Publikuj

After a conversation with @jdetychey I have a better understanding of his position. I’d like to write it down to make sure I got it right. Having a high percentage of $ETH staked introduces a number of problems and acts as a centralizing force. Specifically, if staked $ETH crosses some threshold, say 50%, then it creates a strong incentive for the remaining 50% to stake to avoid dilution. At that point staking yield becomes nominal for all. It’s reasonable to expect that stakers will prefer the largest and most liquid staking options and so will opt for the largest LST or largest centralized staking entities. Solo stakers are harmed in this scenario because they are, in most countries, paying taxes on nominal ETH yield and so their ROI becomes negative. This pushes them out of the market further centralizing the chain. LSTs that accumulate a large percentage of $ETH staked introduce tail risk because they become too big to fail. In the case of a major compromise the chain may be forced to fork. This brings us to the other risk which is that in the case of very high percent of ETH staked the social layer (i.e. holders of non staked ETH) are not large enough in number to prevent bad actors from causing harm. For example of a large centralized staking entity decides to censor or fork the chain (e.g. Coinbase in the of some dispute over USDC.) Is that correct? Anything I got wrong @jdetychey? To be clear, I don’t agree with all of this, but I think all these are totally reasonable points and have merit.