EigenLayer has just released the white paper for its protocol token EIGEN, introducing numerous novel and complex concepts such as Intersubjective, Work Token, Token Forking, slashing-by-forking, and Intersubjective staking. These terms have quickly become the focus of community discussion. The primary design intention of the EigenLayer protocol is to generalize the use of Ethereum nodes, allowing these nodes to execute additional business logic to increase revenue, thereby enhancing income for users participating in ETH consensus. However, adding such utility to nodes also introduces risks. Among these risks are not only directly observable objective risks but also some that lie in the uncertain area between subjective and objective. This uncertainty, although not completely guaranteed by cryptography and mathematics, is based on “social consensus.” This is what is referred to as “Intersubjective,” which I prefer to translate as “social consensus.”

Furthermore, precisely because it is “social consensus,” the protocol token also needs to be forkable. Designing a dual-token segregation model and the logic for initiating forks as challenges are all part of this support system. It is more akin to implementing a whole network logic with Ethereum; it has both (social) consensus and nodes, and it can fork, but it is not a blockchain.

In addition, I recall some old anecdotes related to Work Token and Weak Subjectivity as supplements.

What is Work Token

Work Token has been discussed since around 2018 and became more widely known due to Kyle Samani of Multicoin Capital. In a nutshell, under the Work Token model, service providers must stake the network’s native tokens to earn the right to perform work for the network. This means nodes need to provide tokens and services to earn rewards. With the proliferation of on-chain liquidity and DeFi protocols over the past few years, the tokens that nodes need to stake can be provided by third parties, eliminating the need for nodes to put up large amounts of their own assets. This has evolved into the current model of EigenLayer: users provide ETH, the Liquid Restaking Protocol provides liquidity, node operators provide hardware, and AVS provides business logic.

Back in 2018 or earlier, the industry classified tokens in various ways, with the most common classifications being: Store of Value (like Bitcoin), Security Tokens, Utility Tokens, and Work Tokens.

For more on Work Token and other token models, I recommend starting with this article from Multicoin:https://multicoin.capital/2018/02/13/new-models-utility-tokens/

What is Intersubjective?

To begin with, let’s define two key terms: Objective and Subjective. In the context of blockchain and decentralized networks, errors can be classified based on their nature into the following four categories:

• Objective Errors: These errors are based on data and cryptography, and can be clearly verified, such as the execution process of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).
• Intersubjective Errors: These errors involve social consensus among groups. When certain behaviors or judgments exceed this consensus, they are considered intersubjective errors.
• Unobservable Errors: These errors are known only to the victims and cannot be observed by others.
• Subjective Errors: These errors are entirely based on personal experiences and views, leading to results without consensus.

EigenLayer believes that unobservable errors and subjective errors are difficult to correct, and thus proposes using ETH to avoid objective errors and using EIGEN to avoid intersubjective errors.

The concept of “Intersubjective” can be seen as a state that lies between “objective” and “subjective”. The term is composed of “Inter” (meaning “between” or “mutual”, as in “interactive” or “internet”) and “Subjective”. Therefore, “Intersubjective” refers to a subjective state formed between individuals, a consensus formed within a society through interaction.

If you ask ChatGPT what “Intersubjective” means, it might tell you a difficult-to-understand Chinese translation: “互为主体性” (mutual subjectivity).

For example, in financial markets, the widely rejected statement “1 BTC = 1 USD” can be categorized as an intersubjective error. Therefore, to explain “Intersubjective”, we can understand it as “social consensus”, that is, the common acceptance of certain ideas or facts within a group.

Although in academic and professional discussions, there is a subtle difference between “social consensus” and “intersubjective”—the latter focuses more on describing the shared process of individual subjective experiences and knowledge, while “social consensus” emphasizes the outcome of collective decision-making and actions.

ETH Objective, EIGEN Subjective?

A brief review of the EigenLayer protocol: users can deposit ETH into the Liquid Restaking Protocol. These protocols will then stake these ETH to operate Ethereum validator nodes. These validator nodes will simultaneously run various AVS (Active Validation Services) middleware operations (such as oracles, cross-chain bridges, data availability, etc.), providing services to end applications.

For AVS, there are two types: objective and intersubjective. Objective AVS are based on cryptography and mathematics, allowing for clear quantification and verification. In the design of EigenLayer, these AVS can rely on restaked ETH as their security guarantee. In contrast, intersubjective AVS, like oracles, rely on off-chain data that cannot be verified on-chain. Therefore, they depend on social consensus among nodes; data recognized by a sufficient number of nodes is considered trustworthy.

In summary, restaked ETH will serve as the working token for objective AVS within the EigenLayer protocol, while EIGEN will serve as the working token for intersubjective AVS.

Can Protocol Tokens Fork?

Token Forking is a novel concept. Typically, when we talk about the forkability of a blockchain, we refer to its open-source code or network (the chain itself). In theory, ERC-20 tokens are not forkable, at least not inherently, because as smart contracts, they entirely depend on the objective attributes of the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine).

However, EigenLayer proposes that within their framework, token forkability serves as a fallback security measure, even if it is an exceedingly rare occurrence. If malicious actors ever make up more than half of the EigenLayer network, ordinary users could fork the tokens. Consequently, all users and AVS (Active Validation Services) can choose the appropriate tokens based on their situations, essentially allowing social consensus to determine which token is the most legitimate. This concept, also known as “slashing-by-forking,” originates from an article written by Vitalik Buterin nine years ago.

Supporting this forkability requires significant additional logic. For instance, if tokens can be forked, can EIGEN still be used as collateral in lending protocols? To address this, they have designed a dual-token isolation model where EIGEN cannot be forked, but another token, bEIGEN, can be. They have also devised a forking challenge process and compensation logic to support this mechanism.

Ethereum’s Weak subjectivity

Ethereum’s PoS (Proof of Stake) consensus has a concept called “weak subjectivity,” also invented by Vitalik Buterin, which lies between “objective” and “subjective.” Only blockchains with PoS consensus exhibit this attribute.

In PoW (Proof of Work) networks, the competition for computational power incurs real costs, making the longest chain the most secure and therefore entirely “objective.” However, in PoS networks, the cost of block production is negligible, and the cost of attacks is low. For newly joined nodes, it is necessary to seek social information to find this “weak subjectivity.” Only by joining the correct network can they objectively participate in the PoS process. Thus, some “subjective” factors exist before joining the correct network.

However, for nodes already participating in the consensus of the correct Ethereum network, all consensus processes and EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) operations are objective, guaranteed by cryptography and mathematics. For instance, the determinism of EVM inputs and outputs and the clear rules for slashing in cases of double signing are all well-defined.

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reprinted from [ChainFeeds Research]. All copyrights belong to the original author [ZHIXIONG PAN]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.