As the price of RPL fell, some problems were exposed

From a node operator’s perspective:

Due to the rise in RPL’s required amount with the new 8 ETH minipool, there’s increased risk in an otherwise ETH-focused portfolio. The bonding security provided by RPL is negligible. It’s unclear why the 8ETH bond isn’t sufficient, making RPL’s necessity seem contrived.

The steep incentives to expand the ecosystem are discouraging for operators who are short on RPL. They need to purchase enough to achieve collateralization and accommodate an extra minipool, even with an additional 8 ETH. This scenario becomes economically unfavourable and risk-laden quickly, making it a less attractive option.

Node operators in this predicament might find it more cost-effective to establish a new node, avoid a large RPL purchase, or wait for a new staking provider to launch or achieve more lindy.

This situation implies early investor node operators can continue creating more pools as rETH demand increases (because they might be still hugely up in their investment). Meanwhile, validators-centred operators may be discouraged from adding risk. This trend risks node operator centralization in the long term.

So personally I would love to run more validators, but I am not able to due to RPL and I am not willing to add more RPL risk to my portfolio. I can assume many NO are in a similar situation.

2 Likes