Shared Security Hubs like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail excel at providing robust, battle-tested security for new chains and rollups. By leveraging a dedicated, modular DA layer, they allow protocols to inherit security from a large, decentralized validator set without bootstrapping their own. For example, Celestia's network is secured by over $1B in staked TIA, providing a high-cost attack surface for adversaries. This model is ideal for projects prioritizing security guarantees and rapid deployment over absolute cost minimization.
LABS
Comparisons
Data Availability via Shared Security Hubs vs Isolated Security Models
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects on leveraging established validator sets like Ethereum or Cosmos Hub versus building application-specific security for data availability layers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Security Trade-off for Data Availability
Choosing a data availability layer forces a fundamental choice between inherited security and sovereign performance.
Isolated Security Models, used by monolithic L1s like Solana or Ethereum's execution layer (for its own data), take a different approach by bundling consensus, execution, and data availability. This results in a trade-off: higher sovereign control and potential performance optimization for the chain's specific needs, but the burden of bootstrapping and maintaining a unique validator set. The security is isolated to that chain's own economic stake, which for newer networks can be a significant vulnerability compared to tapping into an established hub.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security assurance and minimizing initial trust assumptions, choose a Shared Security Hub. This is the default for most Ethereum L2s (e.g., Arbitrum Nitro using Ethereum for DA) and new modular chains. If you prioritize ultimate sovereignty, tailored performance, and have the resources to bootstrap a strong validator network, an Isolated Security model may be justified. Consider the former for secure scaling; choose the latter only if you are building a foundational layer with its own ecosystem.
tldr-summary
Data Availability via Shared Security Hubs vs Isolated Security Models
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the two dominant paradigms for securing data availability, focusing on concrete trade-offs for builders.
01
Shared Security Hub (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA)
Pros:
- Cost Efficiency: DA costs are amortized across hundreds of rollups, leading to sub-cent fees per transaction.
- Instant Security Bootstrapping: New chains inherit the full security of the hub's validator set from day one.
- Modular Flexibility: Decouples execution, settlement, and DA, enabling specialized chains (e.g., Eclipse, Fuel).
Cons:
- Validator Alignment Risk: Security is contingent on a single, external validator set's liveness and honesty.
- Protocol Dependency: Upgrades and changes to the hub (like Celestia's Blobstream) dictate your chain's capabilities.
02
Isolated Security (e.g., Polygon PoS, Avalanche C-Chain)
Pros:
- Sovereign Security Model: Your chain's security is independent and self-determined by its own token and validator set.
- Full Control: No external dependencies for consensus or upgrades; you manage the entire stack.
- Proven Resilience: Battle-tested against network attacks without cascading failures to other chains.
Cons:
- High Bootstrapping Cost: Requires significant capital to attract a secure, decentralized validator set.
- Operational Overhead: You are responsible for all infrastructure, monitoring, and slashing logic.
03
Choose a Shared Security Hub if...
Your priority is speed-to-market and capital efficiency.
- You're launching a new app-specific rollup (e.g., a gaming chain) and need production-grade security immediately.
- Your economic model cannot support the upfront cost of bootstrapping a large validator set.
- You want to leverage modular innovations like Celestia's data availability sampling (DAS) without building it yourself.
04
Choose an Isolated Model if...
Your priority is long-term sovereignty and maximum control.
- You are a large, established protocol (e.g., a DeFi blue-chip) migrating to your own chain and have a token to secure it.
- Your chain's logic requires custom consensus rules or validator incentives that a generic hub cannot support.
- Regulatory or jurisdictional concerns necessitate complete technical and legal independence.
DATA AVAILABILITY SECURITY MODELS
Feature Comparison: Shared Security Hubs vs Isolated Models
Direct comparison of security, cost, and performance for blockchain data availability.
| Metric | Shared Security Hub (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) | Isolated Security Model (e.g., Monolithic L1, Self-Built DA) |
|---|---|---|
Security Source | Validator set of the hub (e.g., 100+ validators) | Chain's own validator/staker set |
Cost per MB (Est.) | $0.10 - $1.00 | $10 - $100+ |
Throughput (MB/sec) | 10 - 100+ MB/sec | 1 - 10 MB/sec |
Time to Data Availability | < 2 seconds | ~12 seconds (Ethereum) to minutes |
Protocols Using Model | Arbitrum Nova, Mantle, Manta Pacific | Ethereum L1, Solana, Avalanche |
Bootstrapping Complexity | Low (Leverage existing hub) | High (Recruit & bootstrap new validator set) |
Economic Security (TVL) | $1B+ (Shared pool) | Varies with chain adoption |
pros-cons-a
Data Availability via Shared Security Hubs vs Isolated Security Models
Pros and Cons: Shared Security Hubs
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating foundational security infrastructure.
02
Shared Security Hub (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA)
Instant Security Bootstrap: New rollups inherit battle-tested security from day one. Projects like Dymension and Saga launch with the full security of Celestia's $2B+ staked value, avoiding the 'validator chicken-and-egg' problem that plagues isolated L1s.
$2B+
Staked Value (Celestia)
04
Isolated Security Model (e.g., Monolithic L1, Solo Chain)
No Cross-Domain Risk: Security is fully decoupled from other ecosystems. A catastrophic bug or governance attack on a shared hub (like a data availability committee failure) does not impact the chain's liveness. This is critical for high-value, compliance-heavy DeFi like Aave or MakerDAO.
pros-cons-b
Data Availability via Shared Security Hubs vs Isolated Security Models
Pros and Cons: Isolated Security Models
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs choosing a blockchain's foundational security layer.
01
Shared Security Hub (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA)
Outsourced Security & Cost Efficiency: Leverage the established validator set and stake of a dedicated DA layer. Projects like Arbitrum Orbit chains using Celestia pay ~$0.01 per MB, avoiding the capital cost of bootstrapping a new validator network. This matters for rapid chain deployment and capital-light startups.
02
Shared Security Hub (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA)
Modular Flexibility & Interoperability: Decouples execution from consensus and data availability. Chains built on Avail or Celestia can plug into shared settlement layers (like Polygon CDK) and leverage universal light clients for trust-minimized bridging. This matters for ecosystem-native chains needing seamless cross-chain composability.
03
Isolated Security Model (e.g., Monolithic L1, Solo Sovereign Rollup)
Sovereignty & Full Control: The chain's security and liveness are entirely self-determined. Validator/client upgrades (like a hard fork) do not require external coordination. This matters for protocols with unique governance (e.g., dYdX v4) or those requiring guaranteed liveness independent of another network's downtime.
04
Isolated Security Model (e.g., Monolithic L1, Solo Sovereign Rollup)
Tailored Economics & Value Capture: All transaction fees and MEV accrue to the chain's own validator set and stakers. There is no leakage of value to an external DA provider. This matters for chains aiming to bootstrap a strong native token economy and maximize staking yields to secure the network.
05
Shared Security Hub (Cons)
Vendor Risk & Congestion Dependence: Chain liveness depends on the DA layer's health. A surge in demand on Celestia or EigenDA can increase costs and latency for all connected chains. This matters for high-frequency trading apps or protocols that cannot tolerate variable, external bottlenecks.
06
Isolated Security Model (Cons)
High Bootstrapping Cost & Security Fragility: Must attract sufficient stake (often billions in TVL) to be secure against attacks. New chains often start with low decentralization, creating a security-vs-decentralization trade-off. This matters for new entrants competing with established L1s like Ethereum and Solana for validator attention.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Guide: When to Choose Which Model
Shared Security Hubs (Celestia, EigenLayer, Avail)
Verdict: The Default Choice. For DeFi protocols like Aave, Uniswap, or new L2s, shared security is superior. The primary strength is inherited security from a large, established validator set (e.g., Ethereum stakers via restaking or Celestia's data availability sampling). This minimizes the risk of data withholding attacks that could freeze billions in TVL. The trade-off is higher baseline costs for data posting.
Isolated Security Models (Monolithic L1s, Solo-Validated Rollups)
Verdict: Niche Use. Only consider for applications where absolute sovereignty and cost predictability are paramount, and the asset value secured is lower. A new gaming token or a niche NFT project on its own chain might opt for this. However, for high-value DeFi, the security budget required to match a hub like Ethereum is prohibitively expensive, making isolated models a significant liability.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Technical Deep Dive: Security Assumptions and Mechanisms
This analysis compares the core security models for data availability, contrasting the shared security of hubs like Celestia and EigenDA with the isolated security of monolithic chains and rollups. The choice fundamentally impacts a chain's trust assumptions, capital costs, and upgrade flexibility.
Shared security leverages a dedicated, external network for data availability (DA), while isolated security relies on the chain's own validators. Shared security hubs like Celestia or EigenDA allow multiple rollups to pool security and costs on a single, optimized DA layer. Isolated models, used by monolithic L1s like Solana or sovereign rollups, require the chain to bootstrap and maintain its own validator set and economic security for data publishing, which is more capital-intensive but offers sovereign control.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven framework for choosing between shared security hubs and isolated security models based on your protocol's specific needs.
Shared Security Hubs (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) excel at providing robust, cost-effective data availability for new chains by leveraging the pooled security of a dedicated network. This model decouples consensus from execution, allowing rollups and appchains to inherit strong liveness guarantees without bootstrapping their own validator set. For example, Celestia's Blobstream enables Ethereum L2s to post data for under $0.001 per transaction, a fraction of the cost of posting calldata directly to Ethereum L1.
Isolated Security Models (e.g., standalone L1s, sovereign rollups) take a different approach by maintaining a dedicated validator set and full control over their security budget. This results in a trade-off: higher sovereignty and customizability for the chain's rules and upgrade paths, but at the cost of significant capital expenditure to secure the network. A new chain must bootstrap its own economic security, which can be prohibitive; a chain with $50M TVL is far more vulnerable to attack than one secured by a hub with a $5B staked asset base.
The key trade-off is sovereignty versus capital efficiency and time-to-market. If your priority is maximum sovereignty, custom fee markets, or a unique consensus mechanism, an isolated model is necessary. If you prioritize rapid deployment, minimized upfront security costs, and leveraging established network effects, a shared security hub is the superior choice. The decision ultimately hinges on whether the value of complete technical and economic autonomy outweighs the immense resource advantage of a specialized, modular security provider.
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