𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐋𝐀 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 Two days ago, I mentioned that Restaking is retaking the spotlight, and yes, it is. The only question that lingers is: "Where do I pay attention?" This is why I researched and identified a few topics to focus on. The first one is "Restaking SLA markets." What is this about? ----- A quick analogy: In cloud computing, uptime is turned into a contract. That is, you pay AWS more for 99.99% uptime than for 99.9%. The higher the guarantee, the higher the price, because the provider is on the hook for compensating you if they fail. In restaking, you have decentralized independent operators who secure services like sequencers, oracles, and data availability networks. These operators post collateral (their staked assets) that can be slashed if they fail to meet the promised service level. Shared security is what makes restaking powerful. But there is a trust challenge. That is, if you are a rollup buying sequencing or a protocol buying Oracle data, how do you know the operator will deliver the quality you need? This is what Service Level Agreements (SLAs) do. They turn reliability, inclusion, and latency into explicit contracts that can be priced, monitored, and enforced. That is, an AVS buyer would pay more for a sequencer that guarantees 99.9% inclusion within T slots than for one that only guarantees 95%. If you are interested in the comparison between the top restaking protocols, read the post I published a week ago, quoted at the end. ----- Now, we said that an AVS buyer would pay more for a 'sequencer' that guaranteed 99% inclusion. These buyers with immediate pain are called 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀. A few of them include: • @AstriaOrg: Their design prioritizes fast confirmation and censorship resistance, which turns into inclusion and latency SLOs (Service Level Objective) for an SLA. • @EspressoSys runs a shared sequencing network with cross-rollup functionality. It emphasizes credible neutrality and interoperability to standardize inclusion and reliability. • @radius_xyz focuses on encrypted mempools via verifiable delay encryption to curb harmful MEV and censorship. An SLA for Radius-secured apps would weight inclusion and censorship SLOs more heavily, and can incorporate monitoring for decryption and ordering delays. ----- Moving on... We need to know what services need explicit guarantees. And by services, we mean AVSs by function. We have: 1. 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗔𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: As you know, DA is about making sure that the data behind transactions is well published and accessible. @eigenlayer's EigenDA ensures that data is written into blobs that have clear fees and lifetimes, and because these are measurable, an SLA can use delays in data publishing or sudden fee spikes as the signals for when penalties should apply. 2. 𝗙𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀: FFOs give rollups stronger guarantees about when a transaction is truly confirmed. @alt_layer’s MACH system adds an economic backing to early confirmations, so users and apps know that once a transaction is seen, it is unlikely to be reversed. Due to this, SLAs always have clear targets for how reliable confirmations must be and how quickly finality is reached. 3. 𝗭𝗞 𝗖𝗼𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴: This is the same as using zero-knowledge proofs to verify computations. @brevis_zk built a service that allows applications to outsource heavy computation while still getting a proof that the result is correct, enabling accuracy and latency for SLAs. 4. 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: It makes it possible for one blockchain to trust the state of another. @lagrangedev runs committees of operators who attest to the state of rollups, while they are checked against onchain events, making SLAs define provable response times and correctness guarantees. 5. 𝗢𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀: Oracles deliver external data to blockchains. @redsrone_defi and @eoracle_network deliver this data, such that if prices are wrong or delivered late, the economic damage is immediate. Thus, SLAs specify strict thresholds for accuracy and timelines. 6. 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀: These are monitors. @witnesschain organizes networks of watchtowers that detect fraudulent activities or downtime in rollups, among other problems. They can also challenge incorrect proofs. In an SLA system, they provide the independent evidence that proves whether an operator met or failed their obligations. ----- Restaking is now an economy of its own. Because of this, an SLA market is very relevant. 𝗪𝗛𝗬? • First is accountability. If an AVS can specify a condition, it can now be enforced economically, ensuring priced commitments. • Second, buyers are consolidating around shared sequencing. Astria and Espresso are in market and onboarding users, while Radius is pushing private order flow protections. These are the services where inclusion, latency, and censorship guarantees are make-or-break for user trust and app safety. • Third, measurements exist. This is because inclusion can be tied to signed first-seen receipts and canonical chain scans, while DA delays and blob fees are transparent enough to reference. As such, the order-flow research agenda is public, increasing the value of guarantees to counter exclusive flow. • Fourth, the risk tail is insurable. Coverage products for slashing are live, and with standardized evidence and percentile-based penalty curves, insurers and reinsurers can model expected losses and portfolio correlation across operators, which makes capital formation for these markets possible. ----- Insurance and Reinsurance? What do they mean? Insurance protects stakers and operators when slashing occurs. If an operator is penalized, the insurance policy covers part of the loss. @NexusMutual and @BlockdaemonHQ provide these protection services. Reinsurance, on the other hand, spreads the risk across multiple insurers so that no single failure overwhelms the system. With standardized breach evidence, these protections can be packaged and priced in secondary markets, making them part of the financial layer of restaking. ----- 𝗜𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲... Imagine a rollup contracting shared sequencing through an SLA with: → 99.9% inclusion target within T base-chain slots for transactions above a fee threshold, → Median latency under 300ms, and → A maximum censorship miss rate of 0.01%. What will happen? → Monitors will issue signed first-seen receipts and file non-inclusion proofs after the challenge window. → The escrowed stake is slashed on breach, → An insurer takes the tail above an attachment point, and → A reinsurer prices correlation across multiple operators and AVSs. From here, quality scores and realized penalties stream to a venue where credits and insurance tranches trade. ----- 𝗔 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁-𝗯𝘆-𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗽 📌 EigenLayer provides the operator set, restaked collateral, and slashing hooks that make enforcement possible. EigenDA is the DA AVS whose delays and fees can parameterize DA-aware penalties. 📌 Symbiotic and Karak broaden the collateral set and governance models. They can host the same SLA logic for teams that want asset flexibility or different governance risk. 📌 Astria, Espresso, and Radius are priority buyers. They stand to benefit immediately from inclusion, latency, and censorship SLAs backed by slashable stake and insurance. 📌 AltLayer’s MACH, Brevis, Lagrange, RedStone, and eOracle are AVSs where correctness, timeliness, and reliability are framed as explicit SLOs with objective proofs. They are natural early adopters of standardized SLA templates. 📌 Witness Chain and similar watchtower systems are monitors and bounty recipients in breach-evidence pipelines. 📌 Nexus Mutual and operator-offered guarantees provide first-generation cover that evolves into standardized tranches once SLAs define attachment and limits in onchain terms. ----- In the next two quarters, you should watch out for: • Shared sequencer integrations and migrations • More inclusion and latency distributions • New cross-rollup features. Also, if the Pectra Upgrade increases blob throughput, DA-aware penalty parameters will need updates to reflect the new fee and delay dynamics. And as more AVSs light up slashing, insurers will publish their first loss models, by which the market will surely compare to realized penalties. ----- Wrapping Up Like I said in the comparison post, Restaking is now beyond just a narrative. It is now an entire infrastructure, and as such, for institutions and serious builders to trust it, they need contracts that define what service will be delivered, how it will be measured, and how breaches will be punished and insured. This is the role of the SLA market, making reliability something you can buy, compare, and insure, just like cloud uptime or credit risk. For you and me, this is what we should do: → Allocate a small slice to LRT products for yield farming. You might want to check that they published operator scorecards, slashing terms, and insurance coverages. → Provide capital to slashing cover vaults only where attachment, limit, and proof standards are clearly spelled out. You are getting paid to absorb tail risk. → Farm monitor bounties by running lightweight monitor clients that timestamp first seen transactions and file non-inclusion proofs. This can also give you the data edge to judge operators before everyone else. → Buy short-dated SLA credits with strong qualities. I'd prefer credits backed by overcollateralized escrows and multiple independent monitors. → Finally, if you hold restaked assets, pair them with slashing cover sized to your largest operator exposure. You should also have a written exit plan. Thanks for reading!