NewsFlash Articles Data Fundraising BlockBeats Pro

9 potential problems with EigenLayer White Paper

Read this article in 8 Minutes

The Eigenlayer needs to be addressed before it can materialize.

原文标题：《 EigenLayer 白皮书中的潜在问题：非原生质押及其安全性、NFT 头寸和 AVS 活跃度》

Original article by kydo

Deep Tide TechFlow

Editor's note: Eigenlayer is proposing something else that would allow users to staking ETH, lsdETH, and LP tokens on other public chains, predicators, middleware, etc., to be validated and rewarded, so that third-party projects can leverage the security of the ETH master network. The ETH consensus layer security is released.

EigenLayer is a cool concept, encryption analyst. kydo After reading its white paper, several questions/reflections are raised, including non-native pledge and its security, NFT Position, AVS activity, etc., the following is detailed introduction.

1. Non-native repledge

Native to the pledge is ` withdrawCredential ` EL smart contract instead.

Native repledge: Deposit your LSD, LSD's LP, or any kind of Token to contribute to the economic security layer of the EL.

What is the safe pattern for these different things? Given the composability of the underlying assets, how can safety be demonstrated?

2. NFT position

Unlike Lido, when you deposit EL, you don't get FT (also known as stETH), you get an NFT that represents your position.

This makes sense because as a funder, you may have different risk appetites and require carrier nodes to perform different services.

However, NFT can greatly reduce the overall liquidity of the system.

Will a Lido-like entity spawn on top of EL (perhaps Lido itself?) ? Or will a market/aggregator be born on top of it and convert these NFTS into ERC20 by putting them together? What are the trade-offs between EL, protocol, and Ethereum's different approaches? Many questions remain to be answered.

3. Stay active

While Slash is a direct measure to ensure security, how the system ensures activity is less discussed in the whitepaper.

You can use a Optimistic + Bond + fraud proof model, or you can actively track validators in EL smart contracts. However, the two systems operate under very different assumptions and require very different smart contract architectures.

What would EL do?

EigenLayer 白皮书中的潜在问题：非原生质押及其安全性、NFT 头寸和 AVS 活跃度

4. Cryptocurrency economic security is sometimes a Meme

Chainlink has no economics of security, it still keeps the entire DeFi safe. So is it feasible to actively monitor the economic security of a given AVS?

Furthermore, the amount of security guaranteed by a given AVS is not determined by the TVL it guarantees, but by the cost it incurs and the risk of running the service. So it will be interesting to see how EL alleviates these problems.

5. Decentralized collators

The idea presented in the whitepaper is that when faced with a sorting problem, L2 can offload it to a set of EL validators running the sorting service. It sounds like you can get around the "run PoS-L2 sort" problem with EL, but can you?

6. Event-driven MEVs

Event-driven MEVs allow the verifier to enter into an agreement with the MEV party, such as the builder, that if a clearing event occurs at the slot proposed by the verifier, it will provide a "strong assurance" that the verifier will include the MEV party's transaction.

This is very similar to private trunking in a sense, but there are differences.

How about doing this? Maybe it wants to get the fee/bribe up front? Can ETH block space even become a subscription service?

7. Parallel Ethereum

I don't know what to call it, so I'll call it Parallel Ethereum for now. I may have confused the concept, but it can mean either of the following:

1）重新质押=>另一个 L1，但具有来自 ETH Token 的安全性。

2) Change Casper FFG/LMD GHOST to something else.

One is reasonable, but two is very interesting, to say the least. My hunch is that 2 is impossible because you still have to agree to the chain Casper FFG finalized at the end and therefore your parallel chain still has the same finality as the original ETH chain.

8. Does EL lead to centralization?

The argument for decentralization is this: these AVS are cheap/light to run, so an independent pledgee can still run them compared to a centralized solution.

I think this is an optimistic future, if we look at the current bandwidth requirements for validators running Mev-boost, it is already ridiculously high, around 10TB/ month.

So these add-ons, while not going to be a huge centralizing force, do little to help decentralize.

9. Double pledge utility

Simple question: How do you reconcile the weight of the two?

Are you using another EL AVS as a price predictor? Do you use native AMM LP weights? Or do you hardcode and use governance to take your chances on a regular basis?

I'm not sure the right answers exist, but I'm very confident that the EL team and the wider ecosystem will solve these problems.