Staking pools centralize governance power. Delegators forfeit voting rights to pool operators, creating concentrated points of failure. This is not a bug but a direct consequence of the liquid staking token (LST) model used by Lido and Rocket Pool.
web3-philosophy-sovereignty-and-ownership
Blog
Why Staking Pools Centralize More Than Just Rewards
Liquid staking pools like Lido consolidate validator voting power, dictate client software homogeneity, and create systemic slashing risks, fundamentally undermining the decentralized ethos of proof-of-stake networks.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE FLAW
Introduction
Staking pools centralize network control by design, creating systemic risk beyond simple reward distribution.
The risk is systemic, not isolated. A major pool's slashing event or governance attack propagates through its LST, impacting DeFi protocols like Aave and Curve that use it as collateral.
Evidence: Lido commands over 32% of Ethereum's stake, a threshold that, if exceeded, threatens the network's credible neutrality and has triggered community debates over client diversity and social slashing.
key-insights
THE STAKE CONCENTRATION TRAP
Executive Summary
Liquid staking's convenience masks a deeper systemic risk: it centralizes network control, governance, and economic upside into a handful of entities, creating single points of failure.
01
The Lido DAO Dilemma
~30% of all staked ETH is controlled by a single protocol. This isn't just about yield aggregation; it's about a single entity wielding veto power over network upgrades and capturing a majority of MEV revenue.\n- Governance Capture: Lido's stake share threatens Ethereum's credibly neutral social consensus.\n- Economic Black Hole: Staking rewards and MEV flow disproportionately to LDO token holders, not the underlying stakers.
~30%
ETH Stake Share
1 Entity
Governance Veto Risk
02
The Validator Cartel Formation
Large staking pools like Coinbase, Binance, and Lido's node operators create implicit cartels. They control hundreds of thousands of validators, enabling coordinated actions that can censor transactions or manipulate block production.\n- Censorship Leverage: OFAC-sanctioned addresses can be systematically excluded.\n- MEV Cartelization: Validator sets can collude to extract maximum value from users via sandwich attacks and arbitrage.
66%+
Top 3 Pool Share
Coordinated
MEV Threat
03
The Liquidity Monopoly
The staked asset (e.g., stETH) becomes the dominant liquidity pair, dictating DeFi's collateral base. This creates systemic contagion risk where a depeg event could cascade across Aave, MakerDAO, and Curve.\n- DeFi Single Point of Failure: $10B+ in protocols rely on stETH as primary collateral.\n- Exit Queue Control: During a crisis, the pool's withdrawal capacity becomes a bottleneck, trapping capital.
$10B+
Contagion TVL
1 Asset
Collateral Standard
04
The Protocol Fee Siphon
Staking pools insert themselves as a persistent rent-seeking layer, taking a 5-10% cut of user staking rewards forever. This economically disincentivizes solo staking and centralizes protocol treasury control.\n- Permanent Tax: Fees are extracted on yield, not just once on principal.\n- Treasury Centralization: Fees flow to a centralized DAO treasury, not the base-layer security budget.
5-10%
Recurring Fee
Permanent
Revenue Drain
05
The Client Diversity Erosion
Major pools standardize on a handful of consensus/execution clients (e.g., Geth, Prysm), increasing the risk of a catastrophic consensus failure if a bug emerges. Solo stakers are more likely to run minority clients.\n- Geth Dominance: >70% of Ethereum nodes run a single execution client.\n- Super-majority Bug Risk: A client bug in a pool's standard setup could slash thousands of validators simultaneously.
>70%
Geth Usage
Mass Slashing
Correlated Risk
06
The Regulatory Attack Vector
Centralized staking entities like Coinbase and Kraken are easy targets for regulators. Enforcement actions against a major pool can trigger mass unstaking events, destabilizing network security and liquid markets overnight.\n- Kraken Precedent: SEC settlement forced shutdown of U.S. staking-as-a-service.\n- Chain-Halt Threat: A legal seizure of validator keys could censor entire chains.
1 Enforcement
Network Shock
Key Seizure
Censorship Risk
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE STACK
Thesis: The Centralization Trifecta
Staking pools centralize validator selection, governance, and MEV capture, creating a self-reinforcing power structure.
Staking pools centralize validator selection. The economic requirement for 32 ETH creates a barrier, funneling users to centralized providers like Lido and Coinbase. This delegates the technical operation of validators to a few entities, reducing the network's physical decentralization.
Governance power follows stake. Pool tokens like stETH grant voting rights in protocols like Aave and MakerDAO. This concentrates protocol governance in the hands of pool operators, who vote with aggregated user stakes.
MEV extraction becomes institutionalized. Large pools like Lido and Rocket Pool run sophisticated block-building infrastructure, capturing the most profitable transaction ordering. This creates a feedback loop where higher rewards attract more stake, further centralizing MEV profits.
Evidence: Lido controls ~32% of Ethereum's staked ETH. Its node operator set is permissioned and curated, with the top 5 operators controlling over 50% of Lido's validators.
WHY STAKING POOLS CENTRALIZE MORE THAN JUST REWARDS
The Centralization Dashboard: Ethereum's Staking Landscape
A comparison of centralization vectors across major Ethereum staking services, measuring control over consensus, client diversity, and user funds.
| Centralization Vector | Lido (LDO) | Coinbase (cbETH) | Rocket Pool (rETH) | Solo Staking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Protocol Share of Total Staked ETH | 31.4% | 13.2% | 3.8% | N/A |
Node Operator Set Size | 38 Operators | 1 Operator | ~2,800 Node Operators | 1 Operator |
Enforces Client Diversity (Prysm < 33%) | ||||
User Custody of Withdrawal Keys | ||||
Governance Controls Validator Set | ||||
Slashing Risk Pool Coverage | Node Operator Bond | Corporate Capital | RPL Insurance Pool | Full 32 ETH |
Avg. Commission / Fee | 10% of rewards | 25% of rewards | 14% of rewards (5% + 15% RPL) | 0% |
Time to Withdraw & Unstake | 1-5 days | 1-3 days | 1-5 days | ~5 days |
deep-dive
THE CENTRALIZATION VECTOR
Beyond TVL: How Pools Dictate Network Health
Staking pools centralize network control far beyond reward distribution, creating systemic risk in consensus and governance.
Pools centralize consensus power. The largest staking pools like Lido and Rocket Pool control the majority of validator sets on networks like Ethereum. This concentration creates a single point of failure for censorship and chain finality, undermining the network's foundational security model.
Governance becomes a proxy war. Token holders delegate voting power to pool operators, turning DAO governance into a cartel. This dynamic is evident in MakerDAO and Compound, where a handful of pool-controlled addresses routinely pass or veto critical protocol upgrades.
Liquid staking derivatives create economic capture. Tokens like stETH and rETH become the dominant collateral in DeFi protocols such as Aave and Maker. A failure or depeg in the derivative creates contagion risk across the entire lending and leverage ecosystem, far exceeding simple TVL metrics.
Evidence: On Ethereum, Lido validators propose over 30% of blocks. In a crisis, this concentration could stall the chain or enforce transaction blacklists, demonstrating that pool size directly dictates network resilience.
risk-analysis
BEYOND REWARD CONCENTRATION
Systemic Risks of Pooled Staking
Pooled staking centralizes more than just token rewards; it consolidates critical network functions, creating systemic vulnerabilities.
01
The Single Point of Failure
Major pools like Lido and Coinbase operate massive, centralized validator sets. A software bug, governance attack, or regulatory action against a single entity could threaten network finality.\n- Lido commands ~30% of Ethereum validators, nearing the 33% threshold for potential chain disruption.\n- Pools concentrate signing keys and infrastructure, creating a target for sophisticated attacks.
~30%
Lido's Share
33%
Safety Threshold
02
The Censorship Vector
Large staking pools can be coerced into censoring transactions to comply with OFAC sanctions, undermining network neutrality. This is not theoretical; ~50% of Ethereum blocks were OFAC-compliant at its peak.\n- Centralized relays and block builders (e.g., Flashbots) are often the point of control.\n- Decentralized validation layers like Obol and SSV Network aim to fragment this power.
~50%
Peak Censored Blocks
OFAC
Primary Driver
03
The Governance Capture
Pooled staking tokens (e.g., stETH, cbETH) grant voting power in DAOs. This allows a few pool operators to exert outsized influence over protocol upgrades and treasury decisions.\n- Lido's LDO token holders vote on critical Ethereum consensus changes via the Lido DAO.\n- Creates a feedback loop where dominant stakers become dominant governors.
>4M ETH
Lido DAO Voting Power
Feedback Loop
Systemic Risk
04
The Liquidity-Token Attack Surface
Derivative tokens like stETH create a massive DeFi systemic risk. A depeg or loss of confidence can trigger cascading liquidations across lending protocols (Aave, Compound) and cause market-wide instability.\n- The $10B+ stETH/ETH Curve pool is a critical piece of DeFi infrastructure.\n- A "bank run" scenario on a staking derivative could freeze billions in collateral.
$10B+
Liquidity Pool TVL
Cascading
Liquidation Risk
05
The MEV Cartelization
Large staking pools aggregate Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) opportunities, creating professionalized cartels. This centralizes a core revenue stream and raises barriers to entry for solo stakers.\n- Pools like Lido partner with specialized builders (e.g., Flashbots) to capture MEV.\n- Leads to proposer-builder separation (PBS) becoming a necessity, not an optimization.
>90%
MEV Captured by Top Pools
PBS
Forced Evolution
06
Solution: Distributed Validator Technology (DVT)
DVT protocols like Obol and SSV Network cryptographically split a validator's key among multiple operators. This removes single points of failure without sacrificing staker liquidity.\n- Enables trust-minimized staking pools where no single entity controls the signing key.\n- Ethereum's Dencun upgrade included foundational support for DVT, signaling core protocol endorsement.
4+
Operator Threshold
Dencun
Protocol Support
counter-argument
THE CENTRALIZATION VECTOR
Counterpoint: Are Pools a Necessary Evil?
Staking pools centralize network control beyond simple reward distribution, creating systemic risk.
Pools centralize governance power. The largest Lido, Rocket Pool, and Coinbase pools control the majority of validator votes on Ethereum. This creates a voting cartel that dictates protocol upgrades and treasury allocations, undermining decentralized coordination.
Pool infrastructure creates single points of failure. Operators like Figment and Alluvial run nodes for multiple pools. A bug or malicious update in their shared orchestration layer can slash thousands of validators simultaneously, a risk solo stakers never face.
Liquid staking tokens (LSTs) distort DeFi economics. LSTs like stETH become the dominant collateral on platforms like Aave and MakerDAO. This concentrated collateral risk means a failure in the staking pool cascades into the entire lending market.
Evidence: Lido's 32% Ethereum stake share triggers the 'protocol-of-last-resort' clause, forcing the DAO to actively cap its growth to preserve network security—a direct admission of the centralization problem.
takeaways
BEYOND DELEGATION
Takeaways: The Path to Sovereign Staking
Staking pools centralize more than just rewards; they centralize protocol governance, client diversity, and the very sovereignty of the network.
01
The Problem: Liquid Staking Token (LST) Oligopoly
A few dominant LSTs like Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH concentrate validator selection and voting power. This creates systemic risk and governance capture.
- Lido commands ~30% of all Ethereum validators, a critical centralization threshold.
- LST dominance reduces client diversity, increasing the risk of correlated failures.
- Stakers trade network sovereignty for convenience and liquidity.
~30%
Validator Share
$30B+
LST TVL
02
The Solution: Distributed Validator Technology (DVT)
DVT protocols like Obol and SSV Network cryptographically split a validator's key among multiple operators. This decentralizes the node layer itself.
- Enables trust-minimized staking pools where no single operator controls the validator.
- Increases resilience; the validator stays online even if 1-of-4 operators fail.
- The foundational tech for truly decentralized Liquid Staking Derivatives.
>99%
Uptime
4+
Operators/Node
03
The Future: Restaking and EigenLayer
EigenLayer's restaking model introduces a new centralization vector: pooled security. Stakers delegate cryptoeconomic security to Actively Validated Services (AVSs).
- Centralizes slashing risk and operator selection for AVSs.
- Creates a meta-governance layer where large LST providers become power brokers.
- Sovereign staking requires careful AVS delegation or running your own operator.
$15B+
Restaked TVL
100+
AVSs
04
The Sovereign Stack: DIY Staking Infrastructure
Tools like DappNode, Eth-Docker, and Rocket Pool's Solo Staker suite lower the barrier to home staking. Sovereignty is a choice, not a default.
- Requires 32 ETH capital but provides full control over keys, client software, and rewards.
- Mitigates censorship risk and strengthens network decentralization.
- The endgame is a healthy mix of solo stakers, DVT clusters, and decentralized LSTs.
32 ETH
Barrier to Entry
<1%
Censorship Risk
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