Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2408.00928 v1 pith:KGEIYQ2B submitted 2024-08-01 cs.GT q-fin.RM

classification cs.GTq-fin.RM
keywords incentivesmodelsecurityrestakingdr24muchprotocolsquestion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Proof of Work With External Utilities

    cs.GT 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Market Clearing with Semi-fungible Assets

    cs.GT 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  3. Economic Security of Multiple Shared Security Protocols

    cs.CR 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools