Sjt
@sjt
1/n I hope @caspar and @ansgar.eth have some more energy to engage on questions related to their proposal: IMO, the proposal changes staking in a way providing liquidity to AMMs changed from Uniswap V2 to V3 i.e., it becomes more complex
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sjt
@sjt
2/n As a Rocketpool NodeOperator (let's pretend I'm a solo staker for now), now providing and managing stake has more factors to consider incl. negative yields and likely needs acitve monitoring. In a scenario like this, my hypothesis is everyone who wants to stake will gravitate towards one liquid staking solution.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sjt
@sjt
3/n Say a token named heyETH is the most dominant LST. The heyETH developers can choose to accept unlimited ETH for deposits, and only stake the target or below-target amount to get ETH staking yield, and just keep the remaining deposits in plain ETH or pursue other yield mechanisms like LPing, lending.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sjt
@sjt
4/n As heyETH becomes more dominant, sometimes they can even choose to stake beyond the target and get negative yield if that means competitors get killed off. They can offset the loss by yields on the rest of their non-staked ETH.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sjt
@sjt
n/n Wouldn't this hurt couple of goals of the proposal: 1. reduce centralization 2. increase naked ETH liquidity I can discern how the proposal addresses the "paying too much for security" aspect, but I am not following how it encourages solo stakers and improves naked ETH liquidity
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
