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

Bitcoin up 33% since 2024 halving as institutions disrupt cycle

Published

on

By

Bitcoin up 33% since 2024 halving as institutions disrupt cycle

Bitcoin up 33% since 2024 halving as institutions disrupt cycle

Bitcoin holders are celebrating one year since the 2024 Bitcoin halving by praising BTC’s resilience amid a global trade war and suggesting an accelerated market cycle due to a growing institutional presence.

The 2024 Bitcoin halving reduced block rewards from 6.25 Bitcoin (BTC) to 3.125 BTC, slashing new BTC issuance in half.

Despite rising concerns over a global trade war and escalating tariff tensions between the United States and China, BTC has climbed more than 33% since April 2024, Cointelegraph Markets Pro data shows.

Bitcoin up 33% since 2024 halving as institutions disrupt cycle
BTC/USD, 1-year chart. Source: Cointelegraph Markets Pro

“So, even though Bitcoin’s showing resilience, I think the mix of past experiences, economic uncertainty, and this selling pressure is keeping investors on the sidelines, waiting for a stronger green light before they jump in,” said Enmanuel Cardozo, a market analyst at asset tokenization platform Brickken.

Cardozo added that institutional investment from firms such as Strategy and Tether could speed up Bitcoin’s traditional four-year halving cycle. He added:

“For the 2024 halving in May, that puts the bottom around Q3 this year and a peak mid-2026, but I think we might see things move it a bit sooner because the market’s more mature now with more liquidity.”

However, Bitcoin’s trajectory remains tied to broader monetary policy, the analyst added. He said a US Federal Reserve rate cut in May or June may “pump more money into the system and push Bitcoin up faster.”

The halving is a built-in feature of the Bitcoin network that assures Bitcoin’s scarcity, which is considered one of BTC’s defining monetary characteristics.

Related: Crypto, stocks enter ‘new phase of trade war’ as US-China tensions rise

ETFs and institutions fuel faster cycle

Institutional adoption and Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) may be contributing to a shorter market cycle, according to Vugar Usi Zade, chief operating officer at Bitget exchange.

Continued institutional buying, including by Bitcoin ETFs, paired with Bitcoin’s rising scarcity, may accelerate Bitcoin’s rise to new highs, he told Cointelegraph.

“With growing scarcity triggered by the halving, Bitcoin will likely retest its all-time high if it breaches the $90,000 mark in the coming weeks,” Usi Zade said. “While the halving offers a good basis for growth based on demand and scarcity, the timeline for impact on price can vary over time.”

He noted that Bitcoin’s growth remains closely tied to traditional financial markets and investor sentiment.

Related: Bitcoin speculative appetite declines as investors seek safety

Bitcoin reached a new all-time high above $109,000 on Jan. 20, 273 days after the 2024 Bitcoin halving, signaling an accelerated market cycle.

Bitcoin up 33% since 2024 halving as institutions disrupt cycle
Source: Jelle

In comparison, it took Bitcoin 546 days to reach an all-time high after the 2021 halving, and 518 days after the 2017 halving, according to data shared by popular crypto trader Jelle, in an April 8 X post.

Magazine: Bitcoin’s odds of June highs, SOL’s $485M outflows, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 2 – 8

Continue Reading

Politics

Mission: Impossible? Chancellor heads to the IMF with a very big challenge – and she’s not alone

Published

on

By

Mission: Impossible? Chancellor heads to the IMF with a very big challenge - and she's not alone

There will be much to chew over at the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) spring meetings this week.

Central bankers and finance ministers will descend on Washington for its latest bi-annual gathering, a place where politicians and academics converge, all of them trying to make sense of what’s going on in the global economy.

Everything and nothing has changed since they last met in October.

One man continues to dominate the agenda.

Six months ago, delegates were wondering whether Donald Trump could win the November election and what that might mean for tax and tariffs. How far would he push it? Would his policy match his rhetoric?

Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters

This time round, expect iterations of the same questions. Will the US president risk plunging the world’s largest economy into recession?

Yes, he put on a bombastic display on his so-called “Liberation Day”, but will he now row back? Have the markets effectively checked him?

Behind the scenes, finance ministers from around the world will be practising their powers of persuasion, each jostling for meetings with their US counterparts to negotiate a reduction in the tariffs set by the Trump administration.

That includes our own chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who is still holding out hope for a trade deal with the US – although she is not alone in that.

Read more:
PM and Trump step up trade talks
Ed Conway on the impact of US tariffs

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Could Trump make a deal with UK?

Are we heading for a recession?

The IMF’s economists have already made up their minds about Trump’s potential for damage.

Last week, they warned about the growing risks to financial stability after a period of turbulence in the financial markets, induced by Trump’s decision to ratchet up US protectionism to its highest level in a century.

By the middle of this week the organisation will publish its World Economic Outlook, in which it will downgrade global growth but stop short of predicting a full-blown recession.

Others are less optimistic.

Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF’s managing director, said last week: “Our new growth projections will include notable markdowns, but not recession. We will also see markups to the inflation forecasts for some countries.”

She acknowledged the world was undergoing a “reboot of the global trading system,” comparing trade tensions to “a pot that was bubbling for a long time and is now boiling over”.

She went on: “To a large extent, what we see is the result of an erosion of trust – trust in the international system, and trust between countries.”

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva holds a press briefing on the Global Policy Agenda to open the IMF and World Bank's 2024 annual Spring Meetings in Washington, U.S., April 18, 2024. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Image:
IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva. Pic: Reuters

Don’t poke the bear

It was a carefully calibrated response. Georgieva did not lay the blame at the US’s door and stopped short of calling on the Trump administration to stop or water down its aggressive tariffs policy.

That might have been a choice. To the frustration of politicians past and present, the IMF does not usually shy away from making its opinions known.

Last year it warned Jeremy Hunt against cutting taxes, and back in 2022 it openly criticised the Liz Truss government’s plans, warning tax cuts would fuel inflation and inequality.

Taking such a candid approach with Trump invites risks. His administration is already weighing up whether to withdraw from global institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank.

The US is the largest shareholder in both, and its departure could be devastating for two organisations that have been pillars of the world economic order since the end of the Second World War.

👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈

Here in the UK, Andrew Bailey has already raised concerns about the prospect of global fragmentation.

It is “very important that we don’t have a fragmentation of the world economy,” the Bank of England’s governor said.

“A big part of that is that we have support and engagement in the multilateral institutions, institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, that support the operation of the world economy. That’s really important.”

The Trump administration might take a different view when its review of intergovernmental organisations is complete.

That is the main tension running through this year’s spring meetings.

How much the IMF will say and how much we will have to read between the lines, remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour WhatsApp messages on Supreme Court ruling point to future tensions on trans issues

Published

on

By

Labour WhatsApp messages on Supreme Court ruling point to future tensions on trans issues

It’s no great surprise that members of a Labour MPs’ LGBT+ WhatsApp group would be raising concerns about the impact of this week’s Supreme Court ruling on the trans community.

But the critical contributions reportedly made by some of the group’s higher-profile ministerial members highlight the underlying divisions with the Labour Party over the issue – and point to future tensions once the practical implications of the judgement become clear.

Messages leaked to the Mail on Sunday allegedly include the Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle writing “the ruling is not as catastrophic at it seems but the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] guidance might be & there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting”.

Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant reportedly replied he “agreed” with another MP’s opinion that the EHRC chair Baroness Falkner was “pretty appalling” when she said the ruling would mean trans women could not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Gender ruling – How it happened

Government sources argue these messages are hardly evidence of any kind of plot or mass revolt against the Supreme Court’s ruling.

But they still raise uncomfortable questions for a party that has been on a tortuous journey over the issue.

Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was committed to introducing self-identification – enabling people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis – a position dropped in 2023.

Back in 2021, Sir Keir Stamer said the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield was “not right” to say “only women have a cervix”. But three years later he acknowledged that “biologically, she of course is right”.

Duffield, who now sits as an independent, is asking for an apology – but that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming from a government keen to minimise its own role in changing social attitudes to the issue.

The Conservative position on this has also chopped and changed – with Theresa May‘s support for gender self-ID ditched under Boris Johnson.

Read more from Sky News:
School leaders issue warning as free breakfast clubs set to open

Four things to avoid if you’re doing the London Marathon

As the Conservatives’ equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch led the UK government’s fight against Scotland’s efforts to make it easier to change gender – and she’s determined to punch Labour’s bruise on the issue.

This weekend, she’s written to the cabinet secretary calling for an investigation into a possible breach of the ministerial or civil service code over a statement made by the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson in response to the ruling, which said “we have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”.

The Tories claim this is false, because last summer Ms Phillipson herself gave an interview in which she suggested that trans women with penises could use female toilets.

Ms Phillipson has been approached for a response.

Her comments, however, are entirely in keeping with the government’s official statement on the judgement, which claims they have “always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex” and welcomed the ruling as giving “clarity and confidence for women and service providers”.

The government statement added: “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”

Continue Reading

Trending