Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
agrimony↑🎩
@agrimony.eth
Don't quite understand the value capture here. Using graffiti space for inscriptions is great, but what's stopping large operators from cashing in and redistributing that value to liquid stakers. Not too sure I uds how to fundamentally separate economic vs security incentives
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
As I understand, validators with a withdrawal address set to a smart contract are automatically disqualified. By definition, this includes all LST providers, and in fact even Rocket Pool, leaving only pure solo stakers.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Which is interesting in itself, because for 1+ year I’ve been asking “how do we identify solo stakers onchain” and the (now clearly superficial) replies were always “you can’t, there’s nothing unique about them that large operators can’t replicate too” Well here’s the answer
1 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
agrimony↑🎩
@agrimony.eth
Ah thanks I see! Makes sense. but if the only valid graffiti are from solo stakers wouldn't that mean high latency on the heroglyphs protocol? Maybe I'm just not understanding it right
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
WDYM high latency? You mean long time between blocks? That’s definitely true for solo validators with just one node that sees maybe one block per year lol. I haven’t read the heroglyphs doc and what it says about that.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
agrimony↑🎩
@agrimony.eth
Yep. Don't mean per validator, but the sum of all blocks produced by solo validators is prob infrequent Cos it uses graffiti produced by solo validators to inscribe new tokens
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Cimpy
@cimpy
Let me know if you find more info related to this. That would be a massive bump to overcome for the protocol.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
