Introduction
Is Ethereum about to embark on a journey of rehypothecation? Eigenlayer aims to be neutral infrastructure that enables a brand new ecosystem to form from re-using Ethereum security from data availability layers to universal bridges to shared sequencers. Done safely and judiciously, this is not rehypothecation. Yet, Eigenlayer has many people rightfully worried about altering the state of something so sacrosanct to the survival of Ethereum, its consensus layer. However, the incentives are strong as, in the last few weeks alone, Liquid Restaking Tokens have onboarded billions of USD in stake.
In this essay, I will describe how Eigenlayer can be used without adding existential risk to a protocol. I suggest a unique collaboration between Rocket Pool and Eigenlayer.
Hybrid Restaking - connect the Rocket Pool and Eigenlayer ecosystems enabling node operators to participate in AVS services but isolate the rETH LST from the restaking risks. This can be done.
The Rocket Pool Grants and Bounties Committee has approved a $60,000 bounty for the full completion of the Rocket Pool x Eigenlayer integration. This bounty is now viewable!
To ensure wide DAO support before moving forward, this bounty will be voted on by the broader pDAO. I encourage Rocket Pool node operators who want to open themselves up to a world of new yield sources and airdrops to strongly consider voting YES to the bounty and NO to the modification. Vote 1 is a simple yes/no to the bounty, and Vote 2 would modify the bounty into only research. The link to vote is here: [not yet live].
For those who need some background, read onwards to learn all about how we got from PoS to hybrid restaking and why this is the ideal path forward.
Proof of stake, delegated proof of stake, liquid staking, restaking, liquid restaking, eigenpods, native restaking, hybrid restaking -- these words have caused confusion across crypto twitter as Eigenlayer marches towards mainnet launch in early 2024. In this essay, I will attempt to define what each term means and what their differences are. I will include a brief history of consensus, the emergence of liquid staking, the Eigenlayer proposition, and then the various formulations of restaking. I will further establish why Rocket Pool, among all staking protocols, is uniquely ready to partner with Eigenlayer based on the idea of hybrid restaking where LST holders have senior debt and LRT holders have junior debt but higher yield. Lastly, I will make the case why Rocket Pool embracing Eigenlayer is good for Ethereum writ large and explain the details of the approved bounty.
History:
Consensus protocols underlie the heart of the crypto space. Bitcoin provided us with the first modern byzantine fault tolerant consensus mechanism in Proof of Work. The idea of restaking was far away then, but the thread began in merge mining. Miners could mine multiple tokens simultaneously, providing a rudimentary form of restaking. Namecoin was an early example of such a token. However, merge mining did not provide the economic security that it promised. Skipping forward some years, Ethereum launched the beacon chain in December 2020. The earliest stakers tended to be home stakers like those of the ethstaker community, especially during the period just before the beacon chain launch when there was a staking target that needed to be reached. However, it was not long before professional services stepped in and began to dominate the market. Centralized exchanges were quick to provide services. Then, the total stake had its hockey-stick growth moment from the advent of liquid staking tokens. By providing a wrapper for stake, liquid staking protocols quickly dominated Ethereum stake which was good because the only other viable alternative at the time was centralized custodians. The complexities of running a node clashed with the widespread desire for passive yield.
In the years since 2020, more liquid staking projects have come online to diversify Ethereum’s stake. The influence of the solo staker likely peaked right as the beacon chain launched and has trended down since. Ethereum now has to contend with the centralizing pressures of LSTs. Yet, before the issue of LSTs can be handled, a new pressure has arisen. Merge mining the way it was meant to be, the cosmos rented security model perfected, I am of course talking about restaking.
Eigenlayer is the next step forward for Proof of Stake. Unlike the proof of work merge mining days, restaking can provide real assurances through economic security on-chain. The reselling of security is inevitable and a goal that has been pursued since the early Bitcoin days. Now that it is realized, we must cope with the pressures and design the most resilient systems to protect Ethereum. Just as every staking protocol has its tradeoffs, every approach to restaking too will have tradeoffs. This essay is going to be an early attempt at defining the different approaches to restaking. If Eigenlayer succeeds, it may be like gravity and create a world where the most profitable AVSs go to a small handful of nodes and all stake ends up routing in that direction. There is also a world in which Eigenlayer success is like dark energy, finally providing a way to reward and incentivize decentralization spreading stake in a more distributed way than currently.
Definitions
Restaking:
Definition: The act of re-using capital that is securing assets in one way for use in another way. In the context of Eigenlayer, when people say restaking, they usually mean the act of taking an LST and depositing it into Eigenlayer to eventually secure an AVS, Actively Validated Service. An AVS is a protocol that makes use of restaked assets and can impose slashing conditions on that capital. At the moment, there are no AVSs live so the LSTs cannot be used for anything, but one could imagine a thriving ecosystem of AVSs and node operators. Many exist on testnet. In this world, the user would delegate their LSTs to node operators to partially secure their activities and earn compensation in return.
https://twitter.com/DefiIgnas/status/1755185296130687368/photo/1
The economics of restaking are as of yet unclear. They will likely be highly variable and depend on the services. For example, EigenDA and Espresso are two protocols in development as AVSs. EigenDA is a data availability layer while Espresso is a shared sequencer. It is plausible that Espresso will have large amounts of MEV flow as they order transactions from many different execution environments. If this is true, then it may be that node operators who wish to participate as an Espresso sequencer need to have a certain amount of assets restaked/delegated to them to maintain a higher security budget. This of course will come with higher rewards as shared sequencing may combine sequencer fees from all associated domains. This is already a market that is >100m USD/yr in size and is bound to expand.
Restaking is not rehypothecation. The collateral is always present as long as the underlying LSTs are solvent. Sreeram, the founder of Eigenlayer, talks at length about attributable security vs pooled security here in his interview on blockworks. Having two tiers of security analysis will help prevent group collusion attacks as well as cases of economic insolvency.
https://youtu.be/auDGJXsfvJ4?si=bJqQd9hV20tiagsJ&t=1991
This is an important concept to keep in mind. Another way of thinking about attributable and pooled security is the concept of senior and junior debt. Let’s consider a bridge with $20m in attributable security and $1b in pooled security. If an attack happened to just that bridge, there would be $1.02b in security. However, if many different services that are connected to the pool have bugs simultaneously, the amount of security for the bridge tends to, but does not drop below*, *$20m. The bridge has senior debt rights on the $20m and shared junior debt on the $1b. This concept of junior and senior debt can allow AVS services to have strong guarantees of security in extreme circumstances and will be important for the Rocket Pool proposal.
Liquid restaking:
Definition: The act of using a token wrapper to represent LSTs that have been deposited (restaked) into Eigenlayer.
The general concept is sound - we went from staking to liquid staking so why not go from restaking to liquid restaking? It’s not quite so simple. Ignoring collusion, LSTs have very tightly controlled conditions for redemption as well as node operator responsibilities. It is not so simple with Eigenlayer. Imagine a user delegates stake to a node operator operating on several different AVSs. The user then takes the token representation of their position from the liquid restaking protocol so that they can go play in DeFi.
The difference between using an LST or an LRT (liquid restaked token) in DeFi is that the overall risk profile can change for the LRT. With the LSTs, Aave is relatively confident that Rocket Pool won’t suddenly rug the ETH or, more realistically, that the risk profile of the token will not suddenly change so they allow rETH deposits. These assurances come from the fairly rigid and slowly evolving Rocket Pool contracts, a very desirable property for collateral. This level of confidence that rETH will be doing the same thing in a year’s time evaporates for liquid restaking. A node operator that users have delegated their LSTs to could decide to no longer do certain services, take on new services, or become malicious. Even with the consent of the LRT holders, this is problematic from the perspective of lending protocols which have to evaluate risk and struggle to make real-time adjustments. LRTs will be evaluated like funds operating a portfolio of strategies -- a much more nuanced and challenging analysis than evaluating LSTs.
https://docs.eigenlayer.xyz/eigenlayer/risk/risk-faq
“Looping LRTs in EigenLayer is not possible because depositing LRTs into EigenLayer is currently not allowed.
However, in lending markets, looping LRTs may occur based on the risk analysis of individual LRTs. We advise caution when taking this step as it involves financial leverage and exposes LRT holders to significant risks.
Looping LRTs in lending markets can lead to a cascade of liquidations. This risk is limited to individual lending markets and does not affect the security of EigenLayer. This is similar to the stETH depeg incident in 2022. During the event, the price risk of stETH is contained within the lending market, and Ethereum consensus remains unaffected.”
Looping LRTs in this manner can cause the amount of pooled security for an AVS to quickly plummet if a liquidation cascade is triggered. We saw stETH fall 10% during the 3AC collapse - similar circumstances have to be considered. Looping LSTs may trigger a cascade, but the security of Ethereum will not be threatened. Looping LRTs may trigger a cascade and materially damage the security of AVSs. Notably, Ethereum itself is not in danger here.
This is a challenge for the LRT protocols as well. They will be caught deciding which AVS services they should allow in their protocol. These decisions will determine the yield and risk profile of the LRT and these decisions cannot be easily decentralized. For large DAOs like Lido, it seems like restaking is out of reach as the DAO is slow-moving in decisions and further the node operators do not have independent collateral.
Despite these negatives, liquid restaked tokens will likely offer very attractive yields and protocols that can navigate the new ecosystem without getting hacked or losing funds will probably succeed. We can see several of these protocols attracting hundreds of millions USD in TVL before the launch of Eigenlayer itself.
Eigenpods:
Definition: The result of pointing the withdrawal address of an Ethereum validator to the Eigenlayer contracts such that the node operator can participate in AVS activities.
Eigenpods are the only way to restake on Eigenlayer when the LST restake cap has been hit. Eigenpods can be thought of as restaking one’s validator rather than restaking LSTs, but beyond that, having an Eigenpod enables the user to engage in various AVS services directly and to have stake delegated to them. Further, certain highly technical AVSs might require the node operator to outsource part of the compute. This would be like Ethereum validators using PBS for block construction. The benefits of Eigenpods are that the user is in control, they have a large amount of inherent capital security from the 32 ETH bond, and they are decentralized. Further, they keep all the rewards they earn from any AVS services.
Native liquid restaking:
Definition: A liquid restaking protocol that does not accept LSTs but instead creates Eigenpods to back the LRT token.
The idea of native restaking implies that all the ETH of a protocol first flows through Eigenlayer. There are numerous reasons to do this, however, at the moment the largest one is so that protocols can increase the amount they have restaked without having their LST deposits go up (as is the case with a deposit pause). Protocols can bypass the limitation on further deposits of LSTs by depositing all ETH as Eigenpods for which there is no restriction.
The benefits of native restaking are large. The ETH is already flowing through Eigenlayer and so the node operator that runs the protocol has a large amount of security that can be rented out to AVS services. This is more capital efficient than having to restake LSTs to node operators to become productive. Some examples include Swell, Etherfi, and Puffer. While I will be sharply criticizing native liquid restaking protocols in this section, none of this criticism is targeted at any team in particular and I wish them all the best.
However, the risks are as great as the benefits, if not greater. If a bug occurs on Eigenlayer, it’s plausible that native restaked tokens could have all their assets drained. Eigenlayer is the senior debt holder for native restaking protocols as the initial withdrawal address from the beacon chain is pointed at Eigenlayer rather than Lido or Rocket Pool as it would be for restaked rETH/stETH. If Eigenlayer is severely compromised, which I hope never happens, but if it does, then natively restaked protocols are going to be hit hardest. Further, it doesn’t have to be a bug that hits the entire Eigenlayer ecosystem. A bug that hits only certain AVSs and the slashing mechanism would be enough to severely damage native restaked protocols. Eigenlayer plans to implement a veto council that should hopefully mitigate these fears, but it is possible to have a bug in the council itself. There is no way to fully eliminate this risk while Eigenlayer holds senior debt.
In considering senior and junior debt one must ask: what is the ultimate role of an LST? Hasu had a wonderful piece talking about their vision for stETH as a global competitor in the world of moneyness.
LSTs are monies we use like ETH or USD. They are not yield farms nor are they idle locked funds. LSTs carry the burden of evaluating tail risk for the entire crypto industry. With Eigenlayer, LSTs and by extension Ethereum staking, will become the first proper interchain marketplace of security (sorry Cosmos). However, when LSTs compete as monies, they can only sacrifice so much security, and so much liquidity to Eigenlayer. A natively restaked protocol’s LRT will be competing with rETH. On a risk-adjusted return basis, the most resilient LST wins out. The winning LST will be the balance of yield, liquidity, access, and security. I believe the only way to accomplish this for an LST with the goal of being a major competitor is by retaining senior debt and still participating in restaking. Presenting hybrid restaking.
Hybrid Restaking:
Definition: The act of pointing a subsidiary withdrawal address of an Ethereum validator to the Eigenlayer contracts such that the node operator can participate in AVS activities.
The definition for hybrid restaking and Eigenpod are identical save for one word - subsidiary. The goal of a hybrid restaking protocol is to embrace modularity and have risks silo’d rather than shared. The subsidiary withdrawal address implies that the main withdrawal address is set to an LST protocol (Rocket Pool) and then the individual node operator sets their personal withdrawal address to Eigenlayer. Thus, Rocket Pool retains senior debt rights for rETH.
What does this accomplish? First, it protects rETH. The flow of capital is from Ethereum staking contract (beacon chain in the above image) → Rocket Pool → Eigenlayer. Each node operator on Rocket Pool has a withdrawal address and is connected to their individual ETH bond. In Rocket Pool that is lower than the 32 ETH natural bond, down to 8 ETH + 2.4 ETH of RPL. In the event of a disaster, no rETH holder can be damaged as Rocket Pool holds senior debt on the LST holder’s claims. If a node operator opted into Eigenlayer with the above mentioned 8 ETH, then 24 ETH of the exited validator would be automatically reserved by Rocket Pool for the LST holders. This process happens a priori in cases where a Rocket Pool node operator gets slashed.
Let’s explore this in more detail. Imagine 25% of all Rocket Pool nodes decide to opt into restaking for a major AVS. This AVS then has a bug at the same time that Eigenlayer has a bug and a mass slashing event happens on the Ethereum mainnet. The nature of this bounty requires that when slashing is detected on Ethereum or an AVS, the validator is ejected.
If Ethereum slashes first, then the pool is exited and the 32 ETH will be pulled from the beacon chain. Rocket Pool takes 24 ETH for rETH immediately. Before Eigenlayer AVSs can have any say, the rETH portion is sent to Rocket Pool minus any Ethereum slashing penalties. Then, the node operator on Eigenlayer will hopefully be able to rescue their personal stake. If this happened for an LRT protocol, all ETH would be lost. This plays out exactly the same way whether Ethereum or Eigenlayer slashes first. Rocket Pool always gets its money back for rETH.
There is one extreme circumstance where rETH holders can be slightly impacted. If there is a massive adoption of Eigenlayer by Rocket Pool node operators and a bug occurs on Eigenlayer, then those validators will all be put into the exit queue. This would dampen rETH’s APR, but it would not hurt the underlying capital. Further, if such a bug were to occur, the entire restaking market would be hurt and rETH would still be least affected.
Risk-favoring node operators are free to explore the AVS marketplace and take on all kinds of exciting responsibilities while never hurting the bottom line of rETH holders. This helps ensure that rETH is safe and predictable enough for a global money asset while still allowing node operators and rETH holders access to bonus yield.
Together, we can make decentralized home staking profitable again.
Discussion
Charts:
The chart below summarizes the different risk profiles of the above restaking options.
Since Eigenpods and Native Restaking are built with Eigenlayer having senior debt, these constructions carry the most risk. A third-party (non-Lido) liquid restaking protocol that restakes largely stETH will be at risk if all the Lido node operators are slashed, however, it is important to note that stETH the asset will be safe if the third party Liquid Restaking protocol experiences a bug or mass slashing. The restakers who delegated their stETH to the restaking protocol will lose their assets, however, the ETH backing stETH will be fine though stuck in the exit queue.
The safest option is hybrid restaking. When users delegate stake to Rocket Pool validators, the rETH token is secure in almost all adverse outcomes. The nature of Rocket Pool’s node operator bond provides built-in slashing coverage in the event of Rocket Pool node operators getting slashed by Ethereum. With Rocket Pool holding senior debt for rETH, node operators losing their funds will not harm rETH collateral no matter what they have opted into.
This table outlines the division of responsibilities for a node operator on Eigenlayer. When running an Eigenpod or restaking a minipool, the individual is in charge of deciding what AVS to run. This is advantageous for Rocket Pool where each node operator is free to experiment while still being connected to one cohesive group. With protocol-managed AVS services, extensive vetting is likely necessary before the protocol adopts that new AVS. The bureaucracy of protocols stems from the fact that most liquid staking and future liquid restaking protocols rely on trust rather than economics. A trusted restaking service has to be conservative with new AVS services otherwise the entire protocol can go under.
The chart everyone is after -- the comparison of yields. Running an Eigenpod is the base case, similar to solo staking on Ethereum. When running an Eigenpod there are two sources of yield. The first is the solo staker yield on the 32 ETH. The second is the income earned from opting into any AVS services as well as commissions earned from delegation. Building delegations as an independent node operator promises to be challenging and so I call this base AVS yield.
Native liquid restaking and liquid restaking have very similar yield profiles. Native restaking protocols have to pay node operators a commission to run Ethereum validators. Liquid restaking protocols use LSTs which have built-in commissions being charged. Further, these protocols have to pay a percentage of restaking income as a commission to the nodes who operate the AVS services. As such, delegators in these two categories receive lower Ethereum rewards and lower AVS yields.
Finally, hybrid restaking promises to be the best way to earn income through Eigenlayer. First off, Rocket Pool provides boosted Ethereum income -- roughly 42% higher returns than operating a solo staking node. This boost comes from the commission paid to node operators by rETH holders. The hybrid restaker would earn full rewards for AVS services. Further, in the future, it is a working goal to enable users to delegate to the entire Rocket Pool network. This feature would make it far easier for a node operator to accrue delegated stake and earn commission on top of their base AVS yield.
A Perfect Match
The winner of the world’s reserve asset, of the universal crypto ‘money’, and of the most liquid/utilized token will not go to a liquid restaked token. It’s not even clear that it will be an LST! It’s funny -- if you ask a crypto twitter degen what they care most about, absolute yield is near the top of the list, and risk-adjusted return is at the bottom. The aforementioned battle for moneyness flips the degen mentality on its head. Risk is the most important factor. An LRT is likely to be actively managed by a DAO and volatile. These are not the traits you want as a reserve currency. We can see a real-world example of this from the hesitation of centralized custodians to get involved in restaking so far. The inherently higher risk is a major sticking point with restaking tokens. This is one of the only opportunities where decentralized operators have an edge over large centralized custodians.
Since we know that a liquid restaking token will struggle to win the battle of monies, we should instead ask how can restaking amplify an LST’s case for being THE money without introducing the risks of restaking. Let’s look at Lido and Rocket Pool directly. For a variety of reasons, Lido’s stETH currently offers a higher APR than rETH. However, in a world with strong restaking adoption, we could reasonably see a large swath of Rocket Pool node operators earning bonus income. This bonus income can be indirectly passed on to rETH either by a direct revenue share from buying and burning rETH or by reducing the commission charged from rETH holders. These benefits can be achieved without exposing rETH the token to any extra risk. At the same time, the Rocket Pool node operator set will be powering a huge swath of AVS services. There are somewhere between 2,000-3,500 unique Rocket Pool node operators right now. Imagine those node operators earning bonus income, taking on Lido dominance, and rapidly testing and decentralizing Eigenlayer.
EigenDA
The flagship AVS on Eigenlayer will be a data availability layer. EigenDA is a logical choice by the Eigenlayer team. Validiums will be competing for the highest amount of trust at the subcent level of tx cost. This is a difficult bar -- unless you can borrow that trust budget. Thus, validiums on EigenDA may see the nearly free UX that validiums promise while offering a much larger guarantee of asset security.
What is notable about EigenDA is that it is designed to scale with the size of the node operator set, not with the amount of value restaked. Thus, the current restaking paradigm is approaching value in the wrong way. It will not be the protocol with the most restaked capital that earns the highest yield from EigenDA, no, it will be the network with the most EigenDA nodes that can capture the most value while also providing the most value to the network.
Estimates for the network project up to a 1GBps throughput, however, that will require scaling their node operator size up to support it. This is where Rocket Pool’s value truly is realized. Thousands of node operators capable of running the fairly low hardware and capital requirements of a DA layer. Rocket Pool stands to become the backbone of EigenDA. While some LSTs have chosen to start their own chains, Rocket Pool is on the brink of building something far greater.
Eigenlayer can supercharge the largest union of home stakers on Ethereum. This partnership will also drive more users to run their own nodes as they are tempted by the potential to earn Ethereum staking rewards, ETH commission, RPL rewards, AVS income, and AVS commission. At the same time, Rocket Pool will enable Eigenlayer to offer new services to Ethereum thereby improving its value proposition. Services like based pre-configurations, shared sequencing, and oracle services would all increase the value of the Ethereum network. This is a win-win as Rocket Pool provides more censorship resistance and decentralization to Ethereum than any other LST, probably more than all other LSTs combined.
Ultimately, the success of Eigenlayer will depend on the economic realities of the services it enables. If the AVSs do not generate income streams then no number of nodes on the network will suddenly make Eigenlayer valuable or used. If, however, the AVSs are in hot demand and services like shared rollups attract large MEV flows as I expect, then Eigenlayer has the potential to seriously modulate the decentralization of the beacon chain. In this world, where Eigenlayer is a serious player in Ethereum PoS, the world is better off having Rocket Pool as Eigenlayer’s major partner. There absolutely exists a world where Eigenlayer hoovers up all the stake and becomes too big to fail for Ethereum by centralizing the hell out of stake into the hands of one or two players. Rocket Pool can help prevent that bad outcome. Rocket Pool can not control the invisible hand of economics and it is possible that even if Rocket Pool is closely partnered with Eigenlayer that Eigenlayer ends up centralized, however, it seems to me that the best shot we have for a decentralized and robust Ethereum is when we have a successfully integrated Rocket Pool within Eigenlayer while still offering the lowest risk, most decentralized LST on the market.
The Bounty
Before I begin, I want to give a massive thanks to Sreeram and the Eigenlayer team for corresponding with me over several years as this idea developed and took shape. A special thanks to 0xKydo, 0xBrianna, and bbuddha for directly contributing to the bounty discussions. Further, a huge shout out to the members of the GMC and community who helped sharpen the final details.
Summary
Enable Rocket Pool node operators to join the Eigenlayer network. This should be done while Rocket Pool retains senior debt, meaning Rocket Pool contracts are the withdrawal credentials from the beacon chain. The aim is for Rocket Pool node operators to participate in Eigenlayer activities and be slashed for misbehavior by pointing their withdrawal address to a special contract that enables all the functionality of a regular Eigenpod from slashing to rewards.
Milestone 0 - Research EIP-7002 and Presigned Exit Messages
Payout: $10,000 Research the various methods of pre-signed exit message management. Present research to the pDAO showing the risks and benefits of this method. This research should include any necessary centralized components as well as any changes to the Rocket Pool contracts and smart node that would be needed. The research should also present on how Rocket Pool can incorporate EIP-7002 internally and further how an integration designed around 7002 would look. This should be compared with the pre-signed exit message route so that the pDAO can decide on what the best way forward is. Research applicants must intend to go on to build the full integration, however, the pDAO reserves the right to terminate the grant and look for others to finish the bounty. There will be a 5 week window from bounty acceptance to when the research must be presented.
Milestone A - Build Contract
Payout: $16,666 Once the pDAO has signed off on the desired integration method, the team will be ready to build the outlined contract allowing Node Operators to register with Eigenlayer and function like regular validators in their network including slashing. This ought to be verified with a core RP team member, ideally Kane, as a plausible solution.
Milestone B - Feedback and Integration
Payout: $16,666 Incorporate feedback from the audit and the Eigenlayer team. Then, in coordination with RP and Eigenlayer, release the integration for public use.
Milestone C - Front-End and Documentation
Payout: $16,666 Create proper front end components as well as documentation to make the product easy to use and understand.
Details:
The integration will utilize either pre-signed or EIP-7002 forced exits. This is critical for a variety of reasons but suffice it to say that without a means of forcing an exit, both protocols take on risk from correlated events. For example, a large MEV block and misreporting data on a DA layer at the same time could overwhelm the security budget of the validator and could hurt in either direction. This exit should be triggered after a Rocket Pool penalty or an AVS penalty.
The research on 7002 will be extensive and the bounty applicants should solicit feedback from the community. For example, IMC member Knoshua suggested the following set of topics they want to be answered. This research should be completed in conjunction with the Rocket Pool core team such that work is not replicated and that the final product is in line with the core protocol design.
It is also critical that the Eigenlayer slashing infrastructure is compatible with the contract integration so that the AVSs can trust Rocket Pool node operators to act honestly or be punished.
At the end of the research phase, the pDAO will have to vote on a solution for implementation. This decision can be done at the DAO’s discretion after the bounty submission and the DAO is not required to have the first step team continue for the entire bounty.
To see the full bounty follow this link.
Please reach out to me on discord, telegram, or twitter if you have questions about the bounty, Rocket Pool, or life generally.
Rocket Pool brought thousands of node operators to Ethereum. Now it can do the same for Eigenlayer. If we don’t, there is a real chance someone else will do it for us.
Let’s fix this chart.
Happy restaking frens.