Avail 联创 Prabal：Avail、Celestia 和 EigenLayer 有何不同？
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Avail 联创 Prabal：Avail、Celestia 和 EigenLayer 有何不同？
The three technologies involve trade-offs; Avail employs a validity proof-based approach combining KZG commitments and erasure coding.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Crypto Town with Sharvil
Prabal: Avail is a dedicated DA solution, but DA is just what we're focusing on right now. We are building more things internally and will be talking about them at scale in the coming months. We want to create a foundational layer where all critical components can be built around it, enabling a seamless unified experience for users. Because as you mentioned, the current approach has many issues.
What will the user experience look like when there are millions of rollups? These are key points we aim to improve. So we don't just want to ensure there's a data availability layer—we also want to define how rollups interact with each other. What should the user experience be? How do we enable asynchronous message passing? We want to treat these interactions as API calls between rollups—that’s where we’re focusing our improvements.
Host: What differentiates Celestia, EigenLayer, and Avail? Why should developers choose Avail over the others?
Prabal: I think the core technical details among the three are different. People may talk about other aspects, but I prefer to focus on our core technology.
There are trade-offs in technology. Celestia uses a hash-based scheme, which is efficient and easy to implement. We've taken a more validity-proof-based approach, combining KZG commitments with erasure coding. This means we don’t need to rely on underlying fraud proofs, whereas Celestia's data availability relies on underlying fraud proofs for security.
What does this mean for developers? Why should they care? If you're running a rollup and have an execution proof, you don't want to wait for DA fraud proofs. That’s why they should choose a solution like Avail—developers get immediate DA guarantees without having to wait for fraud proofs.
As for EigenLayer, I think many details are still being worked out, and their specific operational model and performance benchmarks remain to be seen. But broadly speaking, they operate more like a data committee.
You can have two types of solutions: either a data committee or a dedicated DA L1. EigenLayer leans more toward the data committee model, and its effectiveness depends on how many members are in the committee. While cryptoeconomic security is valuable, data availability is non-attributable, meaning there's no identifiable fault when something goes wrong, so cryptoeconomic security only plays a limited role. This is precisely why having a dedicated DA layer is so important.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@cryptotownpod
