banteg(@banteg):staked percentage and concentration lie on different axes. you can have less total staked with higher institutional concentration, which is the likely outcome of the proposed regime. social slashing has never been an unstaked eth holder referendum, neither it was a staked eth vote. so the requirement for a large unstaked eth base is superstitious at most. ejecting a bad actor requires a massively wide coordination, and ultimately it's the users of the chain who decide which fork is valuable.

2026.08.14 16:40

staked percentage and concentration lie on different axes. you can have less total staked with higher institutional concentration, which is the likely outcome of the proposed regime. social slashing has never been an unstaked eth holder referendum, neither it was a staked eth vote. so the requirement for a large unstaked eth base is superstitious at most. ejecting a bad actor requires a massively wide coordination, and ultimately it's the users of the chain who decide which fork is valuable.