.svg){kind=icon}
Now hiring!
•
EigenLayer and other restaking protocols have rapidly developed in 2024, capturing $19 billion in assets. As these solutions are relatively new, restakers face challenges in allocating their stake effectively. With the implementation of unique stake, restakers will need to choose which Active Validation Service (AVS) to allocate to. This research proposes a framework for restakers to make informed decisions and build a balanced, risk-adjusted portfolio. We apply this framework to two AVS solutions: EigenDA and ARPA Network.
AVS allocation involves understanding the technical aspects of AVS operations, how restaking enhances security, APR rates and sustainability, token distribution of rewards, and growth potential and product competitiveness. At equal APR, restakers should prefer ETH rewards and AVSs with competitive products and growth potential, as this indicates sustainable and potentially increasing rewards over time.
Our allocation framework is composed of the following steps:
We take a close look at the technical design of the AVS and its integration with EigenLayer. By examining each component and their interactions, we identify potential centralisation risks and vulnerabilities. Additionally, we highlight the benefits EigenLayer brings to AVSs and the reasons these protocols chose to operate within its ecosystem.
This section examines AVS revenue to assess the sustainability of staking rewards. Understanding an AVS's ability to generate sufficient revenue to support rewards, rather than relying on token emissions, is crucial for evaluating long-term viability. We explore the protocol's activity to understand revenue generation mechanisms and potential shifts from emissions-based incentives to sustainable revenue. Active usage and demand serve as key indicators of the protocol's ability to generate meaningful returns.
We evaluate the AVS's competitiveness and its ability to drive adoption and grow market share. The roadmap offers insight into planned developments and innovations that could boost adoption, diversify revenue streams, and create sustainable, long-term returns for restakers and operators. These factors are essential for assessing revenue growth potential and the sustainability of staking rewards.
Since most AVS rewards are paid in their native token or EIGEN, not in ETH or stablecoins, restakers take on the risk of the token’s price dropping, which may reduce the real value of their rewards.
We need to examine several key aspects of token design:
We further examine distribution, liquidity, price history, and volatility to determine the token’s risk profile and inform capital allocation decisions.
After analyzing the AVS architecture, sustainablity, and tokenomics, we turn our attention to other risk factors involving the security standards behind the AVS software itself.
Lastly, we analyse the rewards ETH/LST restakers receive when participating in the ARPA Network or EigenDA AVS. We calculate the current APR, broken down by token, and evaluating how volatile these rewards have been based on historical data.
We aim to provide insights into the expected returns and to compare the reward structures of the ARPA Network and EigenDA AVS to highlight their respective opportunities and risks.
ARPA is a decentralised secure computation network designed to perform Boneh–Lynn–Shacham (BLS) threshold signature tasks. Threshold Signature Schemes (TSS) allow the generation of signatures in a distributed and decentralised fashion. BLS digital signatures enable users to verify the authenticity of signers, serving as the infrastructure for verifiable random number generation, secure wallets, cross-chain bridges, and decentralised custody across multiple blockchains.
The main product of ARPA Network is Randcast, an on-chain verifiable random number generation service available on networks including Ethereum, Taiko, RedStone, Optimism, and Base.
Similar to a Chainlink Verifiable Random Function (VRF), Randcast operates in two phases: a user request to the adapter contract and a fulfillment, where ARPA Network nodes perform a BLS-TSS signature used as a seed to return randomness to the user.
The BLS signature enables ARPA Network to perform asynchronous tasks by dividing its nodes into groups, enhancing availability and security. The number of groups is configured by ARPA Network’s Controller smart contract.
The node operators within EigenLayer, specifically participating in the ARPA AVS, are organised into groups, with each group comprising 4 to 8 members. This grouping structure helps distribute responsibilities among operators, ensuring efficient task execution and enhanced network reliability.
Currently, there are five such groups actively supporting the ARPA AVS. As long as each group maintains an honest majority, the probability of system failure exceeding 0.01% requires more than 25% of nodes to fail.
With only 9 nodes available on the native ARPA Network, opting into EigenLayer’s AVS ecosystem brought significant benefits. EigenLayer enhances ARPA’s security and decentralisation while allowing ARPA’s native staking to continue. The added nodes also improve service availability and increases the network’s fault tolerance.
As of the 16th of December, ARPA Network operates with 31 node operators on Eigenlayer. Node operators help secure the network and complete BLS tasks.
Randcast is free to use, except for gas fees, with validators compensated through token emissions that are being distributed across different reward programs.
Despite its deployment across many chains such as Taiko, RedStone, Ethereum, Base, and Optimism, measurable activity is limited. On Optimism, the only chain showing signs of usage, adoption remains sparse, with just three subscribers and the most recent “Fulfill Randomness” action recorded on November 5th.
ARPA's flagship product, Randcast, offers a cost-effective alternative for random number generation to its primary competitor, Chainlink VRF. Unlike Chainlink that charges a 20–50% fee (as a percentage of overall gas costs) depending on the network and subscription, with fees paid in LINK or ETH, Randcast eliminates these additional charges.
To drive future adoption, ARPA is directing its efforts toward the Web3 gaming sector. ARPA believes that fair randomness generation can enhance the web3 gaming experience by ensuring impartial map creation, loot box distribution, trait assignment, and tournament outcomes, among other uses. This change in direction is reflected in its partnerships with Ancient8, its incubation of DEAR (a fully on-chain game now live on RedStone mainnet), and its recent collaboration with Tomo Wallet to integrate Randcast into Telegram mini-apps.
Despite having a competitive product and promising partnerships in Web3 gaming, adoption remains limited, and no revenue is being generated yet. While Randcast shows potential, success depends on driving real usage and profitability. For the time being rewards will have to relay on emissions.
The primary utility of the ARPA token is securing the network. Running a node requires staking 500,000 ARPA outside EigenLayer or using restaked ETH through EigenLayer as a node operator.
Currently, 2% (USD 2,6M) of the total ARPA supply is staked within the native ARPA Network, while only 0.01% (USD 15k) of ARPA is restaked via EigenLayer. Staking rewards in the ARPA Network are significantly higher, offering a 25% APY.
Token unlocks will conclude in January 2025, with only 1.48% remaining locked as of December 16th. Tokens allocated to team members, investors, and ecosystem participants are fully vested, leaving rewards allocations as the remaining token emissions.
The inflation rate remains moderate compared to other chains. The current circulating supply stands at 1.52 billion ARPA. This includes 18 million ARPA distributed as rewards for native staking and EigenLayer restaking, and 118 million from unlocked rewards, leading to an 8–10% increase in supply over the past year.
While the reduction of token unlocks is positive as inflation will end early next year, the absence of deflationary mechanisms or strong utility limits incentives for holders to retain the token. Without catalysts for holding ARPA and despite team and investors already vested, emissions are likely to be sold, adding selling pressure to the token.
If we estimate the cost of corruption as 50% of the Total Value Locked (TVL), with a USD 5b in TVL and a cost of corruption exceeding USD 2.5b ARPA Network demonstrates a strong crypto-economic security.
However, ARPA Network's activity doesn’t demand extensive economic security. Its TSS-BLS network distributes the randomness generation process among multiple participants. If a participant fails due to insufficient ETH for gas, issues with task submission, or lack of responsiveness, they are deactivated, and the process restarts.
With the implementation of Eigenlayer’s new security model, ARPA Network will have to make a choice between two approaches.
They can choose to relay on Total Stake security, penalising malicious behaviour or neglecting of duties with some type of $ARPA rewards slashing. This would likely be in the similar way as with the native ARPA Network where 50% of the auto-delegation reward it would have received for that month is slashed.
Alternative, should ARPA Network adopt a Unique Stake model, where a portion of an operator's ETH stake could be slashed for malicious actions, it’s important to consider the cost in rewards distribution to attract node operators. Assuming EigenLayer’s EIGEN rewards eventually stop how much yield would restakers earn with current ARPA incentives?
At Ethereum’s current price of USD 3900 as of the 16th of December, approximately 676 ETH (USD 2,6M) would be required to achieve the same level of security that the ARPA Network currently maintains on its native network. This adjustment would bring the annualised APY for restakers to 1.5% per ETH staked under the current incentive structure and it would significantly reduce the AVS TVL to around 500ETH (USD 1,9M).
It is evident that adopting the Unique Stake model would be detrimental for ARPA Network. It would likely reduce TVL and negate the benefits brought by EigenLayer, such as additional nodes and improved network availability, which are crucial for scaling its services.
Furthermore, the ARPA token currently plays no active role in Eigenlayer neither securing the network nor penalising malicious behaviour. Its primary utility remains limited to emissions used as rewards for node operators, further constraining its long-term potential.
According to Etherscan, token ownership is slightly concentrated, with up to 60% of the supply held by a few addresses, including Binance, which holds the largest share. With 35% of the tokens controlled by a small number of users, this concentration poses risks such as governance centralisation, higher market volatility, and low market liquidity.
Despite the token concentration, the 25% of the supply held by Binance ensures high liquidity, good depth, and strong trading volume on the centralised exchange.
As of December 16th, liquidity on centralised exchanges was enough to easily exchange all 49,000 ARPA rewards from Season 2 (worth around USD 3,000) with minimal price impact. However, liquidity on decentralised exchanges like Uniswap V3 is limited, with only USD 3.6k available for similar trades. This makes it harder for restakers who prefer to remain on-chain to swap their rewards for ETH.
In 2024, the ARPA token experienced significant price fluctuations, reaching a high of USD 0.104 on April 10 and declining approximately 56% from the yearly high. This price increase can be attributed to several partnerships announced during March and April with Ancient8 (gaming) and RedStone Chain, along with a broader crypto market rally.
While ARPA has shown long-term resilience, increasing tenfold since 2020, its short-term volatility is 1.7 times higher than ETH, posing a higher risk for restakers seeking stability.
Additionally ARPA displays a moderate positive correlation with ETH (0.49) which indicates some shared market influences but not perfect alignment, offering limited diversification benefits for an ETH-dominated portfolio. However, over the past year, ARPA has underperformed ETH, increasing by 25% compared to ETH's doubling in value, suggesting that restakers may face greater risk without proportional returns when holding ARPA relative to ETH.
EigenDA is a decentralised data availability solution developed by EigenLayer that uses restaking to secure its network, enhancing data availability for rollups while maintaining Ethereum’s security model to improve Layer 2 scalability and reliability.
EigenDA works in the following manner:
Initially, the rollup sequencer compiles a batch of transactions and sends them as a blob to the EigenDA disperser sidecar, a centralised server-side component that interacts with the EigenDA network while also interfacing with on-chain components to register data availability securely.
The disperser then erasure-encodes this blob into multiple chunks and for each chunk generates a KZG commitment and multi-reveal proofs. These chunks are dispersed to EigenDA operators, who in turn provide signatures certifying that they've stored the data.
After collecting these signatures, the disperser aggregates them and registers the blob onchain by sending a transaction to the EigenDA Manager contract, including the aggregated signature and blob metadata. The EigenDA Manager contract coordinates the verification of aggregated signatures from nodes, ensuring data integrity and availability. It records validated results on-chain, with support from the EigenDA Registry contract, which tracks node metadata, group assignments, and participation eligibility.
Once the blob is securely stored off-chain and its registration is confirmed on-chain, the sequencer posts the EigenDA blob ID to its inbox contract in a transaction. This blob ID is concise with no more than 100 bytes in length.
Before the inbox contract accepts the blob ID into the rollup's inbox, it checks with the EigenDA Manager contract to ensure the blob is certified as available. If the certification is verified, the blob ID is accepted; if not, it's discarded. This process ensures that only verified and available data progresses through the system.
One last component of the EigenDA architecture is the Retriever. A centralise service that facilitates the retrieval of stored data from the network by querying the EigenDA storage nodes.
EigenDA leverages restaking to inherit Ethereum’s security while reducing the capital costs and overheads associated with launching a standalone chain. Operating within EigenLayer also keeps EigenDA closely aligned with Ethereum’s ecosystem, enabling seamless integration with Ethereum-based rollups and decentralised applications.
EigenDA operates with 204 node operators as of Dec 16th, actively posting cryptographic proofs to the Ethereum mainnet approximately every three minutes, as verified by Etherscan.
Since its launch, EigenDA has announced several partnerships, collaborating with teams such as Celo, Mantle, Fluent, Offshore, Powerloom, Abstract Chain, and Layer N, among others. However, it remains unclear how many of these integrations are currently live, making it difficult to evaluate the scope of EigenDA's active client base.
While there is visible on-chain activity through “Confirm batch” transactions and on blobs.eigenda explorer, the origin and content of these blobs remain opaque. EigenDA’s existing API does not provide sufficient transparency to determine the value or provenance of the blobs, adding to the challenge of assessing the platform's demand and usage.
Additionally, although EigenDA recently updated its pricing structure, there is no publicly available information on its monthly revenue or whether client payments are processed on-chain. This lack of transparency regarding client activity, blob data, and payment processes makes it challenging to evaluate EigenDA's profitability and the actual demand for its offerings.
To support node operators and restakers, EigenDA distributes 10 ETH (approximately USD 39,000 at USD 3,900/ETH) per month. There are plans to gradually increase these rewards to fully cover operators' estimated monthly expenses of USD 400 per operator as stated on their blog.
EigenDA, the flagship product of EigenLayer, benefits from its strategic position within the ecosystem. With the rapid expansion of Layer-2 scaling solutions, including new rollups and dApp chains, the demand for efficient data availability mechanisms is expected to grow significantly.
EigenDA's main competitors in the data availability market are Celestia and Avail:
While there is insufficient data to fully assess EigenDA’s current profitability, Celestia can be used as a proxy. Since its launch, Celestia has been slowly gaining market share in the blob market, with DA demand expected to accelerate as more rollups, Layer 1s, and dApp chains are onboarded.
However, Celestia's recent Blob fees metric highlights a significant revenue gap. Over the past few months, its daily fees have averaged around USD 200 or approximately USD 6,000 per month, far below EigenDA's estimated monthly operator expenses of USD 81,600 (204 operators at USD 400 each). This is even further from EigenDA’s ambitious target of USD 1.6 million in monthly revenue, which aligns with the team’s goal of scaling the network to 400 operators.
EigenDA holds a competitive edge with its lower costs, faster data processing, and seamless integration with EigenLayer. These advantages position EigenDA as a strong contender in the data availability sector.
Beyond the blob market, EigenDA has potential in the rapidly expanding interoperability sector. Solutions like LayerZero and Chainlink CCIP demonstrate the rising demand for secure, reliable, and efficient cross-chain messaging.
EigenDA potential for growth and position in the market is unquestionable. However, limited transparency around revenue, client activity, and blob data makes it challenging to assess its current adoption and profitability. Competitor benchmarks indicates the difficulty EigenDA, with lower fees, will face to achieve its ambitious $1.6 million monthly revenue target.
Future success will rely on scaling adoption, increasing market share, and leveraging opportunities in the interoperability sector. While the team has indicated that rewards will increase, there is no clarity on the timeline or scale of these changes. For now, rewards will continue to be subsidised by EigenDA.
Unlike its competitors, EigenDA has not launched its own token and instead uses ETH to reward node operators and restakers. The EIGEN token, however, plays a critical role in EigenDA’s dual quorum system, enhancing decentralisation and security for its services.
The dual quorum model, a unique feature of EigenLayer, enables AVSs to restake their own tokens or any other tokens they choose along with ETH. This innovative feature can be employed by any AVS to prevent censorship, ensure data availability, support oracles, and more.
To fully understand the dual quorum model in EigenDA, it is essential to understand EIGEN’s tokenomics which consists of two components: EIGEN and bEIGEN.
EIGEN is the main token used outside the EigenLayer ecosystem, such as in DeFi, and remains stable and unaffected by forks. In contrast, bEIGEN, is the staking derivative of EIGEN, designed for use within EigenLayer. It can fork to handle intersubjective faults and be used for dispute resolution and network security. As of now, the bEIGEN component is not fully operational, as slashing functionality has yet to be implemented.
Dual quorum is essential for EigenDA and will become even more significant once bEIGEN is fully integrated into the EigenLayer ecosystem. Intersubjective attributable faults, such as withholding data, cannot be proved to a smart contract, they need broad agreement from active observers of the system. In such cases, slashing involves social consensus and may necessitate hardforking bEIGEN, which is specifically designed to accommodate this function.
Additionally, as EigenLayer is distributing EIGEN tokens to ARPA Network and EigenDA restakers as part of the Programmatic Incentive v1, it is important to evaluate EIGEN’s role.
Token unlocks began with the release of Stakedrop 1, distributing 6.75% of the total supply plus a bonus of 100 EIGEN, followed by Stakedrop 2, which allocated an additional 0.67% to the community.
Additionally, 4% of the supply will be used for Programmatic Incentives v1 during the first year, resulting in an annual inflation rate of 11.42%. This inflation is moderate compared to industry averages.
Team and investor tokens are not set to unlock until May 2025. With inflation currently under control and no major unlocks until then, we do not expect too much selling pressure before the unlock.
EIGEN’s ownership structure allocated 55% of tokens to the team and investors, which is higher than the usual 40-45% in the industry.
This concentration as vesting progresses could pose risks such as governance centralisation, increased market volatility, and reduced market liquidity.
With 204 operators and a TVL exceeding USD 20b (4,5M ETH & 400M EIGEN), EigenDA demonstrates strong crypto-economic security. Assuming a cost of corruption at 50% of TVL, estimated at USD 10 billion, EigenDA's security surpasses the combined TVL of the networks it supports, highlighting its resilience.
While TVL may adjust once EigenLayer’s new security model is implemented, EigenDA is expected to maintain its robust security, supported by its role as EigenLayer’s flagship product.
If EigenDA decided to adopt a Unique Stake security model, where a portion of an operator's ETH stake could be slashed, maintaining sufficient TVL becomes costly. If we assume again that EIGEN rewards eventually end, how much yield would restakers earn with the current incentives of 10 ETH a month.
To put EigenDA's TVL requirements into perspective, competitors like Avail hold $ 200M in staked value (100K ETH at USD 3,900 per ETH), while Celestia boasts USD 5b (1.2M ETH at USD 3,900 per ETH).
This demonstrates that EigenDA's current incentives are barely enough to maintain the same level of crypto security as EigenDA’s competitors under a Unique Stake model.
Given EigenDA already employs a dual quorum system with EIGEN staking, it makes more sense to adopt a Total Stake model. This approach will allow EigenDA to retain substantial TVL while leveraging EIGEN slashing to penalise malicious behaviour.
EIGEN has good liquidity across several centralised exchanges, enabling weekly rewards of 1,287,420 EIGEN (USD 4.84M) to be traded with only a 2% price impact under normal market conditions.
In contrast, liquidity on decentralised exchanges like Uniswap V3 is more limited. While small trades of up to 150,000 EIGEN incur a 1-2% price impact, larger trades exceeding 1M EIGEN experience a price impact of over 30%.
Since its launch, EIGEN has experienced an initial downward price trend, very common on new tokens after the initial airdrop, but it is recovering as the bull market is picking up relative strength.
Daily correlation with ETH is positive, indicating EIGEN’s returns are heavily influenced by ETH market movements, limiting diversification benefits in ETH-dominated portfolios.
Only a few months of data are still not sufficient to judge properly the performance of the token, and periods of high volatility can remain until the market prices it correctly. However, the EIGEN token could gain value quickly as the project develops and gains more adoption.
In our efforts to build a framework to compare AVSs, we have analyzed some factors which carry the potential for risk, such as the AVS architecture itself and the economic security. However, there are other risk factors we can take into account, with regards to the AVS software itself and its security practices. We take inspiration from previous work by other teams, including LlamaRisk’s work, Chaos Labs' framework, and a blogpost by RiskLayer.
Some examples of risk factors to consider include:
The table below outlines these factors and how they pertain to the AVSs under analysis. We provide a link to the relevant sources when applicable.
Overall, we argue EigenDA ranks better in smart-contract security practices, due to being audited and decentralizing the ownership of the contract via a multisig. EigenDA also implements remote signing, which allows for maximum isolation of the private key material used by the node operator.
Regarding the risk vectors described above, we note that there are efforts by the EigenLayer team to standardize improved security practices for all AVSs. For example, RFP#1: Operator AVS Registration via EigenLayer CLI aims to provide access to remote signers to all AVSs. The approach outlined in this RFP can also streamline opt-out procedures.
In this final section of our framework, we calculate the current rewards offered to ETH/LST restakers for each AVS. We also look into EIGEN Programmatic Incentives v1 rewards distributed to all restakers who have delegated to node operators registered with an AVS.
There are three components in restaking yield for EigenDA and ARPA Network restakers at the moment.
For our calculations, we will assume TVL is fixed per AVS and cumulative rewards are swapped into ETH.
We will use the following formula to calculate the annualised APY:
Where RewardsETH = Rewards converted to ETH and StakedETH = the amount of staked ETH on the specific AVS.
To simplify calculations, although rewards can be deposited into the RewardsCoordinator at any time and claimed weekly, we have consolidated them into cumulative monthly totals.
We will not take into account Ethereum native yield either.
ARPA started distributing rewards in September 2024. ARPA restakers receive rewards if they have delegated to a node operator that meets the following conditions:
Season 1 Community Rewards is finished and Season 2 will be underway until mid-December. The amounts below are the total token allocation for the period stated.
We will focus the analysis only on ETH/LST restakers. ARPA rewards on their own, amounting to only a few thousand dollars, provide minimal yield to ETH restakers. When plotting the cumulative ARPA rewards over time per ETH staked (converted to ETH), it becomes clear that returns are negligible, amounting to less than 0.0006% APY per ETH restaked.
EigenDA introduced the Based Rewards Programme in the middle of August. Since then, EigenDA has been distributing 10ETH a month.
Although cumulative rewards over time per ETH staked offer slightly higher returns than those from the ARPA Network, they remain minimal, amounting to just 0.01% APY per ETH restaked.
In September 2024, the Eigen Foundation announced the launch of the Programmatic Incentives v1 to reward operators and restakers for their participation in the ecosystem. The distribution of these rewards started in October retroactively based on staking since August.
4% of the supply ( ~1,673,646,668 EIGEN) has been allocated to the Programmatic Incentives v1 during the first year.
EIGEN rewards provide a notable boost to EigenDA and ARPA Network restakers, significantly increasing their yield.
When calculating the total cumulative EIGEN rewards over time, converted to ETH, it becomes clear how much they increment the overall returns per ETH staked.
ARPA is making a push for Web3 gaming, a sector with substantial growth potential. We still need to wait to see whether these efforts will translate into tangible adoption or new product developments. Rewards are unlikely to increase soon, likely to remain stable until ARPA Network exhausts its token treasury. Low activity across networks and limited adoption on Optimism raise doubts about Randcast’s immediate success. Without a way to generate revenue, the network relies heavily on token rewards, which is not sustainable in the long run.
ARPA’s tokenomics present both strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, ARPA’s TSS-BLS network is designed to require less security than other AVSs, reducing risks even if TVL decreases. Yet, the token offers limited utility beyond securing the network. Additionally, 35% of ownership is concentrated in a few wallets, which could allow a small group to influence price movements, raising concerns. Given the lack of buying pressure, it will be difficult for ARPA to to outperform ETH, making it less attractive for long-term holding.
EigenDA is well-positioned to capture a significant share of the growing data availability market due to its cost efficiency, performance, and integration with EigenLayer. It is likely to be the preferred option for new AVSs requiring DA services.However, based on available data about its competitors, if EigenDA keeps its competitive pricing, it is unlikely that it hits its monthly target in the short term. As a result, rewards will need to continue being subsidised by Eigen Labs.
Currently, ETH/LST restakers face minimal impact when choosing between ARPA and EigenDA, as rewards are relatively low. However, this will change with the new security model. Node operators will need to decide which Operator Sets to join, each offering different risks and rewards. Restakers will also need to carefully evaluate which node operators to delegate to, based on the AVSs’ Operator Sets those node operators support.
At equal yield, EigenDA is a more attractive option for restaking than ARPA. With a higher total value locked (TVL) and a greater number of node operators supporting the AVS, EigenDA demonstrates stronger adoption and higher confidence from restakers. It also offers higher rewards than ARPA Network, with reduced volatility since rewards are paid in ETH.
Additionally, EigenDA shows promising growth potential in expanding blob and interoperability markets, while ARPA's limited adoption constrains its reward growth. EigenDA leverages a dual quorum to enhance its security and decentralization.
Disclaimer: This article has been prepared for the general information and understanding of the readers. The views, insights, and strategies described may not be suitable for all readers and should not be construed as tailored advice or recommendations. Both past performance and yield are not reliable indicators of future outcomes. Any case studies, examples, or illustrations are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute professional advice or endorsements. Readers should seek their own independent professional advice before making any decisions based on the information provided.
This article is based on publicly available materials and documentation within the scope of Nethermind’s review as of the date of publication. It does not constitute an endorsement, validation, or guarantee of the security, performance, or reliability of any specific project, team, or technology. Nethermind does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information presented herein.
No third party should rely on this article or its content for making decisions, including but not limited to decisions to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any product, service, asset, or technology. Nethermind disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law concerning this article, its content, and any related services, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement.
Nethermind does not warrant, endorse, guarantee, or assume responsibility for any product or service referenced in this article, nor for any open-source or third-party software, code, libraries, materials, or information linked to or accessible through this article. Any hyperlinks or references to external websites or applications are provided solely for convenience, and Nethermind will not be responsible for monitoring or facilitating transactions between users and third parties. Readers should exercise their own judgment and apply caution when engaging with external resources.
FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, THIS ARTICLE, ITS CONTENT, AND ANY ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OR SERVICES SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED OR RELIED UPON AS FINANCIAL, INVESTMENT, TAX, LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. Nethermind explicitly disclaims any liability arising from reliance on this article for decision-making purposes.
Lastly, as the focus of this article may relate to emerging technologies, including blockchain, smart contracts, or decentralized systems, readers are advised to consider the inherent risks and uncertainties associated with these fields, including potential legal and regulatory implications, security vulnerabilities, and market volatility. Nethermind’s analysis and observations should not be interpreted as endorsements or representations of the legality, safety, or suitability of the discussed technologies or projects.
.svg)
The simplest solutions to the hardest
problems in blockchain
Nethermind © 2024
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.png)
