Staking is a governance problem. The core challenge for protocols like Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos is not validator uptime, but the systemic risk from centralized staking providers like Lido and Coinbase.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Staking Infrastructure Demands Constitutional Governance
The unchecked power of DAOs governing trillion-dollar staking pools like Lido and EigenLayer creates systemic risk. This analysis argues for formal, on-chain constitutions to bind governance and prevent protocol capture.
introduction
THE GOVERNANCE IMPERATIVE
Introduction
Staking's infrastructure demands are shifting from raw technical performance to the constitutional frameworks that govern it.
Infrastructure follows governance. The market demands for restaking, liquid staking, and MEV smoothing are symptoms of a deeper need for credible neutrality and sovereign slashing.
Compare EigenLayer vs. Babylon. EigenLayer's pooled security model creates a new risk surface, while Babylon's Bitcoin staking enforces slashing via timelocks, a fundamentally different constitutional design.
Evidence: Lido commands 32% of Ethereum stake, a concentration that triggered the 'DVT' narrative and spurred projects like Obol and SSV Network to decentralize the operator set.
key-trends
STAKING'S NEXT FRONTIER
Executive Summary
The $100B+ staking economy is hitting a governance wall. Infrastructure must evolve from pure technical execution to managing complex, adversarial social contracts.
01
The Problem: Slashing is a Blunt Instrument
Current staking infrastructure treats all faults equally, punishing technical errors and malicious attacks with the same financial penalty. This fails to deter sophisticated cartels and unfairly penalizes honest operators.
- Social slashing for MEV theft or censorship is virtually non-existent.
- Creates systemic risk where >33% cartels can attack with impunity.
- Forces reliance on off-chain legal threats, breaking crypto-native trustlessness.
>33%
Attack Threshold
$0
Social Slash Fines
02
The Solution: On-Chain Courts & Fork Choice
Infrastructure must integrate programmable governance layers that can interpret intent and execute graduated penalties. This moves slashing from a cryptographic to a constitutional process.
- Fork choice rules must favor chains adhering to social consensus, as theorized by Vitalik Buterin.
- Requires Lido, Rocket Pool, EigenLayer operators to run client software that enforces these higher-layer rules.
- Enables proportional penalties (e.g., 1% slash for downtime, 100% for censorship).
100%
Max Penalty
L1->L2
Gov Escalation
03
The Enabler: Intent-Centric Staking Stacks
The next stack separates the 'what' (validator intent) from the 'how' (node operation). This allows governance to be baked into the intent layer, executed by the infrastructure layer.
- Obol, SSV Network must evolve to manage validator sets based on governance outcomes.
- EigenLayer AVSs become the enforcement mechanism for new slashing conditions.
- Creates a market for governance-aware node operators who price risk accordingly.
AVSs
Enforcement Layer
Intent
Primary Interface
04
The Risk: Governance Capture is Inevitable
Constitutional governance doesn't eliminate centralization; it moves the attack surface. Large staking pools like Lido or restaking protocols like EigenLayer become de facto legislatures.
- Voting power becomes a function of stake, recreating plutocracy.
- Creates meta-governance wars over slashing parameters.
- Infrastructure must be designed to minimize the 'blast radius' of any single entity's influence.
Lido
Key Entity
Plutocracy
Systemic Risk
05
The Metric: Time-to-Finality Under Attack
The ultimate test of constitutional infrastructure is not uptime, but how quickly the network can socially finalize a chain after a governance attack. This requires measurable, objective forks.
- Client diversity (Prysm, Lighthouse, Teku) is a prerequisite for resilient fork choice.
- Infrastructure must provide fork detection and attribution in <10 blocks.
- Finality delays during an attack are the new SLA, replacing simple APY.
<10 blocks
Detection Time
SLA
New Metric
06
The Pivot: From Node Operators to Governors
The business model for staking providers shifts from selling hardware uptime to underwriting governance risk. This demands new skills and capital structures.
- Coinbase Cloud, Figment must develop governance monitoring and response teams.
- Insurance products emerge to hedge against wrongful slashing verdicts.
- Reputation systems (like Rated.Network) become critical for operator selection.
Risk
New Product
Reputation
Key Asset
market-context
THE STAKING DILEMMA
The Governance Powder Keg
The infrastructure for staking billions in assets is creating systemic risk by outsourcing critical decisions to flawed governance models.
Staking infrastructure is governance infrastructure. The Lido DAO, which governs over $30B in staked ETH, makes protocol upgrades and fee decisions through a token vote. This creates a single point of failure where a governance attack or voter apathy directly threatens the security of the underlying chain.
Delegated staking centralizes political power. Voters in protocols like Rocket Pool or Frax Finance often delegate to a few large node operators or DAOs, replicating the plutocratic flaws of on-chain governance. This concentration creates voting cartels that can extract value or block upgrades.
Constitutional models are the necessary evolution. Systems like EigenLayer's intersubjective forking or Obol's Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) embed slashing conditions and upgrade logic directly into the protocol's code. This reduces the attack surface of continuous, subjective human voting.
Evidence: The Lido DAO's vote on Solana staking saw 99% approval with only 1.5% voter turnout, demonstrating the fragility of delegated token governance for trillion-dollar systems.
STAKING INFRASTRUCTURE
Governance Attack Surface: A Comparative View
Comparative analysis of governance models for staking infrastructure, evaluating their resilience against key attack vectors and operational demands.
| Governance Feature / Attack Vector | Monolithic DAO (e.g., Lido) | Modular Council (e.g., EigenLayer AVS) | Constitutional Smart Contract (e.g., Obol) |
|---|---|---|---|
Veto Power Over Validator Set | |||
Direct Slashing Authority | |||
Upgrade Path for Core Staking Logic | DAO Multi-sig | Council Multi-sig | Time-locked, immutable |
Time to Execute Critical Fix | < 72 hours | < 24 hours | N/A (immutable) |
Social Consensus Attack Surface | High (Token vote) | Medium (Elected council) | Low (Code is law) |
Requires Off-Chain Legal Framework | |||
Operator Exit/Entry Latency | DAO vote (days) | Council approval (hours) | Permissionless (seconds) |
Primary Failure Mode | Governance capture | Council collusion | Smart contract bug |
deep-dive
THE GOVERNANCE IMPERATIVE
The Case for an On-Chain Constitution
Staking infrastructure's systemic risk demands a formal, on-chain governance framework to prevent protocol capture and ensure credible neutrality.
Proof-of-Stake is political. The validator set wields direct power over chain liveness and censorship resistance, making protocol governance a security parameter. Informal governance models like off-chain forums and multi-sigs create attack vectors for state-level or cartel capture.
Constitutions encode credible neutrality. A formal, on-chain rule-set, akin to Ethereum's executable beacon chain specs, makes protocol changes transparent and contestable. This contrasts with the opaque upgrade processes of many L1s and L2s where core teams retain unilateral control.
Staking derivatives require legal clarity. Protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool operate under constant regulatory scrutiny. An on-chain constitution provides a public legal framework that defines rights, obligations, and slashing conditions, reducing existential legal risk for operators and delegators.
Evidence: The Cosmos Hub's failed 'Prop 82' demonstrated how a poorly defined governance process could threaten chain economic security, highlighting the need for constitutional guardrails on treasury and parameter changes.
counter-argument
THE GOVERNANCE TRAP
The Flexibility Fallacy
Unchecked flexibility in staking infrastructure creates systemic risk that only constitutional governance can mitigate.
Flexibility creates systemic risk. Permissionless slashing logic and configurable reward functions allow operators to deploy novel staking products, but these parameters define the network's security model. Uncoordinated changes fragment the economic security guarantees that validators are supposed to provide.
Governance is a hard requirement. The industry treats governance as a feature, but for staking infrastructure, it is the core protocol. Systems like EigenLayer's intersubjective slashing or Obol's Distributed Validator Clusters require a canonical rulebook to adjudicate disputes and prevent malicious forks of consensus.
Compare Lido vs. Rocket Pool. Lido's monolithic, on-chain governance provides clear upgrade paths but risks centralization. Rocket Pool's minipool design and oracle-based rewards distribute operational risk but introduce oracle dependency. Both models prove that staking is a governance problem first, a technical one second.
Evidence: The $40B Total Value Locked in restaking protocols like EigenLayer is now subject to the governance quality of a handful of multi-sigs. This centralization of upgrade power contradicts the decentralized security these systems aim to provide.
protocol-spotlight
STAKING INFRASTRUCTURE DEMANDS
Constitutional Models in the Wild
As staking scales to secure $100B+ in assets, the infrastructure layer must evolve from simple software clients to resilient, self-governing systems.
01
The Problem: The Solo Staker's Dilemma
Running a node is a 24/7 operational burden with punitive slashing risks. This centralizes staking to a few large providers like Lido and Coinbase, threatening network neutrality.\n- ~32 ETH minimum creates a high capital barrier.\n- >99% uptime required to avoid penalties, a SysAdmin nightmare.
32 ETH
Min. Stake
>99%
Uptime Req.
02
The Solution: Distributed Validator Technology (DVT)
Splits validator key management and duties across multiple nodes, creating a fault-tolerant cluster. Protocols like Obol and SSV Network enable trust-minimized staking pools.\n- No single point of failure for slashing or downtime.\n- Enables permissionless, decentralized staking pools to compete with Lido.
>3/4
Fault Tolerance
-90%
Slashing Risk
03
The Problem: Governance Capture in Liquid Staking
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like stETH grant their issuers outsized on-chain voting power. This creates a governance oligopoly where infrastructure providers, not asset owners, control protocol upgrades.\n- Lido DAO controls ~$30B in staked ETH voting weight.\n- Stakers are economically aligned but politically disenfranchised.
$30B+
Voting Power
1 Entity
De Facto Control
04
The Solution: Restaking with Enshrined Governance
EigenLayer's restaking model allows ETH stakers to opt-in to secure new services (AVSs), but the constitutional model is the slashing contract. The community must govern slashing conditions to prevent overreach.\n- Transparent, on-chain slashing courts replace opaque operator panels.\n- Creates a market for cryptoeconomic security beyond a single chain.
Multi-Chain
Security Export
On-Chain
Slashing Courts
05
The Problem: MEV Extraction and Chain Neutrality
Validator operators maximize profit by extracting Maximal Extractable Value (MEV), often through private order flows to searchers. This creates a two-tiered system that disadvantages regular users.\n- Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) is a partial fix, but builders can centralize.\n- The constitutional failure is the lack of a neutral, public transaction pool.
$500M+
Annual MEV
Opaque
Order Flow
06
The Solution: Enshrined PBS & SUAVE
The endgame is enshrined PBS at the protocol level, mandating a neutral block-building market. Complementary systems like Flashbots' SUAVE aim to be a decentralized, chain-agnostic mempool and block builder.\n- Separates block proposal from construction by consensus rule.\n- Aims for fair, transparent MEV distribution back to stakers/users.
Protocol
Level PBS
Decentralized
Mempool
risk-analysis
STAKING INFRASTRUCTURE DEMANDS CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE
The Bear Case: What Happens Without Constitutions
Without formal governance frameworks, staking infrastructure becomes a single point of failure, vulnerable to political capture, economic attacks, and systemic collapse.
01
The Tragedy of the Commons: Unchecked MEV Extraction
Validators and block builders, incentivized by pure profit, will systematically extract maximum value from users, eroding trust in the chain.\n- Result: >99% of blocks become MEV-boosted, with searcher/builder cartels forming.\n- Consequence: User transaction costs become unpredictable and opaque, killing dApp UX.
>99%
MEV Blocks
$1B+
Annual Extract
02
The Protocol Capture: Lido's 33% Threshold
A dominant liquid staking token (LST) provider like Lido or Rocket Pool reaching a >33% network share creates a systemic risk.\n- Problem: It gains unilateral censorship power and can threaten chain liveness.\n- Reality: Governance is deferred to a separate DAO (e.g., Lido DAO), creating misaligned political and economic incentives for the underlying chain.
>33%
Attack Threshold
1 DAO
Single Point
03
The Slashing Crisis: Opaque and Politicized Penalties
Without clear, pre-committed rules, slashing becomes a political weapon. Large, concentrated stakers can lobby to avoid penalties for downtime or attacks.\n- Outcome: The security guarantee of staking $ETH becomes probabilistic and negotiable, not cryptographic.\n- Example: A $500M staking pool facing a 1% slashing penalty triggers a governance war instead of an automated enforcement.
$500M
At Risk
Governance War
Result
04
The Inflexibility Trap: Hard Fork as the Only Tool
Absent a constitutional layer for upgrades, every protocol change requires a socially contentious hard fork.\n- Consequence: Critical infrastructure updates (e.g., DVT integration, single-slot finality) are delayed for years by political gridlock.\n- Cost: The chain's technical debt accumulates, making it vulnerable to more agile L1 competitors like Solana or Monad.
Years
Upgrade Delay
High
Tech Debt
05
The Validator Cartel: Centralized Geographic & Hardware Risk
Profit-maximizing validators converge on the cheapest, most centralized infrastructure (e.g., AWS us-east-1).\n- Risk: A single cloud region outage or regulatory action could knock out a >40% of network stake.\n- Without Rules: There is no economic mechanism or mandate to enforce geographic or client diversity.
>40%
Stake at Risk
AWS
Single Point
06
The Exit Queue Crisis: Breaking the Withdrawal Promise
During a mass unstaking event (e.g., a panic or regulatory attack), the exit queue becomes a political tool.\n- Threat: Large, politically-connected stakers could lobby to jump the queue, breaking the credible neutrality of the protocol.\n- Result: The 1:1 backing of LSTs becomes suspect, triggering a depeg death spiral for the entire liquid staking sector.
Credible Neutrality
Broken
Depeg
LST Risk
future-outlook
THE STAKING INFRASTRUCTURE
The Next 18 Months: Hard Forks or Hard Lessons
The next wave of staking innovation will be defined by governance, not just yield, as infrastructure providers become de facto constitutional bodies.
Staking is constitutional governance. The entities controlling node operations, liquid staking tokens (LSTs), and restaking pools dictate network security and economic policy. This creates a de facto constitutional layer separate from on-chain governance.
Lido and EigenLayer are case studies. Lido's dominance on Ethereum demonstrates the political risk of infrastructure centralization. EigenLayer's restaking introduces systemic leverage and slashing conflicts that demand new governance frameworks.
The demand is for credible neutrality. Protocols like Rocket Pool and SSV Network are experiments in permissionless operator sets and distributed validator technology (DVT). Their success metrics are censorship resistance and fault tolerance, not just APY.
Evidence: Lido commands ~30% of Ethereum stake, triggering community debates on the protocol-level 33% attack threshold. EigenLayer has over $15B in TVL, creating a new interdependent security surface that lacks formal governance.
takeaways
STAKEHOLDER ALIGNMENT
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Constitutional governance is the missing primitive that aligns staking infrastructure with the long-term health of the underlying network.
01
The Validator Cartel Problem
Liquid staking protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool create centralization vectors where a few node operators control >33% of stake, creating a single point of failure and censorship. This is a direct result of infrastructure optimized for yield, not security.
- Risk: Single entity can halt or censor the chain.
- Reality: Top 5 Lido node operators control ~60% of its stake.
- Demand: Infrastructure must enforce decentralization.
>33%
Attack Threshold
~60%
Lido Operator Share
02
Solution: On-Chain Operator Scoring
Embed a constitution directly into the staking contract that scores node operators on decentralization metrics (e.g., geographic distribution, client diversity) and slashes rewards for non-compliance. This moves the incentive from pure capital efficiency to network resilience.
- Mechanism: Automated slashing for centralization risks.
- Precedent: SSV Network's Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) framework.
- Outcome: Aligns infrastructure profit with protocol security.
DVT
Key Primitive
-100%
Reward for Failure
03
The MEV Extraction Problem
Validators are economically incentivized to maximize MEV extraction via private mempools (Flashbots, Titan), which degrades chain transparency and user experience. This creates a principal-agent problem where stakers' infrastructure works against the network's common good.
- Conflict: Validator profit vs. fair chain ordering.
- Scale: MEV extraction represents $500M+ annually.
- Demand: Infrastructure must be transparent and credibly neutral.
$500M+
Annual MEV
Flashbots
Dominant Entity
04
Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Constitutional governance mandates the use of a credibly neutral PBS framework, like those proposed for Ethereum, at the infrastructure layer. This separates block building from proposing, forcing validators to outsource to a competitive, open market.
- Enforcement: Staking contracts only accept blocks from compliant builders.
- Outcome: Reduces centralization, increases censorship resistance.
- Analogy: The Uniswap of block building.
PBS
Required Design
Open Market
Builder Selection
05
The Upgrade Coordination Problem
Hard forks and consensus upgrades require supermajority validator adoption. Infrastructure providers with $10B+ TVL can unilaterally stall or derail upgrades if their economic interests are threatened (e.g., reduced MEV). This creates governance capture.
- Power: Large staking pools become veto players.
- Example: Coinbase's influence on Ethereum upgrade timelines.
- Demand: Infrastructure must be subordinate to on-chain governance.
$10B+
Veto TVL
Coinbase
Key Entity
06
Solution: Slashing for Governance Non-Compliance
A constitutional layer automatically slashes stakes of validators that fail to adopt protocol-mandated upgrades within a defined timeframe. This turns social consensus into cryptoeconomic enforcement, removing the staking infrastructure's ability to hold the network hostage.
- Automation: Removes human negotiation from core upgrades.
- Precedent: Inspired by Cosmos's automated upgrade modules.
- Outcome: Ensures the network, not its infrastructure, has ultimate sovereignty.
Auto-Slash
Enforcement
Cosmos
Inspiration
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall