-node trust model for confidential compute. By leveraging hardware-isolated enclaves (e.g., Intel SGX, AMD SEV), they offer near-native execution speeds for complex operations like private smart contract execution or order book matching. For example, a TEE can process thousands of confidential transactions per second (TPS) with sub-second latency, making it ideal for high-throughput DeFi applications like Oasis Network or Phala Network.
LABS
Comparisons
AVS Using TEEs (Trusted Execution Environments) vs AVS Using MPC: Confidential Compute
A technical analysis comparing hardware-based TEEs (e.g., Intel SGX) and cryptographic MPC for enabling confidential computation in Actively Validated Services. We evaluate security assumptions, performance overhead, cost, and suitability for different AVS workloads.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Confidential Compute Imperative for AVSs
A technical breakdown of TEEs and MPC as the two dominant paradigms for securing sensitive computations in Actively Validated Services.
MPC-based AVSs take a fundamentally different, cryptographically distributed approach by splitting secrets across multiple nodes. This eliminates single points of failure and hardware trust assumptions, providing stronger security against physical attacks and supply chain vulnerabilities. However, this robustness comes with a significant trade-off: the multi-round communication required for computations like threshold signatures or distributed key generation inherently results in higher latency and lower TPS compared to a TEE.
The key trade-off: If your priority is raw performance and low-latency for complex private state transitions, a TEE-based design is the pragmatic choice. If you prioritize maximum cryptographic security and trust minimization, accepting higher operational complexity and latency for it, a MPC-based architecture is superior. The decision often hinges on whether you are optimizing for a high-frequency trading co-processor or a maximally decentralized custody solution.
tldr-summary
AVS Using TEEs vs. AVS Using MPC
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural trade-offs for confidential compute in Actively Validated Services (AVS).
04
MPC: Resilience to Specific Attacks
Inherently resistant to side-channel and physical attacks: Unlike TEEs, which have a history of speculative execution vulnerabilities (e.g., Foreshadow, Plundervault), MPC's security is purely mathematical. This is a non-negotiable advantage for AVSs securing long-term private keys or sensitive regulatory data.
05
TEEs: Critical Weakness - Trusted Hardware
Relies on hardware vendor integrity: Vulnerabilities in the CPU microcode or remote attestation service can compromise the entire system. This creates a supply-chain risk unacceptable for AVSs where decentralization is paramount, such as decentralized sequencers or consensus layers.
06
MPC: Critical Weakness - Network Overhead
High latency and communication cost: Every computation requires multiple rounds of communication between nodes, making it unsuitable for high-frequency trading AVSs or real-time gaming verifiers. Throughput is orders of magnitude lower than TEE-based solutions.
CONFIDENTIAL COMPUTE FOR ACTIVE VALIDATION SERVICES
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: TEEs vs MPC for AVS
Direct comparison of key architectural and operational metrics for confidential compute in AVS design.
| Metric | TEE-Based AVS | MPC-Based AVS |
|---|---|---|
Hardware Dependency | ||
Theoretical Trust Assumption | Single Hardware Vendor | Cryptographic (N-of-K) |
Latency for Signature Generation | < 100 ms | 100-500 ms |
Key Management Model | Sealed, Attested Enclave | Distributed Key Shares |
Resilience to Single Point of Failure | ||
Post-Quantum Security Readiness | Dependent on CPU | Protocol Upgradeable |
Example Protocols / Frameworks | Oasis Sapphire, Intel SGX, Phala | MPC Alliance, tSS, Lit Protocol |
pros-cons-a
CONFIDENTIAL COMPUTE COMPARISON
TEEs (Intel SGX) for AVS: Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs between hardware-based isolation and cryptographic multi-party computation for securing Actively Validated Services (AVS).
01
TEEs (Intel SGX): Pros
Hardware-enforced confidentiality: Executes sensitive logic (e.g., EigenLayer operator tasks, private key signing) within an encrypted CPU enclave, isolating it from the host OS and even cloud providers. This is critical for high-throughput, low-latency operations where single-party execution is acceptable.
Strong performance profile: Enables near-native execution speeds (< 100ms attestation overhead) for complex computations, making it suitable for fast-finality AVS like high-frequency oracle updates or rollup sequencing.
< 100ms
Attestation Overhead
Single Operator
Trust Model
02
TEEs (Intel SGX): Cons
Centralized trust in hardware vendor: Relies on Intel's root of trust and secure manufacturing. Vulnerabilities like Foreshadow or Plundervolt have historically required firmware patches, creating systemic risk for all dependent AVS.
Limited decentralization: TEE nodes are often concentrated in major cloud providers (AWS, Azure) that support SGX, creating geographic and provider centralization points. This conflicts with the cryptoeconomic security model of many AVS networks.
Vendor Lock-in
Primary Risk
Cloud-Concentrated
Node Distribution
03
MPC Networks: Pros
Cryptographic decentralization: Distributes trust across multiple independent parties (e.g., 3-of-5 threshold signatures). No single point of failure exists, aligning with permissionless validator set ideals for AVS like Babylon or Lagrange.
Vendor & hardware agnostic: Runs on standard servers, avoiding reliance on specific CPU vendors. Enables broader geographic distribution of nodes, enhancing censorship resistance for AVS securing cross-chain bridges or data availability layers.
N-of-M Threshold
Trust Model
Hardware Agnostic
Infrastructure
04
MPC Networks: Cons
Higher latency and complexity: Multi-party computation rounds and network communication introduce significant latency (often seconds), making it unsuitable for sub-second finality AVS like hyper-scalable rollups.
Increased operational overhead: Managing a distributed key generation (DKG) ceremony and maintaining a quorum of online nodes adds complexity. This impacts cost and reliability for AVS requiring constant uptime, compared to a single, highly-available TEE instance.
Seconds
Typical Latency
High
Coord. Overhead
pros-cons-b
TEEs vs MPC
MPC for AVS: Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs for confidential compute in Actively Validated Services (AVS).
01
TEEs: Performance & Integration
Specific advantage: Near-native execution speed (e.g., Intel SGX, AMD SEV). This matters for high-throughput AVS operations like fast finality or real-time data attestation, where latency is critical. Hardware isolation provides a clear security boundary.
02
TEEs: Established Ecosystem
Specific advantage: Mature developer tooling and SDKs (e.g., Fortanix, Asylo). This matters for teams needing to deploy quickly, leveraging existing frameworks for key management and attestation, reducing initial development overhead.
03
TEEs: Cons - Centralized Trust
Specific weakness: Trust in hardware manufacturers (Intel, AMD) and their supply chains. This matters for maximally decentralized or trust-minimized AVS designs, as a vendor compromise or backdoor could undermine the entire network's security model.
04
TEEs: Cons - Limited Scalability & Cost
Specific weakness: Physical hardware constraints and premium costs for attested instances. This matters for AVS requiring horizontal scaling across hundreds of nodes, as provisioning and managing a large, heterogeneous TEE fleet is complex and expensive.
05
MPC: Cryptographic Trust
Specific advantage: Trust is distributed mathematically across participants, eliminating single points of failure. This matters for AVS where the threat model excludes reliance on any centralized entity, aligning with crypto-native principles.
06
MPC: Protocol Flexibility
Specific advantage: Can be implemented across any hardware, enabling permissionless node participation. This matters for AVS aiming for maximal geographic and hardware decentralization, as nodes are not bound to specific CPU vendors.
07
MPC: Cons - Performance Overhead
Specific weakness: Significant computational and communication latency from multi-round protocols. This matters for latency-sensitive AVS (e.g., cross-chain bridges or oracle updates), where sub-second response times are non-negotiable.
08
MPC: Cons - Complex Key Management
Specific weakness: Requires robust distributed key generation (DKG) and proactive secret sharing. This matters for operational security, as the complexity increases the attack surface for protocol-level bugs and requires sophisticated node operator tooling.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose TEEs or MPC Based on Your AVS Use Case
TEEs for DeFi & MEV
Verdict: The Standard for High-Value, Stateful Operations. Strengths: TEEs (e.g., Intel SGX, AMD SEV) provide a hardware-enforced trusted environment ideal for complex, stateful logic like confidential order matching (e.g., Fairblock, SEDA) or private cross-chain intent settlement. They maintain a persistent, encrypted state, crucial for MEV auctions or sealed-bid DEXes where transaction ordering and privacy are paramount. Protocols like Oasis Network and Phala Network demonstrate this use case. Weaknesses: Reliance on hardware vendor security (supply chain risk) and a more complex, centralized attestation process can be a single point of failure for high-stakes DeFi.
MPC for DeFi & MEV
Verdict: Optimal for Distributed Key Management & Signing. Strengths: Multi-Party Computation (MPC) excels at distributed key generation and signing without a single point of compromise. This is perfect for managing treasury wallets, orchestrator key shares for AVS validators, or threshold signatures for bridge operations (e.g., using tSS libraries). It's stateless by design, making it agile for signing approvals. Weaknesses: Not suited for executing complex confidential business logic or maintaining private state between computations. Higher latency for coordinated signing can be a bottleneck for high-frequency trading.
AVS USING TEES VS. AVS USING MPC
Technical Deep Dive: Threat Models and Implementation Complexity
Choosing between TEEs and MPC for an Actively Validated Service (AVS) involves fundamental trade-offs in security assumptions, operational overhead, and architectural complexity. This analysis breaks down the key differences to inform your infrastructure decision.
MPC is generally considered more cryptographically secure, while TEEs offer a more pragmatic, high-performance alternative. MPC's security relies on mathematical proofs and distributed key shares, making it resilient to physical attacks and hardware vulnerabilities. TEE security is contingent on the hardware manufacturer's integrity and the absence of side-channel exploits (e.g., Spectre, Plundervault). For maximum adversarial security where trust must be minimized, MPC is superior. For applications requiring low-latency, high-throughput confidential compute with acceptable trust in hardware vendors (like Intel SGX or AMD SEV), TEEs are the practical choice.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A decisive comparison of TEE-based and MPC-based AVS architectures, guiding infrastructure strategy based on performance, trust, and cost.
AVS Using TEEs excels at high-performance, low-latency confidential compute for monolithic workloads because it leverages secure, isolated hardware like Intel SGX or AMD SEV. For example, a TEE-based AVS like EigenLayer's EigenDA can achieve sub-second finality for data availability, a critical metric for high-throughput rollups, by processing large data blobs within a single, trusted enclave. This model provides a strong, centralized trust root in the hardware manufacturer and is optimal for stateful operations where raw speed is paramount.
AVS Using MPC (Multi-Party Computation) takes a different approach by distributing trust across a decentralized network of nodes, using cryptographic protocols like threshold signatures. This results in a fundamental trade-off: enhanced censorship resistance and reduced reliance on any single hardware vendor, but at the cost of higher computational overhead and communication latency. Protocols like Succinct's SP1 zkVM or Espresso Systems' Cappella use MPC frameworks to generate proofs or manage keys, prioritizing verifiable decentralization over raw single-enclave speed.
The key trade-off is between performance/trust model and decentralization/verifiability. If your priority is ultra-low latency for a critical, monolithic service (e.g., a high-speed sequencing layer or confidential mempool) and you accept the hardware trust assumptions, choose a TEE-based AVS. If you prioritize maximal cryptographic security, verifiable decentralization, and are building a service where latency can be amortized (e.g., proof generation, key management for wallets), choose an MPC-based AVS. The decision hinges on whether your threat model fears hardware backdoors more or network collusion more.
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