Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

nixo pfp
nixo
@nixo
we're at 25% of all ETH staked rn. at current rates, it's not crazy to think that nearly all ETH could eventually be staked. that's overpaying for security and exposing the larger ecosystem to unnecessary risk (if, say, a lot of that was an LST) so what kind of design could set a staking target?
7 replies
0 recast
12 reactions

Thomas pfp
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
This @vitalik.eth post from two months ago is highly relevant to the discussion on validator load and ways forward: https://ethresear.ch/t/sticking-to-8192-signatures-per-slot-post-ssf-how-and-why/17989
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

Barnabé Monnot pfp
Barnabé Monnot
@barnabe
Agreed but also think it's two separate (though related) problems. One is about the amount of ETH at stake (what @caspar discusses), the other is about the number of "seats" active during an SSF round. We could in theory have 8192 validators only and still 100% of ETH staked if we increased MaxEB enough
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Thomas pfp
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Thank you for your helpful clarifications as always, @barnabe! On the adjacent topic of max_effective_balance, is it now on the roadmap for an upcoming upgrade, or still in discussion? It feels like such a low-hanging fruit to address the validator count (even if only marginally so).
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions