Round 8 - GMC Community Discussion of Submitted Applications

[jasperthegovghost]

Hi @ken thanks for the questions. I’ll build on what @Valdorff said above which I think is a good summary.

@ken

In the case of LEB16 and LEB8 minipools, excess NO ETH can be used in EiL as the surety deposit. For example, if a NO has four LEB8s their deposit would total 32 ETH. Non-correlated Ethereum slashing exposes about 6 (4 * 1.5) of the ETH at risk. So EiL would have an assurity bond of about 26 ETH (32-6), which compares well with a solo validator of 30.5 ETH (32 - 1.5).

In the current state, I see a business case as to why we should provide this option to NOs to access additional earning potential.

But I need help to see the use case in our envisioned world of Megapools where nearly 100% of the NO deposit would be used towards this minimal assurance to protect against adverse Ethereum slashing events.

I think part of the confusion can be alleviated if we look at the above. There seems to be an implied proposition that a solo staker has an appropriate level of collateral and that AVSs will somehow be designed around that level of collateral. I don’t think this is accurate – I expect many AVS services to have many different slashing levels and some may not slash at all while others will require a significant amount of delegated stake. What’s important is that AVSs will have the autonomy to either allow or disallow Rocket Pool validators just as they can with solo stakers. Additionally, though this is hypothetical, this could in the future provide new utility to RPL as a secondary bond above the ETH collateral.

I believe the above misconception reveals itself in these follow-up questions. Eigenlayer does not want to be an opinionated platform where they judge the security. I believe @kydo commenting in support is evidence that they are comfortable with and value junior collateral as an option. The question of ‘what % of value’ is not a question for Eigenlayer but a question for the AVSs that build on top of it. One might ask what value an RP mini pool provides vs a solo staker to EigenDA and have a debate there, however, Eigenlayer itself is value agnostic.

That said, I believe a solo staker is vastly over-collateralized for EigenDA and that an RP mini pool may provide sufficient collateral even with megapools in a majority of cases.

1. There was this great post on X [ Link ] by marijor.eth that illustrated the EiL ecosystem. I’m guessing that the smart contract in #3 above that the bounty is targeting would connect in Marijor’s diagram, where he has an arrow up from the bottom that says “ETH staking”. Is that conceptually correct?

I’m not sure that diagram is great, Sreeram quote tweets it with a correction about how attributable security works. Notably, it doesn’t differentiate between pooled and attributable security.

1. Can we clarify that this bounty would seed the design and development of an EiL contract (e.g. the box titled “EienLayer”) that can be used as the RP Withdrawal Address by RP NO that want to join the EiL ecosystem using their NO remaining ETH.

This seems correct to me.