Ethereum restaking: Blockchain innovation or dangerous house of cards?
“Restaking” involves reusing staked Ether to earn fees and rewards. The restaked tokens can then help secure and validate other protocols. But many fear restaking could disrupt Ethereum’s chain itself.
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 Ethereums existing trust mechanisms. Restaking could serve as a security primitive for exporting Ethereums trust generated by its validators to other projects.
Yet Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin and a number of key devs
Secondly, a set of smart contracts on Ethereums 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 its all still theoretical.
The idea of restaking makes sense theoretically, helping projects build off Ethereums security layer but the problems worry many.
In theory, its 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 wont run their own validator, so new networks can build projects without their own communities of validators.
EigenLayer isnt live yet, and its 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, theres only a smart contract for staked ETH to bootstrap the EigenLayer network, and perhaps given EigenLayers 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 its 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 thats 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: Thats 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. Its inherently more technical and complex than that, but thats 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 Terras 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 wont 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 thats 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.
Ethereums 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 chains consensus, basically, computational overloads, if the blockchains computational power is suddenly redirected elsewhere.
Kannan admits that Vitaliks concerns are valid. We dont want to shard Ethereums trust layer, and we dont want contagion of nefarious actors leveraging Ethereums trust system.
Sassano also notes that the functionality of Ethereum proof-of-stake was designed to make sure that there wont be a sudden influx or outflux of validators, which would affect the core properties of Ethereums consensus mechanism.
The issue is that EigenLayer will decide where to take ETH from, but they cant slash a validator on Ethereum.
In Ethereum, theres also a queue for validators to enter or exit each day. So lets 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, lets say all this ETH was lost because they tried to do something really bad. Even if all 30% had to be exited, theres a limit on how much can exit per day. It would take literally years to exit 30% of ETH stake. So I understand peoples concerns, but at the same time, other things built on top cannot dictate what happens on Ethereum.
So, restakers should have to play by Ethereums rules.
Yet Sassanos 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 Ethereums tech offsets those systemic risks: Its 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, its 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, were 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 wont engage in restaking across chains. For that reason, he feels that EigenLayers 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 Ethereums 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. Thats 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 cant 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] shouldnt be exporting Ethereum security to anything else. But I dont 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 cant resist it and Ethreuems 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.
Well find out soon enough.
Go to Source
Author: Max Parasol
