How Does Astar Network Work?

L2|Risk B-|7 mechanisms|5 interactions

Astar Network is a multi-chain ecosystem operating a Polkadot parachain and an Ethereum L2 (Astar zkEVM built with Polygon CDK), with a strategic partnership with Sony for the Soneium L2. With approximately $30M in TVL across its chains and a Japan-focused positioning, it is a mid-tier infrastructure project. Its C grade reflects centralization risks from a small Data Availability Committee (fewer than 5 external members), a permissioned DA bridge relayer with no governance fallback, and fragmentation risk from operating across three different chains. The protocol has no history of exploits and benefits from the Sony partnership, but the low TVL, inflationary tokenomics, and multi-chain strategy challenges drive the elevated risk assessment.

TVL

$30M

Sector

L2

Risk Grade

B-

Value Grade

D-

Core Mechanisms

7.4 Validium / ZK Rollup

Astar zkEVM — validium built with Polygon CDK, using off-chain DA committee for data availability

Polygon CDK-based validium, first to integrate with AggLayer. Type 2/2.5 zkEVM equivalence. Standard Polygon CDK architecture.

7.2 Sequencer

Trusted sequencer that batches transactions and requests DAC signatures before posting to AstarValidium contract

Standard centralized sequencer pattern for Polygon CDK chains. Sequencer posts hashed batches with DAC signatures.

8.3 Data Availability Committee

DAC with fewer than 5 external members, 5/3 signing threshold for data availability attestations

Standard DAC pattern from Polygon CDK. Small committee size (fewer than 5 external) is a centralization concern.

6.1 Bridge / Lock-and-Mint

Canonical bridge to Ethereum via AggLayer, plus Polkadot parachain bridge

Standard bridging via Polygon CDK infrastructure. Also bridges to Polkadot ecosystem via parachain slot.

5.1 Governance Token

ASTR token for transaction fees, dApp staking, and governance voting

Multi-purpose token. Currently inflationary (~665M/year), transitioning to 10.5B fixed cap under Tokenomics 3.0.

2.1 dApp Staking

Novel

dApp Staking v3 — users stake ASTR on specific dApps to earn inflation rewards, funding developers directly

Novel mechanism where staking is directed at individual dApps rather than validators. DApp developers receive a share of block rewards proportional to stake allocated to their dApp. Not widely replicated (Astar-specific).

10.1 Polkadot Parachain

Polkadot parachain with shared security, transitioning to Agile Coretime model

Standard Polkadot parachain with shared relay chain security. Transitioning from parachain slot auctions to Agile Coretime.

How the Pieces Interact

Data Availability Committee (5/3 threshold)Canonical BridgeHigh

With fewer than 5 external DAC members and a 3/5 signing threshold, a small group can collude with the sequencer to attest unavailable data. If unavailable state is finalized, bridge withdrawals may be based on incorrect balances, potentially causing fund loss.

Permissioned DA Bridge RelayerCanonical BridgeHigh

The DA bridge relayer is permissioned with no governance fallback. If the relayer goes offline, the DA bridge halts entirely. Without the DA bridge, the zkEVM cannot finalize state on L1, freezing all user funds with no recovery path outside centralized intervention.

dApp Staking v3ASTR Token InflationMedium

dApp staking rewards come from ASTR inflation (~665M/year). If dApp quality or ecosystem activity declines, stakers earn inflation-funded rewards with diminishing token value, effectively diluting non-staking holders without productive ecosystem growth.

Multi-Chain Architecture (Polkadot + zkEVM + Soneium)ASTR Token ValueMedium

Fragmentation across Polkadot parachain, zkEVM, and Soneium (Sony partnership) dilutes developer focus and TVL. If the Sony/Soneium partnership does not drive significant adoption, the multi-chain strategy may stretch resources without proportional returns.

Tokenomics 3.0 (Planned Fixed Supply)dApp Staking RewardsMedium

Transitioning from inflationary to fixed supply (10.5B cap) requires a governance vote. If the vote fails or is delayed, the current inflation model continues diluting holders. If it passes, dApp staking rewards must be funded differently, potentially reducing developer incentives.

What Could Go Wrong

  1. Astar zkEVM uses a Data Availability Committee (DAC) with fewer than 5 external members (5/3 threshold), meaning a small group of entities can collude with the proposer to finalize state based on unavailable data, potentially causing loss of funds.
  2. The relayer role in the DA bridge is permissioned with no Security Council or governance mechanism to replace it. If the relayer fails, the DA bridge halts and cannot recover without centralized intervention, creating a single point of failure.
  3. Astar operates across multiple execution environments (Polkadot parachain, zkEVM via Polygon CDK, Soneium via Sony partnership) which fragments developer attention and TVL. The zkEVM has very low TVL relative to its ambitions, suggesting limited organic adoption.
  4. The ASTR token has been inflationary (~665M/year) with a market cap that has declined significantly. Tokenomics 3.0 (fixed 10.5B supply cap) is planned for early 2026 but requires a governance vote, creating uncertainty about the inflation trajectory.

DAC Collusion and Unavailable State Finalization

Moderate

Trigger: 3 or more of the fewer-than-5 external DAC members collude with the sequencer to sign attestations for unavailable data, allowing finalization of a state that users cannot verify or challenge

  1. 1.DAC members sign availability attestations for data that has not been properly published or made available The AstarValidium contract accepts the attestations and finalizes state based on unavailable data
  2. 2.Users cannot independently reconstruct the chain state to verify their balances Withdrawal requests may be processed against incorrect balances; some users may lose funds if the finalized state is fraudulent
  3. 3.Community discovers the discrepancy but has no on-chain mechanism to challenge the finalized state Trust in Astar zkEVM collapses; remaining TVL attempts to exit but bridge integrity depends on the same compromised state

Risk Profile at a Glance

Mechanism Novelty3/15
Interaction Severity8/20
Oracle Surface0/10
Documentation Gaps4/10
Track Record3/15
Scale Exposure3/10
Regulatory Risk6/10
Vitality Risk6/10
B-

Overall: B- (33/100)

Lower score = safer

More on Astar Network

Related L2 Explainers