Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth
@jasper-eth
A simple change to issuance like this will not stop LST dominance but it WILL kill off many Rocket Pool node operators who are far more sensitive to rate changes. If the goal is to keep Ethereum's solo stakers relevant, than this approach is not sufficient. 1/n
2 replies
3 recasts
13 reactions
pintail
@pintail
The proposed issuance change will prevent the staking ratio growing to the extent that an LST could effectively usurp ETH, which would be very bad and also difficult/impossible to recover from. As a home staker myself I don't relish a reduction in yield but I care more about the long term viability of Ethereum.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth
@jasper-eth
I disagree. LST holders are rare insensitive. Why do you think people will leave LSTs if the issuance is cut? The terminal picture is the same as long as nominal yields are positive. It will be better to hold an LST over ETH. LST holders face no expenses - staking at home costs time and money.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth
@jasper-eth
Rate insensitive **
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pintail
@pintail
I would expect LST holders to go wherever they can get the best yield. When the staking yield drops, they will exit their positions much more quickly than solo stakers.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth
@jasper-eth
What yield source are you imagining that isn’t improved by being based off of LSTs? The terminal state of any positive yield is 100% stake by LSTs. We need to deal with how we retain home stakers’ relevance in that world.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
