Economic vs Cryptographic Security

Cryptographic security is binary. Either the adversary can't break it or they can. No middle ground. Economic security is different. It degrades based on how much the attacker is willing to spend. A ZK proof is either valid or not. Doesn't matter if the attacker has a billion dollars. The math holds. But a proof of stake chain? With enough capital, you can attack it. The security is denominated in dollars. This distinction shapes design decisions. Critical invariants should have cryptographic guarantees. Ordering and timing can rely on economic incentives. Mix them appropriately. Economic security has an advantage though. It's measurable. You can calculate exactly how much it costs to attack. Cryptographic security is binary but you don't know when it might flip. A breakthrough could invalidate assumptions overnight. The trend is layering both. Cryptographic proofs for correctness. Economic stakes for liveness and ordering. Neither alone is sufficient for robust systems. I think about attack cost constantly when evaluating protocols. What's the minimum spend to cause damage? If the number is low relative to TVL, that's a red flag. Security should be expensive to break.