Публикация

The core argument is interesting, but the “70% staked = weaker security” conclusion is not automatic. More ETH staked generally increases the economic cost of attacking Ethereum, so staking itself is not inherently a security weakness. Ethereum currently has roughly 30–33% of ETH staked, far below 70%. The bigger concern at very high staking levels is liquidity and concentration. If most ETH becomes represented by staking derivatives, raw ETH could become less dominant as the preferred collateral/liquidity asset. Ethereum itself acknowledges that pooled staking can create cartel-like concentration, particularly when large amounts of staked ETH are controlled by a small number of organizations. There is also a liquidity issue: staked ETH can be withdrawn, but exits are subject to Ethereum's withdrawal/exit mechanisms rather than being instantly liquid in every circumstance. So the strongest version of the argument is: the risk isn't simply “70% staking”; it's 70% staking combined with concentration, liquid-staking derivatives, and ETH losing its role as the primary settlement/collateral asset. That makes this a network-effects/liquidity argument more than a straightforward consensus-security argument.