PhiMarHal
@phimarhal
Most disturbing aspect of the anti-homestaking crusade over at x dot com is how far the Overton window shifted on Ethereum staking in general. It's true the state of solo staking is unfortunate, in terms of network weight. It's to the point solo staking, which should be seen as the baseline, is considered to be at the opposite end of the spectrum. People on the fence reach for the middle point between anti-homestakers and solo stakers, as if the latter group were also extremists. Or they praise the spirit of open discussion in the Ethereum community. As if this were a debate between two reasonable groups invested in the health of the network. It's a bit like holding a governance round-table in a democracy, and one of the groups campaigns for tyranny. (Oh, and a good half of the pro-tyranny group members look suspiciously different than the average countryman. Who knows why.)
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
PhiMarHal
@phimarhal
IMHO, the rational Overton window on Ethereum staking should be: - extreme left of the spectrum: "solo staking is fine as is" - moving from the extreme left to the middle: "we should increase the number of solo stakers as well as their geographic decentralization. we should make it easier to solo stake, technically and financially" - moving from the middle to the extreme right: "we need to go further and improve solo staking health at all costs. invent and increase penalties for centralized stake. design systems to counteract economy of scale and the defi benefits of liquid tokens so we hit the right balance. threaten slashing if things get too far" - extreme right of the spectrum: "slash centralized stakers. fork the network" (left/right not meant to map to the political spectrum, just to a spectrum)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Broadly agree and that’s why I was advocating for a data-driven approach in a cast to /eth-staker yesterday. To your Overton analogy, right now it feels like political opinions (which are famously like rectums - everybody has one). How much bandwidth is being used by a staking node today? How does that compare with bandwidth cost and availability in every geo? How will future blob size increases change that equilibrium? Same for computing power — is ~$800 still going to be enough to buy a decent staking node going forward, given the opposing forces of more demanding CL/EL clients and better computing power per dollar every year? (Assuming computing power progresses much faster than bandwidth availability) I wish this was quantified in a way that we could run informed what-if scenarios on scaling and the impact to home staking. And ideally, have different roles where beefier stakers (more bandwidth and compute) can fulfill additional roles while lighter stakers continue to do what they can
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
