Decentralized staking is a misnomer. Most pools use a single cloud provider like AWS or Google Cloud for their validator infrastructure. This creates a single point of failure for billions in staked assets.
comparison-of-consensus-mechanisms
Blog
The Hidden Centralization in Decentralized Cloud Staking Pools
An analysis of how staking pools like Lido and Rocket Pool, despite decentralized front-ends, concentrate backend validator infrastructure on a handful of cloud providers, creating systemic risks for Ethereum and other PoS chains.
introduction
THE STAKING ILLUSION
Introduction
Decentralized cloud staking pools centralize control under a single operator, creating systemic risk.
The operator is the oracle. Pools like Lido and Rocket Pool rely on a central entity to manage node software, key rotation, and slashing protection. The protocol is decentralized, but the execution is not.
Cloud dependence is a systemic risk. A regional AWS outage can simultaneously knock out hundreds of validators from a single pool, triggering penalties and threatening chain finality. This risk is concentrated, not distributed.
thesis-statement
THE HIDDEN COST
The Centralization Thesis
Decentralized cloud staking pools replace hardware with software, but concentrate control in the hands of a few node operators and cloud providers.
The validator is abstracted away. Users delegate stake to a pool's smart contract, which then routes it to a professional operator. This creates a single point of failure and control, as seen in Lido's dominance on Ethereum and Marinade's on Solana.
Cloud reliance is systemic risk. Major operators like Figment and Chorus One run nodes on AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure. This centralizes physical infrastructure, creating a correlated failure mode that contradicts the network's geographic decentralization goals.
Governance becomes a bottleneck. Pool tokens like stETH grant voting rights, but low participation concentrates power. This creates a governance plutocracy where a few large token holders or the founding team control protocol upgrades and fee parameters.
Evidence: Over 68% of Solana stake is delegated to the top 20 validators, with a significant portion hosted on centralized cloud infrastructure, according to Solana Beach analytics.
key-trends
THE HIDDEN CUSTODIANS
The Cloud Concentration Imperative
Decentralized staking pools are increasingly reliant on a handful of centralized cloud providers, creating systemic risk and single points of failure.
01
The AWS & GCP Oligopoly
Over 70% of Ethereum validators run on infrastructure from Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. This geographic and corporate concentration contradicts decentralization promises and creates a single point of regulatory attack.\n- Risk: A coordinated takedown or outage could censor or slash a critical mass of the network.\n- Reality: Decentralized consensus is built on centralized compute.
>70%
On Major Clouds
3
Critical Providers
02
The MEV-Boost Relay Bottleneck
The system for maximizing validator revenue (MEV-Boost) is bottlenecked by a few dominant relay operators like BloXroute and Flashbots. These relays, which decide block ordering, overwhelmingly run on centralized cloud infra.\n- Consequence: Cloud outages directly translate to lost validator revenue and network latency.\n- Irony: MEV 'decentralization' is a myth when the execution layer is hosted on <10 AWS data centers.
<10
Major Relays
$1B+
MEV Flow Risk
03
Solution: Sovereign Hardware & Distributed Validator Technology (DVT)
The antidote is a shift to self-hosted hardware or decentralized cloud networks, coordinated by protocols like Obol (DV clusters) and SSV Network. DVT uses multi-operator validation to eliminate single points of failure.\n- Benefit: A validator's key is split, requiring consensus from nodes running on geographically distributed, independent hardware.\n- Outcome: True fault tolerance, >99.9% uptime, and resilience against cloud provider coercion.
>99.9%
Target Uptime
4+
Operator Threshold
04
The Lido Fallacy: Delegated Centralization
Lido Finance controls ~30% of staked ETH, but its node operator set is permissioned and heavily cloud-dependent. This creates systemic liquidity risk—if a major cloud region fails, Lido's slashing could destabilize DeFi collateral.\n- Vulnerability: $30B+ in TVL is ultimately secured by AWS S3 buckets and service-level agreements.\n- Requirement: Staking pools must mandate hardware diversity from operators as a security primitive.
~30%
Stake Share
$30B+
TVL at Risk
05
Regulatory Attack Surface
Centralized cloud providers are compliant entities subject to jurisdiction. A government can compel AWS to freeze validator instances under sanctions or content laws, a cleaner attack vector than trying to censor the P2P layer.\n- Precedent: Tornado Cash sanctions show infrastructure-level enforcement is the new norm.\n- Defense: Only a heterogeneous, global mesh of independent hardware provides credible censorship resistance.
1
Warrant Needed
Global
Jurisdictional Risk
06
The EigenLayer Restaking Amplifier
EigenLayer magnifies cloud concentration risk by allowing the same ETH capital and validators to secure multiple services (AVSs). A cloud outage now causes cascading failure across rollups, oracles, and bridges.\n- Multiplier Effect: A single infra failure slashes restaked ETH, penalizing all secured services simultaneously.\n- Mandate: AVSs must require operators to attest to hardware decentralization as a condition for inclusion.
Cascading
Failure Mode
Multi-Protocol
Slashing Impact
CLOUD PROVIDER DEPENDENCY
Staking Pool Infrastructure Exposure
A comparison of major liquid staking protocols and their reliance on centralized cloud infrastructure, revealing hidden single points of failure.
| Infrastructure Metric | Lido (Ethereum) | Rocket Pool | StakeWise V3 | EigenLayer AVS (Example) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Execution Client Hosting | ~65% on AWS | Decentralized (Node Operators) | Decentralized (Operators) |
|
Critical Relayer/Daemon on Centralized Cloud | ||||
Publicly Auditable Node Operator Infrastructure | ||||
Geographic Centralization Risk (Top 3 Regions) | us-east-1, eu-west-1, ap-northeast-1 | Distributed | Distributed | us-east-1, us-central1, europe-west4 |
Protocol SLA Dependent on Cloud Provider SLA | ||||
Estimated Time to Decentralize Critical Components | 12-18 months (roadmap) | N/A (Achieved) | N/A (Achieved) | Not Specified |
Single Cloud Provider Outage Impact | Major Protocol Halt Risk | Minimal Impact | Minimal Impact | Major AVS Halt Risk |
deep-dive
THE VALIDATOR SET
The Single Point of Failure
Decentralized cloud staking pools concentrate validator operations into centralized, proprietary infrastructure, creating systemic risk.
Infrastructure centralization defeats decentralization. Staking pools like Lido and Rocket Pool market permissionless node operation, but their actual validator clients run on centralized cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud. This creates a single point of failure for the underlying blockchain's consensus.
The validator client is the attack surface. A cloud provider outage or a malicious insider at the staking pool's DevOps team can censor or slash a significant portion of the network. This risk is more acute than a validator key compromise, as it targets operational control, not just signing authority.
Geographic and jurisdictional clustering is the hidden risk. Major pools optimize for latency and cost, concentrating nodes in specific AWS us-east-1 or Google Cloud europe-west regions. This makes the network vulnerable to regional internet blackouts or regulatory takedowns, unlike a globally distributed, self-hosted validator set.
Evidence: Over 60% of Ethereum's consensus layer clients run on cloud infrastructure, with a significant portion controlled by a handful of staking entities. A coordinated takedown of these cloud instances would halt finality, demonstrating that delegated staking shifts risk from slashing to infrastructure failure.
risk-analysis
THE HIDDEN CENTRALIZATION IN DECENTRALIZED CLOUD STAKING POOLS
Cascading Failure Risks
Cloud-based staking infrastructure introduces single points of failure that can trigger systemic risk across DeFi and restaking protocols.
01
The Single Cloud Chokepoint
Major staking providers like Lido and Coinbase Cloud rely on a handful of centralized cloud providers (AWS, GCP). A regional outage can simultaneously knock out thousands of validators, causing mass slashing events and chain instability.
- ~70% of Ethereum nodes run on centralized cloud services.
- A single AWS region failure could impact $10B+ in staked assets.
- Creates systemic risk for EigenLayer and other restaking protocols.
~70%
Cloud Nodes
$10B+
At Risk
02
The MEV-Boost Relay Bottleneck
The MEV-Boost auction system centralizes around a few dominant relays (Flashbots, BloXroute). If these relays fail or are censored, block production halts for major pools, degrading chain liveness and censorship resistance.
- Top 3 relays control >90% of MEV-Boost blocks.
- Creates a single point of censorship for OFAC compliance.
- Directly threatens the liveness assumptions of rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism.
>90%
Relay Control
3
Critical Entities
03
The Oracle Consensus Failure
Staking pools and restaking protocols depend on off-chain oracle networks (Chainlink, Pyth) for price feeds and cross-chain state. A correlated cloud failure in oracle node infrastructure can cause widespread liquidations and break cross-chain composability.
- Oracle nodes share the same cloud infrastructure risk as validators.
- A failure could trigger a death spiral across lending protocols like Aave and Compound.
- Undermines the security of bridges (LayerZero, Wormhole) that rely on oracle attestations.
Correlated
Failure Risk
Death Spiral
Liquidation Risk
04
The Solution: Hyper-Distributed Physical Infrastructure
The antidote is provably decentralized physical hardware. Networks like Akash (decentralized compute) and Render (decentralized GPU) provide a blueprint for staking infrastructure that is geographically and provider-diverse.
- Forces validator client diversity (Prysm, Lighthouse, Teku).
- Mitigates jurisdictional seizure and censorship risks.
- Enables true credible neutrality for base-layer consensus.
Geo-Diverse
Hardware
Credible Neutrality
Achieved
05
The Solution: Intent-Based Staking and Execution
Move away from monolithic staking pools. UniswapX-style intent architectures and solver networks for staking (like EigenLayer's restaking pools) can decouple validation from execution, distributing risk.
- Solver competition prevents single points of failure.
- User specifies outcome (e.g., "stake ETH"), not the cloud path.
- Reduces systemic reliance on any one operator's infrastructure.
Decoupled
Risk
Solver Nets
Architecture
06
The Solution: Mandatory Client & Cloud Diversity Scores
Protocols must enforce staking diversity. A client diversity score (like those tracked by Ethereum.org) and a cloud diversity score should be public metrics for staking pools, influencing delegation and slashing parameters.
- Publishes centralization risks transparently for delegators.
- Incentivizes pools to use smaller providers and bare metal.
- Aligns with Ethereum's roadmap for single secret leader election (SSLE) and proposer-builder separation (PBS).
Transparent
Metrics
Enforced
Diversity
counter-argument
THE REALITY CHECK
The Rebuttal: Is This Really a Problem?
The centralization in cloud staking is a systemic risk, not an abstract concern.
Centralization is a systemic risk. A single cloud provider failure can cascade into slashing events and network instability, as seen in the 2021 Hetzner incident that impacted Ethereum validators.
The 'decentralization theater' is dangerous. Relying on AWS/GCP/Azure for consensus creates a single point of failure that defeats the purpose of a trustless network. This is not a hypothetical; it's a live attack vector.
The economic incentive is misaligned. Staking pools like Lido and Rocket Pool optimize for cost and uptime, which directly incentivizes using centralized cloud infrastructure over globally distributed home stakers.
Evidence: Over 60% of Ethereum's consensus layer nodes run on cloud services, with Amazon Web Services hosting nearly half of all beacon chain nodes. This concentration creates a tangible censorship risk.
takeaways
DECENTRALIZED CLOUD STAKING
Key Takeaways for Architects
Decentralized cloud staking pools promise scalability but introduce new, opaque centralization vectors that threaten validator resilience.
01
The MEV-Boost Relay Monopoly
Most pools route block proposals through a handful of dominant MEV-Boost relays (e.g., Flashbots, BloXroute). This centralizes block building power and censorship risk.\n- >90% of Ethereum blocks are built via these relays.\n- Creates a single point of failure for validator rewards and network liveness.
>90%
Blocks Relayed
<10
Major Relays
02
The Cloud Provider Trap
Pools like Lido, Rocket Pool nodes are heavily concentrated on AWS, Google Cloud, Hetzner. Geographic and provider diversity is minimal.\n- A single cloud region outage can knock out thousands of validators.\n- Undermines the physical decentralization premise of Proof-of-Stake.
~60%
On Major Clouds
3
Key Providers
03
Client Software Homogeneity
Despite multiple client options, economic pressure pushes pools toward the most profitable or stable client (e.g., Prysm, Geth). This reduces client diversity, increasing systemic risk.\n- A bug in a supermajority client could cause a chain split.\n- Pools optimize for uptime, not network health.
2/3
Client Majority
High
Correlation Risk
04
The Solution: Enforced Node Distribution
Architects must design staking protocols with hard-coded geographic and provider distribution rules. Use frameworks like Obol, SSV Network for Distributed Validator Technology (DVT).\n- DVT splits a validator key across multiple nodes and locations.\n- Mandates a minimum spread across cloud providers and client software.
>4
Node Operators
99.9%
Target Uptime
05
The Solution: Relay & Builder Agnosticism
Build staking middleware that randomizes relay selection and integrates in-house block building (e.g., using SUAVE). This reduces reliance on the centralized MEV supply chain.\n- Increases validator profit by cutting out intermediaries.\n- Mitigates censorship by diversifying block proposal paths.
10x+
Relay Options
Direct
Builder Integration
06
The Solution: Staking Derivative Scrutiny
When integrating liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like stETH, rETH, audit the underlying node operator set. Favor protocols with transparent, verifiable decentralization metrics.\n- Demand on-chain proofs of node distribution.\n- Treat centralization risk as a quantifiable security parameter.
On-Chain
Proofs Required
LST
Due Diligence
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