REVIEW 3 cited by
How much should you pay for restaking security?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Restaking protocols have aggregated billions of dollars of security by utilizing token incentives and payments. A natural question to ask is: How much security do restaked services \emph{really} need to purchase? To answer this question, we expand a model of Durvasula and Roughgarden [DR24] that includes incentives and an expanded threat model consisting of strategic attackers and users. Our model shows that an adversary with a strictly submodular profit combined with strategic node operators who respond to incentives can avoid the large-scale cascading failures of~[DR24]. We utilize our model to construct an approximation algorithm for choosing token-based incentives that achieve a given security level against adversaries who are bounded in the number of services they can simultaneously attack. Our results suggest that incentivized restaking protocols can be secure with proper incentive management.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Proof of Work With External Utilities
In a Proof-of-Useful-Work model with quadratic costs and linear block rewards, the unique equilibrium has every miner participating, and miners profit most by concentrating their useful tasks into one block.
-
Market Clearing with Semi-fungible Assets
Market clearing for divisible, partially ordered assets reduces to one convex program whose dual variables are prices and whose VCG-style payments are dominant-strategy incentive compatible.
-
Economic Security of Multiple Shared Security Protocols
A formal model shows that fragmented multi-provider staking lowers the minimum attack cost to the weakest provider, while a unified stake pool raises it.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.