gonna start using farcaster again, might as well start with a controversial one lol

one of my concerns with much of the Lido discussion is that it may degrade the credibility of social consensus as line of last resort

(respect dannys & appreciate points btw, just using as example bc it got a lot of attention/EF RT)

taking the framing from @barnabe's seeing like a protocol (its awesome, read it if you havent)

"Protocol credibility = Protocol introspection + Protocol agency + Defence of last resort by the community"

Robust Incentives Group @ Ethereum Foundation

https://rig.ethereum.org

taking the framing from @barnabe's seeing like a protocol (its awesome, read it if you havent)

"Protocol credibility = Protocol introspection + Protocol agency + Defence of last resort by the community"

https://barnabe.substack.com/p/seeing-like-a-protocol?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

It seems clear to me that the alarm bells re Lido surpassing 1/3 of stake for example has no such credible threat behind it - they're at ~1/3 now and nobodys going to be forked out here

Having this social consensus be a credible line of last resort is critical imo - this is fundamental to guarantees such as the threat of a fork to remove censoring validators in the case of "strong censorship"

this was a credibly presented threat last yr imo

Having this social consensus be a credible line of last resort is critical imo - this is fundamental to guarantees such as the threat of a fork to remove censoring validators in the case of "strong censorship"

this was a credibly presented threat last yr imo
https://twitter.com/ercwl/status/1561172692941869056?s=20

setting bright red lines such as Lido controlling 1/3 of stake being "a threat to Ethereum's security, neutrality, and legitimacy" is dangerous imo if this is not something we're actually willing to defend

this weakens the fence of where social consensus is willing to step in

what happens if proposers decide to start playing timing games and proposing their block later in their slots to earn extra rewards?

this deviates from the "honest" expected behavior, but we know its economically rational to do so

are they emboldened to do so if social consensus is unwilling to defend it?

more discussion around what the protocols role fundamentally is and what we're willing to defend will become increasingly important particularly as "honesty" assumptions of actors such as validators keep being added to and these actors potentially professionalize/institutionalize

"Credibility is fully obtained whenever it is clear that the community is willing to defend the protocol’s preferred outcomes in the last resort, forcing the outcomes it cares about even at the cost of forking out part of the validator set."