Many interpreters (including the rocket pool docs) see the 10%/150% as based on the NO ETH bond, not protocol ETH. This unclarity is why RPIP-8 has so much verbiage defining how and why to calculate the collateral. Which is good, it should be defined.
But because of that those sizable definitional changes, the RPIP changes our range of total collateral per validator changes from from wide [17.6-40] to gaping [10.4-44]; At 4E LEB the range will be [6.8-46]. So again, if rocket pool says 6.8 ETH is safu for rETH, why would we pay people to have 46 ETH collateral? Where is the benefit to the protocol?
The time to talk about these collateral changes is now, not after we have voted to approve them. And âchanging the terms of engagementâ doesnât apply to LEBs, since there are no approved rules yet.
2 Likes
Totally agree. I think LEB is the best opportunity weâll get to switch to a fixed collateral requirement plus a per minipool reward.
1 Like
Where is the benefit, as well as what are the tradeoffs? I also agree with you. Nailing down what collateral requirements are ideal in the long run is a matter of due diligence, and if changes are required, so is posing the question: should said changes be implemented with LEBs?