Connect with us

Published

on

Ethereum restaking — proposed by middleware protocol EigenLayer — is a controversial innovation over the past year that has some of the brightest minds worried about the potential ramifications.

Restaking involves reusing staked or locked-up Ether tokens to earn fees and rewards. The restaked tokens can then help secure and validate other protocols. 

Proponents believe restaking can squeeze additional security and rewards from already staked ETH and grow the crypto ecosystem in a healthier way based on Ethereum’s existing trust mechanisms. Restaking could serve as a security primitive for exporting Ethereum’s trust generated by its validators to other projects.

Yet Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin and a number of key devs worry that restaking is a house of cards that will inevitably tumble. Some of those Ethereum devs have even proposed a fork to head off restaking platform EigenLayer. 

Why the project’s founders promote “trust as a service” from Ethereum without the Ethereum founder and others’ willingness to participate is still to play out. Will the whole concept result in an Ethereum fork to protect the network from catastrophic failure? 

Staking and restaking

Staking is a crypto-native concept. On Ethereum, it means putting up a security bond in ETH so that the validator (validators of new transactions who maintain the security of the blockchain) will behave honestly in verifying transactions rather than lose their staked tokens. Stakers are then paid rewards for locking up this ETH. 

In essence, stakers lock up their tokens to commit to producing Ethereum blocks — an on-chain way of supporting development, regardless of fluctuations in highly volatile token prices. 

So what is restaking?

In short, restaking works in that already staked Ethereum tokens can be rehypothecated (when a lender re-uses collateral posted from one loan to take out a new loan) to secure a wider variety of applications and accrue additional rewards.

But restakers also get penalized or slashed for non-performance of their staking tasks. (More on that below).

So restaking is a crypto primitive for generating economic security from Ethereum’s nine years of concerted developer activity and project track record. 

“It’s an extension protocol to extend what Ethereum can do, scaling out Ethereum stakers beyond Ethereum to other bridges and oracles that need to be secured,” EigenLayer founder Sreeram Kannan tells Magazine.

He says EigenLayer is commoditizing ETH staking to make it more general purpose, as, in crypto parlance, “staking is the root of trust.” 

Kannan is an academic on leave from the University of Washington, and EigenLayer began as academic research into “exported trust” as a consensus protocol. Basically, he sought to piggyback the trust generated by Ethereum to other ecosystems. 

Kannan essentially seeks to export the “trust” generated by Ethereum for other projects across the ecosystem and other chains. “In crypto, mechanisms for trust mean that investors need skin in the game. The pseudonymous world needs carrots and sticks whereby validators are distributed.” He calls it “permissionless innovation.” 

The best each chain has to offer

The big idea for EigenLayer is to bridge blockchains and create super applications, taking the best each chain has to offer. Kannan says “every ecosystem is better in some dimension, but not all dimensions,” and EigenLayer enhancing decentralized tech stacks will actually benefit the industry. 

Kannan said that what can be built with EigenLayer fits roughly into two categories.

Firstly, EigenLayer allows for the construction of bridges from chain to chain, say Ethereum to Avalanche. EigenLayer acts as a marketplace for “decentralized trust,” connecting stakers seeking yields, projects built on EigenLayer offering risk-reward structures for yields, and operators acting as bridges between stakers and projects.



Secondly, a set of smart contracts on Ethereum’s chain lets ETH stakers opt to run other software. EigenLayer could, for example, improve Ethereum transaction finality speeds. ETH stakers can now take the layer-1 blockchain Fantom chain (for better transaction finality times) and fork it on EigenLayer, thereby running a layer as a super fast finalization layer with an EigenLayer trust layer.

But it’s all still theoretical.  

The idea of restaking makes sense theoretically, helping projects build off Ethereum’s security layer — but the problems worry many. 

In theory, “it’s like the NATO security alliance; each country is still a sovereign country, but their mutual defense pact is secured by the sum of their military power,” Sunny Aggarwal, co-founder of Osmosis Labs and creator of a similar restaking system — Mesh, on Cosmos’ chain — told Magazine. 

In practice, EigenLayer provides two ways to restake: whitelisted liquid staking derivatives can be restaked with EigenLayer or an EigenPod (a smart contract can be created to run a validator while restaking). But most restakers won’t run their own validator, so new networks can build projects without their own communities of validators. 

EigenLayer isn’t live yet, and it’s impact is still highly speculative, according to Anthony “0xSassal” Sassano, a full-time Ethereuem educator, founder of YouTube channel The Daily Gwei and an early investor in EigenLayer.

To date, there’s only a smart contract for staked ETH to bootstrap the EigenLayer network, and perhaps given EigenLayer’s hype, people are depositing their ETH into that network, expecting to farm an unconfirmed airdrop of native EigenLayer tokens. 

A force for good or evil?

To be successful, new consensus protocols need a balanced alignment of incentives. Trust is like a scale weighing competing interests. And trying to export Ethereum security layers to different blockchain ecosystems worries some. Many are still trying to understand if it’s a force for good or evil — or both.

“There are two camps: those excited by broadening the use case of ETH staking, and then there are those that worry about potential attack vectors on Ethereum and potential negative consequences for Ethereum if something goes wrong with EigenLayer. My view is in the middle; I understand the concerns and the excitement.” Sassano says.

“Inherently, all of this is complex; it depends which rabbit hole you want to go down. The simple answer is that Ethereum, as a network, currently has over 25 million ETH at stake — that’s tens of billions of dollars. So restaking is asking, what if we could harness that economic security for other purposes than just securing the Ethereum chain?”

Sassano continues: “That’s exactly what EigenLayer is trying to do, to generalize the security that Ethereum has with its stakers and expand that to other things like an oracle network or a data availability network. It’s inherently more technical and complex than that, but that’s the gist of it.” 

There are two types of danger that restaking could pose: first for “restakers” and then for Ethereum itself. 

Restaking creates too much leverage

Restaking is controversial as it is akin to leveraged investing through borrowing. Some argue that the danger here is that the hunger for “real yields” or actual revenue that emerged in crypto in 2022 leads to unsavory developments, like restaking. 

Jae Sik Choi, portfolio manager at Greythorn Asset Management, told Magazine that securing networks through restaking could work, but restaking is akin to leverage:

“Just like how Terra’s over-leveraged ‘safe’ collateralization of Luna was, there would always be a risk of participants over-leveraging into this new concept, and such a risk won’t be quantifiable until we see more data sets throughout the emergence of this new restaking narrative.”

Dan Bar, chief investment officer at Bitfwd Capital — a boutique crypto assets hedge fund — agreed that restaking amounts to leverage, telling Magazine: “While moderate schemes of restaking could be beneficial for capital efficiency purposes, any crypto assets manager and finance professional worth their salt knows too well how easily and quickly leverage can turn into a slew of synthetic toxic financial instruments that bring disasters into even the most healthy of ecosystems.”

And maybe that’s the first major problem. Investors will only see restaking as quick, easily leveraged financial products. EigenLayer building an open-source, decentralized network security may fail to convince doubters.

Risks to Ethereum itself

One fear is that slashing on EigenLayer will affect Ethereum itself.

Ethereum’s proof-of-stake trust system keeps everyone in check with slashing conditions — essentially non-performance penalties. Programmable slashing means restakers have additional computational responsibilities and face consequences for non-execution.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin fears an overload of the chain’s consensus, basically, computational overloads, if the blockchain’s computational power is suddenly redirected elsewhere. 

Read also


Features

Australia’s world-leading crypto laws are at the crossroads: The inside story


Features

Why are crypto fans obsessed with micronations and seasteading?

Kannan admits that Vitalik’s concerns are valid. “We don’t want to shard Ethereum’s trust layer, and we don’t want contagion of nefarious actors leveraging Ethereum’s trust system.”

Sassano also notes that the functionality of Ethereum proof-of-stake was designed to make sure that there won’t be a sudden influx or outflux of validators, which would affect the core properties of Ethereum’s consensus mechanism. 

The issue is that EigenLayer will decide where to take ETH from, but they can’t slash a validator on Ethereum.

“In Ethereum, there’s also a queue for validators to enter or exit each day. So let’s say, in an extreme example, 30% of all staked ETH begins staking with EigenLayer and say that all 30% gets ‘slashed’ by EigenLayer. While it depends on what the slashing condition was, let’s say all this ETH was lost because they tried to do something really bad. Even if all 30% had to be exited, there’s a limit on how much can exit per day. It would take literally years to exit 30% of ETH stake. So I understand people’s concerns, but at the same time, other things built on top cannot dictate what happens on Ethereum.”

So, restakers should have to play by Ethereum’s rules. 

Yet Sassano’s biggest concern is around the calculus of ETH staking, which may one day become a question of whether stakers get more from staking on EigenLayer than Ethereum itself. This could erode the Ethereum staking model in time.

He is confident, though, that Ethereum’s tech offsets those systemic risks: “It’s not a critical risk to Ethereum if you are slashed on EigenLayer. You are not slashed on Ethereum. EigenLayer cannot cause you to be slashed on Ethereum because Ethereum has its own slashing conditions built into the protocol. And EigenLayer has its own separate slashing conditions built into its protocol as well.”

Anything built on top of Ethereum introduces additional complexity and risk. Juan David Mendieta Villegas, co-founder and chairman at crypto market maker Keyrock, tells Magazine:

“EigenLayer is an interesting development but creates additional attack vectors without providing explicit benefits to the Ethereum ecosystem itself. If we take a step back, it’s important to note that ETH staking has introduced a base benchmark yield for the industry, and that is a good development. You can almost think of it as a ‘risk-free’ rate. Any additional layers, such as liquid staking derivatives and re-staking mechanisms, of course, can carry more concerns such as concentration risk, security and smart contract.”

But Villegas wishes EigenLayer well. “Overall, we’re advocates of the innovations that are happening around staking and want to see multiple protocols win as this will assist in the decentralization and democratization of the network.”

In other words, he wishes for competitors to EigenLayer to create similar products. 

Restaking could make or break new projects

Cosmos’ Aggarwal believes restaking will only benefit those blockchains with existing network effects for those with existing economic alliances or overlapping communities.

He also sees restaking protocols akin to a venture capital arm for layer 1s that might discourage solo stakers and further centralize networks. 

In the end, competing layer-1 blockchains probably won’t engage in restaking across chains. For that reason, he feels that EigenLayer’s design could be improved. 

While EigenLayer is designed as a security system importing trust from Ethereum, builders will create their own tokens and revenue models. This has pluses and minuses. 

In some cases, dodgy new tokens may benefit from Ethereum’s trust layer. Choi thinks “this trust layer benefit could potentially be moot due to the tokenomics that these alt layer 1s would want to try and attain (i.e., the use of their own token — their own agendas) could be problematic and so any supposed trust exported from Ethereum is lost anyway.”

On the other hand, experimental, well-meaning projects may now have a chance at success thanks to EigenLayer. That’s why Choi thinks the ultimate potential benefit EigenLayer is proposing is that other blockchains that do not want to spin up their own validator and staker sets have a chance at scaling to success. 

Aggarwal also notes that with appropriate checks, restaking should be set within parameters to control risk. Restaking primitives need cleverly programmed governance, such as discounted voting power to restaked tokens on another chain. For example, one restaker can’t have more than 20% of the vote for another chain.  

So, is restaking a good thing for Ethereum?

“The purists would say Ethereum should only be securing the Ethereum Beacon Chain and nothing else. [They] shouldn’t be exporting Ethereum security to anything else. But I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing to get node operators to do other work,” says Sassano. 

“If it can happen on the Ethereum network, it will happen. If the network can’t resist it and Ethreuem’s chain becomes insecure because of it, and there are adverse effects because of it, then Ethereum as a protocol was not designed correctly and needs to be improved.”  

We’ll find out soon enough.

Max Parasol

Max Parasol

Max Parasol is a RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub researcher. He has worked as a lawyer, in private equity and was part of an early-stage crypto start up that was overly ambitious.

Continue Reading

Politics

£3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025, hints transport secretary

Published

on

By

£3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025, hints transport secretary

The £3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025, the transport secretary has suggested.

Sir Keir Starmer recently confirmed that the £2 cap, which has been in place in England since 1 January 2023, will rise to £3 at the start of next year.

The government has said the £3 cap would stay in place for another year, until December 2025.

But speaking on Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips, Transport Secretary Louise Haugh indicated the government was considering abolishing the cap beyond that point to explore alternative methods of funding.

Politics latest: Government not worried about food shortages

She said: “We’ve stepped in with funding to protect it at £3 until 31 December next year. And in that period, we’ll look to establish more targeted approaches.

“We’ve, through evaluation of the £2 cap, found that the best approach is to target it at young people.

“So we want to look at ways in order to ensure more targeted ways, just like we do with the concessionary fare for older people, we think we can develop more targeted ways that will better encourage people onto buses.”

Pressed again on whether that meant the single £3 cap would be removed after December 2025, and that other bus reliefs could be put in place, she replied: “That’s what we’re considering at the moment as we go through this year, as we have that time whilst the £3 cap is in place – because the evaluation that we had showed, it hadn’t represented good value for money, the previous cap.”

It comes after Ms Haigh also confirmed that HS2 would not run to Crewe.

The northern leg of HS2, which would have linked Birmingham to Manchester, was scrapped by former prime minister Rishi Sunak during the Conservative Party conference last year.

There had been reports that Labour could instead build an “HS2-light” railway between Birmingham and Crewe.

But Ms Haigh said that while HS2 would be built from Birmingham to Euston, the government was “not resurrecting the plans for HS2”.

“HS2 Limited isn’t getting any further work beyond what’s been commissioned to Euston,” she added.

Last month the prime minster confirmed the £2 bus fare cap would rise to £3 – branded the “bus tax” by critics – saying that the previous government had not planned for the funding to continue past the end of 2024.

He said that although the cap would increase to £3, it would stay at that price until the end of 2025 “because I know how important it is”.

Manchester mayor to keep £2 cap

The cap rise has been unpopular with some in Labour, with Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham opting to keep the £2 cap in place for the whole of 2025, despite the maximum that can be charged across England rising to £3.

Read more:
Lord Blunkett demands action on ‘death trap’ Tube platforms after ‘terrifying’ fall

HS2 boss reveals £100m bill for a railway line ‘bat shed’

The region’s mayor said he was able to cap single fares at £2 because of steps he took to regulate the system and bring buses back into public ownership from last year.

He also confirmed plans to introduce a contactless payment system, with a daily and weekly cap on prices, as Greater Manchester moves towards a London-style system for public transport pricing.

Under devolution, local authorities and metro mayors can fund their own schemes to keep fares down, as has been the case in Greater Manchester, London and West Yorkshire.

Continue Reading

Politics

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh downplays risk of empty shelves if farmers strike over inheritance tax

Published

on

By

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh downplays risk of empty shelves if farmers strike over inheritance tax

Shelves will not be left empty this winter if farmers go on strike over tax changes, a cabinet minister has said.

Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, said the government would be setting out contingency plans to ensure food security is not compromised if farmers decide to protest.

Farmers across England and Wales have expressed anger that farms will no longer get 100% relief on inheritance tax, as laid out in Rachel Reeves’s budget last month.

Welsh campaign group Enough is Enough has called for a national strike among British farmers to stop producing food until the decision to impose inheritance tax on farms is reversed, while others also contemplate industrial action.

At the weekend the group held a protest in Llandudno, North Wales, where Sir Keir Starmer was giving his first speech as prime minister to the Welsh Labour conference.

Politics latest: £3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025

Asked by Trevor Phillips if she was concerned at the prospect that shelves could be empty of food this winter, Ms Haigh replied: “No, we think we put forward food security really as a priority, and we’ll work with farmers and the supply chain in order to ensure that.

“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be setting out plans for the winter and setting out – as business as usual – contingency plans and ensuring that food security is treated as the priority it deserves to be.”

Politics latest: PM has no plans to meet Taliban at climate summit

From April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.

However, farmers – who previously did not have to pay any inheritance tax – argue the change will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay.

Louise Haigh appears on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips
Image:
Transport Secretary Louise Haigh

Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union, said he had “never seen the united sense of anger that there is in this industry today”.

“I don’t for one moment condone that anyone will stop supplying the supermarkets,” he said.

“We saw during the COVID crisis that those unable to get their food were often either the very most vulnerable, or those that have been working long hours in hospitals and nurses – that is something we do not want to see again.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change

Explaining why the tax changes were so unpopular, he said food production margins were “so low”, and “any liquid cash that’s been available has been reinvested in farm businesses” for the future.

“One of the immediate changes is that farms are going to have to start putting money into their pensions, which many haven’t previously done,” he said.

“They’re going to have to have life insurance policies in case of a sudden death. And unfortunately, that was cash that would previously have been invested in producing the country’s food for the future.”

Sir Keir has staunchly defended the measure, saying it will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.

However, the Conservatives have argued the changes amount to a “war on farmers” and have begun a campaign targeting the prime minister as a “farmer harmer”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Farmers’ livelihoods are threatened’

Speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said he was happy with farmers protesting against the budget – as long as their methods and tactics were “lawful”.

“What the Labour government has done to farmers is absolutely shocking,” he said.

“These are farmers that, you know, they’re not well off particularly, they’re often actually struggling to make ends meet because farming is not very profitable these days. And of course, we rely on farmers for our food security.

Addressing the possible protests, Mr Philp said: “I think people have a right to protest, and obviously we respect the right to protest within the law, and it’s up to parliament to set where the law sits.

“So I think providing they’re behaving lawfully, legally, then they do have a right to protest.”

Read more:
Nigel Farage ‘living his best life’ in Clacton

UK doubles aid to Sudan to more than £110m

Next week farmers are expected to hold a mass protest of about 20,000 people in Westminster against the inheritance tax changes.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘DOGE’ could increase economic freedom in US — Coinbase CEO 

Published

on

By

‘DOGE’ could increase economic freedom in US — Coinbase CEO 

After Elon Musk announced the government agency with the same acronym as Dogecoin’s ticker, the crypto token soared to a yearly high of $0.39.

Continue Reading

Trending