From the perspective of architecture and mechanism, a brief analysis of the similarities and differences between Eigenlayer, Symbiotic and Karak

Written by: Poopman

Compiled by: Yangz, Techub News

Translator’s note: This article briefly compares and analyzes the three major protocols in the current re-staking track from the definitions of AVS and re-staking, and the key architectures and indicators of EigenLayer, Karak, and Symbiotic.

AVS stands for Active Verification Service, which refers to any network that requires its own verification system, such as oracles, cross-chain bridges, etc. In this article, AVS can be understood as a project that uses the re-staking service.

From a user's perspective, re-staking is a way to "reuse" staked ETH for other validation/services without canceling the stake to earn more rewards. From a protocol and developer perspective, re-staking and validators can secure thousands of new services through re-staking. Re-staking helps reduce costs and increase the security required to launch new trust networks. Re-staking generally comes in two forms, including native re-staking and LST/ERC-20/LP re-staking.

When talking about re-staking, we have to mention EigenLayer.

EigenLayer mainly consists of 4 parts, including stakers, operators, AVS contracts (such as token pools, designated slashers), and Eigenlayer core contracts (for example, delegation managers, slashing managers). The 4 parts work together to enable stakers to successfully delegate assets, and validators can register as operators in Eigenlayer. AVS on EigenLayer can customize the system's "quorum" and slashing conditions.

EigenLayer supports native re-staking and liquidity re-staking. Of its approximately $15 billion TVL, approximately 68% of the assets are native ETH and the remaining 32% are LST. In addition, EigenLayer has approximately 161,000 re-stakers, but only 67.6% (approximately $10.3 billion) of the assets are entrusted to 1,500 operators.

EigenLayer provides a high degree of flexibility for the design of AVS. The following mechanisms can be designed by yourself:

• A quorum of stakers (e.g. 70% ETH re-stakers + 30% AVS stakers)

• Forfeiture conditions

• Fee model (payable in AVS/ETH etc.)

• Operator requirements

Eigenlayer controls the Delegation Manager, Strategy Manager, and Slashing Manager. Validators who wish to become Eigenlayer operators must register through Eigenlayer. Strategy Managers are responsible for calculating the balances of re-stakers and work with Delegation Managers to execute.

Each AVS has its own slashing conditions. If the operator behaves badly or breaks their promise to EigenLayer, they will be punished according to different slashing logics. If the operator chooses to join two AVS, they must agree to the slashing conditions of both AVS.

In the event of a "wrong slashing", EigenLayer can reverse the slashing result through the slashing veto committee. EigenLayer does not set up a standard committee, but allows AVS and stakers to set up VSC according to their preferences, opening up the market for VSCs with different solutions.

Symbiotic allows staking through ENA and sUSDe, positioning itself as a "DeFi hub" for re-staking. Currently, 74.3% of Symbiotic's TVL is wstETH, 5.45% is sUSDe, and the rest is various LSTs. In addition, Symbiotic has not yet launched a native re-staking mechanism, but it should not be too far away.

Unlike EigenLayer, Symbiotic will mint corresponding ERC20 tokens for the assets pledged by users. Once the user deposits the collateral, the assets will be sent to the "treasury", which will then be entrusted to the corresponding "operator" by the "treasury".

In Symbiotic, the AVS contract/token pool is called the "treasury" and can perform accounting, delegation design, etc. AVS can plug in external contracts and customize the "quorum" of stakers and operator reward process like EigenLayer. However, one obvious difference from EigenLayer is that Symbiotic can set up immutable pre-configured treasuries that use pre-configured rules when deployed to "lock" certain settings and avoid risks through upgradeable contracts.

Symbiotic’s mediators are equivalent to the slashing veto committee in EigenLayer. When a slashing occurs in error, the slashing can be vetoed in mediation. In Symbiotic, the treasury can employ multiple mediators to cover all possible collateral slashing events, or integrate with dispute resolution solutions such as the UMA protocol.

Karak uses a system called DSS, which is similar to AVS. Compared with the above two re-pledge protocols, Karak accepts the most diverse collateral, and users can pledge LST, stablecoins, ERC20 and even LP tokens. In addition, collateral can be deposited through multiple chains such as ARB, Mantle, BSC, etc.

Of Karak’s TVL of about $800 million, most assets are LST, and most of them are on Ethereum. At the same time, about 7% of assets are deposited through K2. K2 is an L2 developed by the Karak team and is secured by DSS.

Karak V1 provides a platform for treasury + supervisor and delegated supervisor. In terms of architecture, Karak provides SDK + K2 sandbox similar to Turnkey to make development easier.

The most intuitive difference between the three protocols is the difference in the accepted collateral. Eigenlayer offers native ETH staking and EigenPods, with ETH in collateral accounting for 68% of its TVL, and has successfully attracted nearly 1,500 operators. In addition, it also plans to accept LST and ERC20 tokens. Symbiotic has positioned itself as a "DeFi center" by partnering with Ethena, accepting sUSDe and ENA for staking. What is special about Karak is its support for multi-chain collateral deposits, allowing "re-staking" on different chains and creating an LRT economy on this basis.

From an architectural perspective, the three are very similar. The operating mechanisms of the three protocols are basically the same: staker - core contract - delegation - operator. The slight difference is that Symbiotic allows multiple "legal" mediators. Eigenlayer does not have clear regulations on this, so it is possible.

In EigenLayer, operators who choose to join can get 10% commission from AVS services, and the rest is converted into delegated assets. In contrast, Symbiotic and Karak offer more flexible options, allowing AVS to design their own reward structure.

AVS/DSS is highly flexible and can customize slashing conditions, operator requirements, and the "quorum" of stakers. In addition, EigenLayer and Symbiotic have mediators and slashing veto committees to correct erroneous slashing behaviors. Karak has not yet announced the slashing mechanism.

So far, only EigenLayer has launched the token EIGEN and supports native token staking. EIGEN holders can delegate their tokens to the same operator (but staked EIGEN is not transferable, LMAO). User expectations for SYM and KARAK are the key incentives driving the growth of Symbiotic and Karak TVL.

It is clear that among the three, EigenLayer provides a more mature solution with the strongest economic security and ecosystem. AVS that wants to provide security will choose to build on EigenLayer, which has a $15 billion pool and 1,500 operators ready to join its GOATED team. On the other hand, Symbiotic and Karak are still in their early stages, so there is still a lot of room for development. Retail investors or investors who are looking for income opportunities outside of ETH assets/multi-chain may choose Karak and Symbiotic. Overall, AVS and re-staking technology removes the burden of building the underlying trust network for project parties, and they can focus on developing new features and better implementing decentralization. To me, re-staking is not just an innovation, but also a new era for ETH.