Restaking is an emerging concept that has quickly become a central theme in the current crypto cycle. However, this concept is not new; the earliest example of restaking can be traced back to Polkadot’s Parachain system. Each Parachain can have its own specific use case, governance model, and tokens, but they all benefit from Polkadot’s shared security model, meaning they don’t need to secure their own networks. Instead, they rely on the Relay Chain for security, allowing the stake on Polkadot to secure other chains.
This concept has also been adopted by Cosmos through Interchain Security. The concept of Replicated Security involves one blockchain serving as a security provider for other blockchains. The blockchain that provides security is referred to as the Provider Chain, while the blockchains inheriting the full security and decentralization of the Provider Chain are called Consumer Chains.
More recently, the concept has been brought to Ethereum via EigenLayer, and projects like Symbiotic and Karak have also emerged, actively competing within Ethereum's ecosystem. On Cosmos and Polkadot, restaking is embedded directly within the protocol, in contrast on Ethereum, restaking is facilitated via smart contracts, creating a more open market where restaking marketplaces can operate independently. Here, the idea is to use ETH, ETH LSTs, or ERC20s to secure other networks, known as Actively Validated Services (AVS), in order to earn additional yield while accepting additional risks, such as slashing (which would come in the future). With Ethereum’s rollup-centric roadmap and the growth of Layer 2s, liquidity and dApps are increasingly shifting away from Ethereum Layer 1 to L2s. As a result, the core value proposition of Ethereum Layer 1 will become its economic security and large market capitalization. EigenLayer, along with other restaking marketplaces like Symbiotic and Karak, capitalizes on this by offering economic security to Ethereum-aligned external networks.
In this paper, we will provide an overview of the restaking market on Ethereum as it stands today, explore its business model and economics, and discuss the future of the restaking landscape and its challenges.
In the Ethereum restaking space, 3 prominent platforms have emerged: EigenLayer, Symbiotic, and Karak. EigenLayer has taken the lead as the first restaking marketplace to launch on Ethereum Mainnet and continues to dominate in terms of Total Value Locked (TVL), with over 4.17 million ETH equivalent.
On June 19, 2024, EigenLayer reached its peak TVL, hitting an all-time high of 5.43 million ETH equivalent before experiencing a slight decline.
Symbiotic began accepting deposits on June 11, 2024, quickly reaching its initial deposit cap of 41,290 wstETH in just 5 hours. A second cap of 210,600 wstETH was set on July 3, 2024, and was also reached within 4 hours. The last cap was introduced on August 14, 2024, coinciding with the launch of BTC deposits. These different deposit caps are clearly visible in the graph below.
Currently, Symbiotic has approximately 644,000 ETH equivalent deposited on its platform.
Note: Symbiotic has not yet launched its mainnet, users can only deposit funds at this stage.
Karak successfully launched its mainnet on October 18, 2024, marking a significant milestone for the platform. However, the protocol has attracted slightly fewer deposits compared to both EigenLayer and Symbiotic, with around 205,000 ETH equivalent deposited.
In this competitive market, despite the emergence of new platforms, EigenLayer remains the clear leader, holding approximately 6x more TVL than Symbiotic and 20x more than Karak.
A significant portion of EigenLayer's TVL is driven by Liquid Restaking Protocols (LRTs). Our analysis of the major LRTs on EigenLayer shows that they currently account for approximately 75.37% of the platform's TVL, with an all-time high of 75.46% in July 2024. This indicates that more than 75% of the TVL in EigenLayer comes from users interacting with Liquid Restaking protocols rather than directly through the EigenLayer application.
The protocols included in our analysis are EtherFi, Renzo, Puffer Finance, Kelp DAO, Swell, and Bedrock.
When examining the composition of each LRT, we can see that EtherFi is the largest LRT contributor on EigenLayer, followed by Renzo and Puffer.
There are several reasons why LRTs have become the primary liquidity source for EigenLayer and restaking platforms in general:
Looking at Symbiotic, a similar pattern emerges, with approximately 61.61% of the TVL coming from Mellow vaults and EtherFi. This highlights that a large portion of liquidity is funneled through external protocols rather than directly through Symbiotic itself.
Only about 38.39% of the total TVL has been deposited directly via the native Symbiotic app.
For Karak, the situation is a bit different. It appears that there is only one major LRT on Karak, which is EtherFi with around 17% of the TVL, while 83% of the Karak TVL has been deposited on the native app.
Let’s dive into recent movements in the restaking space. A quick look at the inflows and outflows between EigenLayer and Symbiotic suggests that large inflows into Symbiotic correspond with outflows from EigenLayer.
Based on a recent analysis from Gauntlet, covering the period from June to September 2024, approximately 1,011,000 ETH was withdrawn from EigenLayer during this time. Of this, around 170,000 ETH was moved directly to Symbiotic. However, users didn’t just transfer this amount, they added another 37,000 ETH on top, making a total of 207,000 ETH deposited into Symbiotic.
The 207,000 ETH deposited into Symbiotic accounts for about 42.20% of the 488,000 ETH locked in Symbiotic at that time, meaning that approximately 42.20% of Symbiotic's TVL came directly from withdrawals on EigenLayer.
However, it’s important to note that only 16.5% of the ETH withdrawn from EigenLayer has remained within the restaking ecosystem, while the other 83.5% has exited the market entirely for now.
EigenLayer and Symbiotic flows, Source: Gauntlet
Restaking is supposed to allow networks, commonly known as Actively Validated Services (AVSs) in the restaking ecosystem, to quickly bootstrap a validator set and get a certain level of economic security with minimal time investment.
In this model, platforms like EigenLayer, Symbiotic, and Karak act as marketplaces where restakers, operators, and AVS entities come together. However, their goals are not the same. Here’s a breakdown:
At this point in the market, very few AVSs have clearly defined how much economic security they need or how much they are willing to offer to attract operators and restakers.
Who is restaking meant for?
Restaking has not yet found a clear product-market fit. It isn’t particularly suited for high-value, high-FDV networks, as these networks are large enough to offer large incentives, manage their own validator sets, and provide additional utility for their native tokens (for example, staking the native token to earn a staking yield, rather than paying restakers who hold a different token). It’s difficult to imagine large networks like Monad or others using restaking.
That said, restaking seems more suitable for small to medium-sized projects that don’t yet have the resources to bootstrap a totally sovereign network. Restaking allows them to grow, mature and find product-market fit before being totally sovereign without relying on 'rent' payments to holders of other tokens. However, there are also some AVSs that use restaking for very specific purposes and are not intended to be sovereign, as they bring services and value to the underlying Layer 1.
EigenDA stands out as the first AVS to distribute yield to both restakers and operators. Currently secured by around $10 billion in economic security, it has become a significant player in the emerging restaking ecosystem. However, the economics of maintaining such a network pose several challenges and require a closer examination.
Yield Distribution and Economic Security
EigenDA currently offers 10 ETH per month in rewards to restakers and operators. With a TVL used for economic security of around $10 billion, the total annual amount distributed to operators and restakers corresponds to $300,000 assuming the price of ETH at $2,500. Assuming an economic security of $10 billion, this represents a gross APR of just 0.003%.
This low yield highlights a key challenge in the restaking model: balancing the need for economic security with adequate incentives for participants.
The Cost of Running an AVS
The cost of operating an AVS varies based on the specific infrastructure and requirements needed for it, but on average, we estimate the monthly infrastructure cost to run at around $400 per AVS. Over the course of a year, this represents approximately $4,800 for a single AVS. With 18 AVSs currently in the market, the annual cost for one operator to run all of them comes to $86,400. It’s important to note that this figure does not account for additional expenses such as the salaries of the DevOps teams required to maintain and secure the infrastructure.
EigenLayer currently has 340 operators running at least one AVS each. If an AVS wants to fully leverage the economic security provided by EigenLayer while ensuring that operators cover their infrastructure costs, the financial commitment grows significantly. The formula is simple:
• $400 per month per operator
• 340 operators
This results in a total annual infrastructure cost of $1.63 million. And that’s just for maintaining the infrastructure by 340 operators, it doesn’t include the incentives that need to be paid to restakers.
Cost for an AVS to cover infrastructure costs
EigenLayer has introduced programmatic incentives to maintain its TVL on the platform. You can track the yield from these incentives here. EigenLayer is distributing 16,736,467 EIGEN to Eigen restakers and operators over one year, and 50,209,400 EIGEN to ETH and ETH LST restakers. This not only supports the restaking economy but also helps AVSs to take the time to find ways to incentivize operators and restakers.
In most cases with restaking, AVSs that aren’t yet generating revenue will likely introduce a native token to incentivize restakers. This means they will use their native token to compensate ETH restakers or other ERC20 restakers. As a result, restakers who may simply prefer their rewards in ETH or a specific ERC20 token, are likely to automatically convert these AVS rewards back into their preferred tokens.
Economically, this model is fundamentally weaker than a traditional Proof of Stake system. In traditional staking, participants buy the native token, show commitment to the project, and stake to earn rewards. Since they’ve invested in the native token, they are more likely to hold onto their staking rewards longer than restakers who receive AVS rewards.
In today’s restaking market, there are also auto-compounding products that automatically convert restaking rewards into ETH to boost the restaked position, which encourages immediate selling of AVS tokens.
As slashing goes live, we expect restakers to pay closer attention to the operators they select, particularly the quality of services offered. Additionally, TVL growth will likely be driven by operators’ ability to deliver the best risk-adjusted returns.
Marketplaces are expected to become more flexible, with leading AVSs establishing caps on the amount of security they require or incentivize. The evolution of TVL numbers for AVSs is likely to change as soon as the activation of slashing and yield mechanisms will encourage each AVS to set limits on the TVL they incentivize. This implies that delegations to each AVS will be limited, or yields will be diluted, as AVSs aim to avoid paying for excess security they don’t need.
The introduction of a new security model that distinguishes between "unique" and "total" stake will reshape distribution.
We anticipate different methods by which AVSs will compensate operators for providing security:
At this stage, we believe the leading node operators will benefit in two key ways:
This change in economic conditions could impact major Liquid Restaking Protocols. They attracted substantial liquidity thanks to their own incentives in native tokens, but they now have billions in economic security to provide to AVSs, which, on the other hand, will be difficult to incentivize given the high amount to incentivize for the AVSs. What we see is the following:
To be sustainable, the best LRTs must offer at least the Ethereum staking yield and compete directly with Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs). This is why many LRT protocols accept native ETH (such as EtherFi, Renzo, Swell, etc.). Even if the restaking yield isn’t significant, users still gain exposure to an LST+ protocol, meaning they receive the benefits of liquid staking as a baseline, with potential upside if the restaking yield becomes attractive.
The Ethereum restaking ecosystem has unlocked new possibilities, enabling small to medium-sized projects to leverage Ethereum’s economic security. While restaking offers significant advantages, its current economic model and design face some challenges. As Ethereum restaking continues to evolve to address these issues, we can expect increased collaboration between AVSs and leading operators, fostering a stronger and more sustainable ecosystem for restakers.
Chorus One is one of the largest institutional staking providers globally, operating infrastructure for over 60 Proof-of-Stake (PoS) networks, including Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana, Avalanche, Near, and others. Since 2018, we have been at the forefront of the PoS industry, offering easy-to-use, enterprise-grade staking solutions, conducting industry-leading research, and investing in innovative protocols through Chorus One Ventures. As an ISO 27001 certified provider, Chorus One also offers slashing and double-signing insurance to its institutional clients. For more information, visit chorus.one or follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Telegram.
