Reddit Posts
150K Stolen in Phishing Scam (Pink Drainer)
Rocketpool V2 goes live, with brand new website and RPL staking mechanism changes, along with a new reward token.
Is Rocketpool in a slow death spiral?
Though on Rocketpool ETH staking. Is it safe? What could go wrong? Should you stake all of your ETH on it?
Bitcoin price chart flashes a bullish sign that could lead to breakouts in ADA, QNT, RNDR and RPL
Ethereum cold storage wallet - Non Wifi HP Calculator (Hp 50G)
PSA: Rocketpool is awesome and very tax efficient in many countries
Considering investing in staking infrastructure projects - which ones do you think have the most potential?
Considering investing in staking infrastructure projects - which ones do you think have the most potential?
Rocketpool whale got hacked for 85k RPL or $3.8 million. The hacker proceeded to dump RPL on the open market, prompting price to briefly dump.
A Rocketpool whale got hacked for 85k RPL ($3.8 million), prompting price to briefly dump. Remember to stay safu. Revoke all contracts from time to time. Don't approve shady shits.
Rocket pool RPL last 100 Days Bullish
Shanghai Fork is here - Rocket pool (RPL) Play
Insider trading or luck? Anon wallet makes $50k in 20 mins from Binance RPL listing.
Binance Will List Rocket Pool (RPL) in the Innovation Zone | Binance Support
Ethereum's Impending Shanghai Upgrade Powers Lido DAO, SWISE, RPL Tokens Higher
Trading for C98, GAL, RPL, STG and SYN starts September 29 - Deposit Now! - Kraken Blog
How to 3-6x the interest you would earn on liquid staking with DeFi magic (and earn bonus liquidity incentives!)
Cryptography in Cryptocurrency (A basic introduction)
Proposal to Significantly Increase Rocket Pool's On Chain Liquidity and Capital Efficiency
Warning - CoinW exchange should not be trusted
Stay Away from XT CryptoCurrency Exchange - RPL Held at Ransom
Billionaires choose bitcoin due to inflation fears
Mentions
buy Rocketpool “RPL” 😉 you won’t regret.
RPL & BOSON have been bleeding badly for a while, but I'm confident they will 10x this year from recent bottoms.
ETH - decentralised world computer that will be the financial settlement layer of the internet RPL - an ETH staking token with revenue share and so the more that is staked, the better the token performs ZK - my pick of the ETH L2’s; zero knowledge proofs are fundamentally going to disrupt crypto for the better, and the token also had a favourable distribution compared to others That’s it. My focus is on understanding and high conviction, rather than spreading myself and just hoping for the best. UNI gets an honourable mention. I think once it gets revenue sharing it will pump like crazy, but it doesn’t have the best token distribution.
Next god candles after btc will be eth and liquid staking token providers like RPL. Let’s goooo
Front run ETH Staking ETF's ($RPL) and a supportive regulatory regime for fee switches ($UNI)
$ETH $LINK $RPL $UNI Expecting a DeFi Renaissance with bullish regulation
$RPL Currently around #293 but has been in the top 100 before - recently announced a fee switch which will mean that it will start to receive $ETH staking revenues next year Essentially going long ETH staking which, given the recent US regime change and talk of staked ETH ETF's, is incredibly bullish
Why? The majority of the money in this cycle so far has been sent to influencers via pump fun. Utility season will commence, not if but when. Not advice on RPL but in general lol
New tokenomics model for RPL and for running RocketPool nodes. Rocketpoool currently lets you run a validator with 8 ETH (rather than 32 for solo staking) plus 2.4 ETH worth of RPL. Yield for running a validator at home with Rocketpool is 42% higher yield than solo staking, but up until now you had to take on the risk of RPL volatility. With the next upgrades node operators will be able to run validators with only ETH (just like solo staking) while RPL is provided by others. The people who want to provide that RPL are currently stocking up to do so.
Because RPL is a shitcoin that extracts value from new node operators.
Well 10.6 ETH because you need 2.6 ETH bond worth of RPL.
# Considering the following, thoughts? If you had to choose one which would it be? RPL LTC CHZ QNT LRC
No, you can run a *node* for free, but you need 32 ETH (or 8/16 ETH + RPL for RP Mini Pool) to be a solo *validator*. My node connects directly to other nodes on the network.
Some of them are just association within the market and nothing direct. Others, like DAI or RocketPool's RPL token, for example, have some mechanism that encourages users to purchase based on the price of another asset. With RPL it's that node operators need to have at least 10% of the ETH they receive from the protocol for staking in RPL as collateral, and if they fall below 10% they don't get RPL rewards that month. If I remember correctly DAI does it by modifying interest rates.
I love RPL, it's wild swings are awesome for volatility trading strategies.
FET, RNDR, QNT, LINK, ADA & SEI. But I'm ridiculously into EWT, RPL & BOSON.
There are people in RPL that thinking the exact same thing lol. Man should of just kept it in ETH
I did that once upon a time but now it’s BTC only…AXS, CRV, SAND, MANA, OMG, DOT, ETH, RPL…I think it’s too many project to keep track of and all have much higher risk, imo.
Node: free. Validator (to earn staking rewards, tips, and MEV): 32 ETH to run a validator directly with the beacon chain. 16 ETH + 1.6 ETH worth of RPL through Rocket Pool. 8 ETH + 3.2 ETH worth of RPL through Rocket Pool. 1 ETH with Diva. Any ETH with LSTs like rETH, stETH, cbETH.
You talked about forking and nodes, which is what I was talking about, not validators which require 32 ETH. You can always run nodes for free. You can validate with Rocketpool with 8 ETH + RPL, or very soon, SSV or other DVT solutions like Diva with 0.1 ETH.
> Why is the price not surging?? Loads of things are going up like crazy right now: ETH is up 10% in the last 24h, its L2 tokens OP and ARB are up 25% and 30% respectively. Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is up 30% and the Ethereum staking service Rocket Pool (RPL) is up about 35%.
Rocketpool. (RPL) 20 million supply, 50% is locked in nodes, you need it to run a node (utility). So 10 million effective CS. Rocketpool is also the 2nd largest Eth staking platform. Current price: $25
My list of potential crypto projects for 2024 includes different categories. I doubt NFT and GameFI spaces can attract attention again. It depends on developers and designers, I guess. I believe the potential lies in LSD (LDO and RPL), DePIN (AIOZ and ADE), Oracles ( DIA and LINK), and AI ( OCEAN and FET) spaces. I named some of the projects that developed very well. Let's see how it plays out.
it's cuz i just sold all my RPL to SOL.
Good post and a good opportunity to explore some L1 projects. I think INJ is a solid pick, but generally speaking, there are other altcoins within other categories worth exploring. LSD ( LDO and RPL), Oracles ( LINK and DIA), and DePIN ( HNT and DIA) are some of the categories to explore.
I believe that the FOMO has already started. YTD performance of some of my tokens are incredible... INJ 1100%+, DAFI 120%+, AIOZ 350%+. Other tokens are skyrocketing on the last 3M. DIA 35%+, IOTA 85%+, RPL 30%+. BTC and ETH will push alts good in the next bull run.
I would include several altcoins from different areas: LSD ( LDO and RPL), AI which has big potential to be a leading narrative during a bull market ( FET and OCEAN), and DePIN which keeps growing ( HNT and ADE). Bright future ahead.
RPL / RETH and LIDO/STETH reminds me of LUNA/UST so a bit hesitant.
The 8 ETH minipools are the lowest amount, but also have a minimum RPL collateral requirement which is 10% of the borrowed amount. For an 8 ETH minipool, this becomes a minimum of 2.4 ETH worth of RPL (10% of the borrowed amount, which is 24 ETH). Maximum is 12 ETH of RPL per minipool. More RPL collateral means more yield, but also means more exposure to RPL. So really it’s 10.4 ETH that is required to start up a 8 ETH minipool. Maintenance is damn near nonexistent as long as you have a reliable setup. I spend MAYBE an hour a month maintaining it. I run mine on a 12th gen i7 NUC with 32gb RAM and a 4tb SSD w/ a UPS.
I think you can make more as a node operator with Rocketpool (you're getting an extra commission on the shared ETH funds in your pools), but you have to be comfortable holding the additional RPL collateral. It's still probably a more safe (no contract risk) and decentralized option to go solo if you can afford the 32 ETH, though.
Put it into RPL and put the rETH into aave. Forget about it for a few years.
RPL is speculative trash that extracts value from rocketpool node operators.
Im still up for today, got some really good trades 😎 Adding more BTC and RPL(my dark horse)
it needs to be easier to stake so that more people will do it. like ADA does a good job with its staking systems. i feel like ETH encourages DAOs and systems like LIDO or RPL because individuals cant afford to direct stake or become a node operator.
What I have said is that node operators are not all happy and that you don't speak for them. I have never argued that the protocol is bad and don't agree with the OP that it is in a "death spiral". It's just an obvious, and pointless tactic to broaden the argument and then say ah look you cannot counter x,y,z, haha I win. The "voting with their feet" argument just doesn't wash when to support it the only evidence offered is that a number which literally cannot possibly go down, is going up. It's actually quite poor that the rocketpool medium post uses this metric. Also, you know what, I will continue to complain about RPL, in fact I will flap my wings more if anything, because if you are below the collateral limit you cannot vote. Another complete bullshit decision. Do you think because someone didn't notice that in the small print you can say hard luck you should have done due diligence and they will shut up? That;s not how it works
Sent a previous version of Rocketpool to Coinbase where they only accept version 2 of rocketpool. I see the RPL in my address they provided. What does Coinbase need to do in order to send them back to me. I know it's possible and takes time and resources for them to retrieve and send them back but i'm happy to pay $ for this.
This.. entire market is so down and bone dry, the machines have no lube. Doesn’t mean it’s a death spiral or flaw… it was a choice and I think a better one given the alternative of fees, or VCs Look at XMR.. to mine and secure the network literally cost more elec/compute than what will be mined. People still do it. You buy the bottom now (I don’t think we’re fully there yet) and the inverse will be true when the price rises. You’d have spent less on more RPL value I don’t even have enough ETH for a mini-node but will be buying both RPL and rETH when we do see the bottom bottom. And fck Lido/Kraken
No, that's not a fact! Node operator count is no longer rising. The metric is still rising because it counts exited nodes with no ETH deposited. Don't make me repeat myself. At the same time, many people are posting they don't want more exposure to RPL so it is reasonable to surmise that is part of the reason there aren't enough NOs. I do actually want the protocol to succeed, it's just irritating to read this stuff about yeah we're all happy, when every time I look at the dashboard and see the full deposit pool and falling RPL/ETH, I know that it isn't fine. Whether what is in the pipeline helps or not is speculation. I won't be able to convert any more pools myself
You present an arbitrary assumption on your part as fact and dont see the Problem with that? 6 months ago we had a huge node operator overhang. Why Was that? By your logic because node operators were excited about RPL exposure? You are trying to present opinion as fact. Fact is, node operator count is rising fact is rETH demand is huge fact is there are Updates in the Pipeline that will exponentially increase capacity for ether for New and existing operators. You might not like it but thats a you Problem.
Really something to be claiming I've been saying anything that's "false" when it is just incontrovertible fact and meanwhile you are backtracking from saying node operators are happy with RPL exposure to admitting that no actually there is a lack of node operators.
The real reason RPL was created and then required as collateral from node operators, is to create artificial demand for RPL to peg, prop and inflate its value so that the team and insiders get paid -- there is fundamentally zero need for the RPL token. From the outset, that artificial demand was bound to plateau and then to drop: node operators can't increase ad infinitum, and competition alone would curb it far sooner anyway ... and you see it happening now, the market is punishing that decision. If you were to make RPL a governance only token then they'd have a new problem as there is no healthy and sustainable mechanism to inflate it in order for them to be paid from it. The model is flawed. The honest move should have been to employ a fee model, but it's too late for that. They will likely now start messing with the tokenomics of RPL (supply, inflation, peg source, etc), which fundamentally is a bad idea as it means that it's not really decentralized (DAOs are incredibly centralized as it is, with a handful of token holders holding enough to swing any vote), nor does it offer stability and reassurance for the future.
RPL @ 500 USD in 24'. You fudders are ridiculous, easily the best way to stake on Ethereum
Yeah. He's not wrong that you probably wouldn't complain if RPL had developed differently with the same tokenomic flaws, but the choice of words is childish and unnecessary.
That could be done, but would require an introduction of some sort of governance fee, otherwise the RPL tokenomics would fail. It'd also be extremely difficult to pull off as a change to the existing ecosystem.
You shouldnt confuse yourself with others. Node operators like myself that are allready comfortable with RPL exposure to access higher ETH yields. The bond reductions will have huge impact. A 8 eth Pool today with 24 protocol eth generating 14% commission can become 2 x 4 eth minipools with 56 protocol eth generating commission or 4 x 2 eth minipools with 120 protocol eth earning commission just for some extra RPL collateral. Huge earning Potential, i wont think twice about it and many others wont aswell which exponentially increases the protocol capacity. 8 eth minipools allready proved a huge success to think this will change with future bond reductions is nothing but your opinion. Dont get me wrong, its fine not to want token exposure and you are free to watch from the sideline.
Disagree, I think a lot of people will be very turned off by the RPL exposure. An 8 eth node requires 2.4 eth of RPL. A 4 eth node would 2.8 eth worth of RPL and represent over 40% of investment while 2 eth nodes would need 3 eth and make up the majority of your investment in which case you’re mostly RPL exposure which with current tokenomics would be tremendously stupid to launch. I don’t think either would significantly impact demand because of the aforementioned reasons. They’re going to have to design some new utility for RPL:ETH ratio to improve imo and I’m skeptical they’ll figure out a solution.
> The supplemental RPL collateral acts as supplemental insurance against particularly egregious slashing incidents That bit? Yeah, I don't like it and think it should be fixed. It's right ("supplemental"), but it _is_ difficult to interpret correctly. There are a bunch of other places in the docs that have it this misleading or worse -- 100% needs improvement. RPL is only used _after_ the ETH bond for large slashing, and ETH bond is designed to be sufficient security to align Node Operators. I've done some analysis into what ETH bond sizes are enough based on some market assumptions here https://github.com/Valdorff/rp-thoughts/tree/main/leb_safety. Stader did an analysis that was more optimistic than mine. Lido did an analysis that I mostly agree with for their upcoming permissionless module -- they used a get out of jail card of that was roughly "well, only like 5% will be permissionless, so the impact will be decreased by 20x".
>As I've previously noted to you, rETH security does not depend on RPL market value. Claiming it doesn't make it true. RP reThe whole point of requiring RPL to be stakes
Valid criticism: RPL is a governance AND collateralized token all in one. Proposed response: Separate governance from collateral. Use ETH as collateral for ETH nodes. Keep governance and the business of collaterializing nodes separate.
>?? If you have a way to make a strong project without a dev team, that's impressive :P By avoided I meant at the time, as in being delayed until the project generates revenue. >This is possible, but I doubt it comes to pass. There's room for plenty of positive projects. Sure, like there's plenty of search engines. Most of which have almost no market share and act more like augments/pet projects to the company's actual business, this is the path FRAX took. A strong ideological product could maybe fight Lido for market share, but RP is already trending down. Peaked at 7.3% but mere months later is down to 6%. Maybe there's something in the pipeline that will reverse the trend once again, if not then a lot of very ideological people are going to be losing bunch of money for "doing the right thing" all thanks to RPL. Oh well...
The DAO's funding essentially comes from RPL inflation. Since it's RPL-denominated, that means its buying power depends on the price of RPL. Requiring it for the protocol creates a demand driver and thus supports the price of RPL (I think of it as "you stake X RPL to get a boost of Y to ETH yield"). By comparison, a pure governance token may or may not be valued.
> Dev team funding is by far the biggest expense and could've been avoided with a different approach to the project. ?? If you have a way to make a strong project without a dev team, that's impressive :P > What actually irks me about RocketPool is all the preachers lambasting users for not "choosing the right LST" and the idiots saying that using RPL is fine since it will outperform ETH. If they are so sure about RPL's price trajectory then they should be investing in it, not in ETH or rETH. Heard. Nobody should be pressured or made to feel bad. I _do_ think there's a strong argument for rETH based on lower tail risks and/or preferred ideology. But that doesn't make it best for everyone. In maturity, RPL will not outperform ETH -- it's inflating and at maturity there's no significant growth driver. Speculating that it will outperform ETH on its path to maturity is perfectly reasonable, and many folks _do_ invest in it as a result. Ofc, it's also perfectly fine to believe it's already fairly valued or overvalued and opt to avoid RPL. > obviously one has to take into account how much of the underlaying tech has been built on previous research/experimentation from projects that came before them I appreciate this point. Diva kicked off with VCs and put in some significant effort to get some tokens widely spread. I think they have some really cool stuff going on. I have some concerns too - but they and Stakewise v3 are the two competitors I'm most excited about. I'll note that RP won't stand still either. We're working on getting better over time, importantly including reducing the remaining components of trust. > when another project with similar ideology but better product comes along This is possible, but I doubt it comes to pass. There's room for plenty of positive projects.
I'm a node operator who joined near the top. I like and trust the protocol, but I'm not a fan of the tokenomics or the token. It sucks to be down on the "collateral" and be kicked while you're down (by not getting RPL rewards due to being under the threshold). With that said, it seems premature to call it a death spiral. We're in a bear market. RPL overperformed early this year and then corrected painfully.
The oDAO receives 7% of RPL inflation, node operators get 70%. This will be lowered further in the future.
> No, what prevents it is loss of business. It's really not. There is no way for Lido to exit the NO's validators (and even if there were they can also threaten a mass slash in such a case to hold some ETH hostage btw). Lido have been forthright that they don't plan to give any NO more than 1% of total stake. In other words, total stake needs to grow about 6x for revenue to reach what they could achieve via theft. > And yet, Lido staking and security are not exposed to LDO like RP staking and security are exposed to RPL Third time I'm responding this to you -- staking security (aka rETH security) does not rely on RPL value. It would be fine with $0 RPL. > Insisting on your disdain for VC funding doesn't change that, but it does make the irony more visible since both LDO and RPL holders are laughably concentrated. I don't have disdain for VC funding. I do believe it comes with a set of influences, and think other alternatives are viable. Let's consider what it would take to get 20% of vote. For Lido, 5 LDO-holding wallets would get there. For RP, we lie on the orange curve in https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/proposal-switch-to-linear-voting-power-to-resist-attackers/1213/10?u=valdorf and can see it takes over 100 nodes. Looking at votes with delegation instead, it's about 18 voters (assuming that nobody overrides their delegate) -- not great, but much more than 5. > First, there is quorum. Second, Lido is implementing dual-governance Quorum is 5%. The holder list shows single wallets holding 5%. If 2 large wallets voted, it would be the most total vote Lido's aragon instance has seen in a long time. FYI, RP's quorum is 15%. Dual governance is really cool. But it's not a panacea. It's particularly subject to "boil the frog" style stuff. Ie, yes people might revolt if you say "we're gonna triple the commission", but they may not if you multiply it by 1.1x 12 times with multimonth gaps. > how are rETH holders valued at RP governance to protect them against malicious governance (dictated by RPL holders)? They do not have a direct protection, you're right. Their value is enshrined in the pDAO charter https://rpips.rocketpool.net/RPIPs/RPIP-23, but that's about what should be, not what can be (ie, trust based). > Delegation is yet another concentration instrument, it's funny you're proud of it. So... until ossification, there needs to be _some_ way to make changes. I'm somewhat proud of our voting power spread. Delegation (working well) helps empower small holders that can't justify spending the time to research every choice. Importantly, they can vote directly for specific votes if they wish to. Essentially we can think of the good version of delegation as creating new "large" voters out of lots of tiny ones. The bad version of delegation is making "controlling" delegates out of "large" ones -- we haven't seen that yet, but it's certainly a risk. > p.s. I don't even like Lido. It's the misrepresentation of truth that made me reply on this cesspool of a sub (way more than I ever envisaged). If I really had to choose a LST platform for my ETH, it would probably be Coinbase for a host of reasons I'm not going to get into, with all risks of losing the stake etc. I would say I mostly like Lido, fwiw. If they didn't have the "winner take all" mentality, I'd probably have no issues with them at all. Heard in terms of ending up replying muuuch more than desired - me too fren. cbETH is a perfectly reasonable choice -- since they strengthened their ToS earlier this year, I think they're pretty solid (though ofc wholly centralized).
"The members of the DAO also receive substantial amounts of RPL each month" This is the red flag, isn't it? It's exit liquidity for the devs and their promoters (Bankless, Sassano?), funded by the node operators.
Dev team funding is by far the biggest expense and could've been avoided with a different approach to the project. I don't judge the devs for taking the approach they did, it's a free market after all though it's not hard to argue that the market is telling them it was the wrong choice. What actually irks me about RocketPool is all the preachers lambasting users for not "choosing the right LST" and the idiots saying that using RPL is fine since it will outperform ETH. If they are so sure about RPL's price trajectory then they should be investing in it, not in ETH or rETH. In a different comment you mentioned Diva and since I wasn't familiar with the project I went to look at their docs. From that very limited research they seem a lot more like what RP should've/could've been, though obviously one has to take into account how much of the underlaying tech has been built on previous research/experimentation from projects that came before them, making such system more feasible today than when RP was first conceived. If I were to make a prediction about future I'd say that RP will more or less fade into obscurity when another project with similar ideology but better product comes along.
So why not use RPL for governance? Why does it have to be part of the protocol? That's my issue, not necessarily the token.
> Yes, says right there on lido.fi/scorecard Actually... this risk isn't there. The closest is "Node operators are disincentivized from acting maliciously" but the focus is on obeying withdrawals. EL/MEV theft is not discussed. That said - I absolutely adore their scorecard. Beats the everliving pants off anything RP have for one-stop risk clarity. > Of course you did, but it's easier to suggest malice on your competitors' part instead I'm not saying Lido NOs are malicious. In fact, since they _haven't_ taken the 6x larger paycheck since the merge, there's some damn strong evidence that they're trustworthy. I _am_ saying that the system relies on trust. If one of their NOs kept all of the MEV, it would affect the APR of stETH by about 1/3 (the EL share) of 1/29th (the amount held by one NO). This is a bit over 1% of APR. It would also demonstrate that the NO coming out most ahead is the one doing the inappropriate thing and would make it more challenging to continue the social contract. > base the entire security and tokenomics on its market value As I've previously noted to you, rETH security does not depend on RPL market value.
I looked at RPL when I was researching staking options. Wasn't aware of the tokenomics at the time so was puzzled when I saw RPL eth listed on coin gecko. Seems a strange way of doing it so I'm naturally suspicious and steer clear. I went for simplicity in the end and staked with kraken and am aware that not only doesn't help the ecosystem but they're taking some of my profits. You said you run several mini nodes, do you mind me asking how you run them? Would you recommend me to set up my own node?
>I’m an NO who sold a lot of ETH for RPL to get collateralized right before Atlas aka the top. Yeah that sucks, worst timing. >I’m down so much on the RPL, it would take years and years of staking to break even. Or it could go very quickly when it bounces up again... There is no reason to assume that it's "down only" from here, don't get discouraged from regular shitposts like OP's.
>the RPL:Eth ratio will only get worse due to the design That's likely true, but it's hard to pin this down accurately. Let's say we assume RPL rewards won't cancel out inflation and your RPL stake slowly but surely loses value just because of that, not even taking into account ETH deflation. Well then you shouldn't maintain 10% stake and just view the 10% as the cost of entry to be recouped by commission. However, the more people do this, the more RPL is effectively "unstaked" and your rewards will actually be higher than inflation if you do maintain your stake. Ideally some sort of equilibrium should form making the RPL:Eth ratio somewhat stable (after accounting for inflation). At least that's how I think of it.
It's not true that not a lot of thought was put into this. The root of the problem is the financing of development. "Just use ETH as collateral and collect a fee". Yes, but (1) what would prevent someone from just forking and collecting the fee without having done any development? And (2) how would you ever decide on changes and improvements to the protocol? Ideally we'd have a lively open source community who would develop this together, but that's not going to happen. This is not a "for humanity" project, it's a "for profit" project and those will never be founded on volunteers sacrificing their free time. I'm not saying everything is fine. It's definitely not. Oracles being paid half a million for running a server is simply ridiculous. The DAO is only fake decentralized, the community doesn't have nearly as much influence as it should, and RPL will likely count as a security. But people acting like RPL is a scam and getting rug pulled are talking out of their ass.
You don't have exposure to RPL, but the exposure that NOs have to accept does mean they demand a higher commission, which reduces rETH return. Still not exposure though.
where is your proof for that? half the RPL supply is staked in the protocol the other half is held by people not staking it. you have to employ some next level brain acrobatics to try and paint the baked in protocol demand of RPL that comes on top of speculation as something negative when 95% of top 100 tokens are solely based on speculation with no relevant demand driving utility.
None of what you're saying matters. Rewards are dispensed as RPL, and the *only* people who would *ever* buy RPL are people starting a node. It's completely unsustainable.
I think you might be elevating your personal opinion a little bit too much by calling it "Analysis" Unfortunately reality does bot match your narrative. The RPL/ETH ratio had been on an uptrend for the longest time even during most of the bear when everything else crashed. But of course once there is a inevitable crash in crypto it has to be some Form of systemic problem with tokenomics it couldnt just be market sentiment on a bear market and a huge amount of people in Profit. RP has been growing pretty consistently even throughout the bear market. People evaluating different staking solutions and coming to the conclusion that RP is not for them for one reason or another is fine, its hard to be one size fits all when people have different tolerances for risk and expectations. Reality is, rocket Pool has been in developement since 2017 and would likely not exist today without a token Model. RPL is not only additional slashing protection but also the governance token and the reason why rocket pool itself is able to not take a cut on staking rewards. This Model has Served pretty well over the years despite the fact that critical voices like to appear during crashes and disappear again during the growth phases. Typical crypto phenomenon. There are plenty of discussions within the community / pdao on wether and how tokenomics could be potentially improved in the future. Until then, RPL remains the ticket to access not only 42% higher ether rewards compared to vanilla staking but also to a vast collection of Tools and conveniences that makes running a validator a breeze like the smartnode stack and the smoothing pool. while i understand that some people will be turned off by token exposure, sometimes in life you just cant have your cake and eat it too.
> They could steal 6x that if they wished from Execution Layer. What prevents that? Trust. You plaster that nonsense everywhere. It's so disingenuous it's funny. No, what prevents it is loss of business. They're contractors. Get over it. I'm aware of how DAO governance works, thank you very much, and as I stated they are all anything but decentralized. And yet, Lido staking and security are not exposed to LDO nearly as much as RP staking and security are exposed to RPL. Insisting on your disdain for VC funding doesn't change that. Delegation is yet another concentration instrument, it's funny you're proud of it. AAVE has the famous Aavechan - thousands of delegates, sometimes enough for passing proposals outright. The reality? One guy yields most power and manipulates everyone's votes and opinions who follow like sheep more blindly than Trump supporters: see https://app.aave.com/governance/proposal/289/ and https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-acquire-crv-with-treasury-usdt/14251
I have some ETH staked with rocketpool (ie I have some rETH), and quite like the user experience from that perspective - as well as liking the decentralisation contribution as vs Lido. I shied away from anything more with Rocketpool in part because of the RPL token aspects / I'm slightly wary on that side of things.
The Node Operators for Lido, which is the one I'm most familiar with, explicitly do not have signed contracts. They get a 5% commission. They could steal 6x that if they wished from Execution Layer. What prevents that? Trust. VC funding is a massive threat to Lido. If they wished, a couple/few VCs could have governance do literally anything they wanted. Settings like RPL inflation and future commissions, or commissions to Lido NOs and Lido treasury are controlled by the respective governance tokens. In Lido, it's pure holding; for RP, they also need to be effectively staked. Many fewer entities could determine these settings for Lido than for RP. > having its entire security and tokenomics rely on the market value of a native token This isn't the case. By design, RPL is secondary collateral. There is enough ETH bond for security with RPL valued at $0. > all existing DAOs whose members aren't required to be active users of the product Fwiw, the RP pDAO is defined as holders of effectively staked RPL -- ie, node operators. > It's ironic seeing you call out LDO (given the RPL initial allocation and distribution) The ICO was indeed pretty concentrated <https://rocketscan.io/rpl/ico>, but it got dramatically more spread out over time <https://rocketscan.io/rpl/holders>. And governance power is even more spread out than that because the RPL needs to be effectively staked and we scale with square root <https://rocketscan.io/snapshot/votingpower>. For example, I have the third highest voting power due to 30 delegators; I have 4 minipools and I delegate that voting power to someone else cuz I think I have more than one person should at just under 2%. I should note, everyone that delegates to me has the ability to override my vote too, if they don't like it :)
That's incorrect. Node operators for lido, coinbase, kraken act as contractors, they get payment from the fees raised by the staking platforms. Also, nothing wrong with VC funding - in fact it's preferred as they bear the risk temporarily while the platform can grow organically and safely using a fee model, rather than having its entire security and tokenomics rely on the market value of a native token and its inflation controlled by a select few. Lido's staking security isn't reliant on the value of the LDO token, whatever its centralization extent, so your point there is moot. Node operators in Lido don't have any less incentive to behave honestly if LDO sinks, whereas in Rocketpool incentive for good behavior is completely reliant on RPL value. Otherwise, all existing DAOs whose members aren't required to be active users of the product are practically scams in my book, including AAVE and RPL. It's ironic seeing you call out LDO (given the RPL initial allocation and distribution), but I didn't expect otherwise. Rocketpool defenders had started giving sad echoes a good while back.
Ooh, this is a fun one. Lido's got about 6k ETH of slashing insurance (their insurance fund is `0x8B3f33234ABD88493c0Cd28De33D583B70beDe35`). RP has ~265k ETH of slashing insurance from just the ETH bonds. The secondary RPL bonds add a little on top of that, but let's count it as 0 for now. Next, remember that there's about 15x as much (w)stETH value as rETH value. In a large slashing event of 8 ETH per validator, stETH holders would lose 1/4 of their value; rETH holders would lose nothing. In a massive slashing event of 32 ETH per validator, stETH holders would lose 100% of their value; rETH holders would lose about 67%.
Lido, Coinbase, and Kraken are all entirely based on trusted Node Operators. This trust allows the Node Operators to operate at infinite leverage (ie, they get any amount of ETH and put none in themselves). It's quite easy to get good ROI when I equals zero. Fwiw, even with that advantage, Lido _still_ needed VC funding as can be seen in some of their large holders https://etherscan.io/token/0x5a98fcbea516cf06857215779fd812ca3bef1b32#balances. Some of these holders have more LDO individually than votes in total for most governance actions. I'm unconvinced that having a VC-dominated token and trusted NOs is better than having a token that serves to bring future value into the present for the DAOs use (this is essentially the point of RPL).
This gets suggested regularly and always fails for the same reason. It's stable at size, but it's unclear how you'd get to size. Right now if 100% of all rewards were collected (ie, Node Operators straight up didn't get paid), it would only be like 75% of the oDAO/pDAO budgets (note: this number is one I had handy from about a month ago -- should be closeish). Obviously, when we were smaller, it was even less than that (and I mean this quite recently -- like in the spring it would've been less than half of that). RP has been in existence a while. Any competitor needs a way to fund their budgets until they get large enough that a reasonable cut could pay the bills. For us, it's been the RPL inflation (and the RPL ICO share that went to devs). A fork without the RPL would need an alternative way to pay their devs, pay for liquidity, etc. What comes to mind is a ton of VC funding while getting large enough (though ofc VCs aren't doing it for charity, so they'll want to get paid somehow). The other option is a huge amount of public goods funding. Using some kind of instrument that grows with a product isn't innovative at all btw -- consider equity in a startup or shares in a company -- they give the product value up front in some way and the holder gets some claim to future value in some way.
For this to be problematic, wouldn't the slashing have to be above both their 8/16eth deposit, and all the RPL collateral?
>There's only 1 reason for RPL's existence and that's to fund the project development/team No. There's 0 reasons for RPL. Because it's not in fact required. If you're honest, you take a fee to cover expenses (salaries are expenses) and generate profit. Lido, Coinbase, Kraken and others work well using a fee model -- they are content living an honest life. A native token isn't required here.
IMO the biggest reason for RocketPool's lackluster adoption is RPL, well apart from their early difficulties with getting new Node Operators. There's only 1 reason for RPL's existence and that's fund the project development/team. In every other way it's existence is a net negative to everyone in the system, and could've easily been replaced by using ETH as collateral. RPL is the reason why rETH is an inferior product compared to (w)stETH.
You're still exposed to RPL indirectly, that's the problem. Single point of failure.
20% of all eth is already staked. The incentive to stake drops as more competition enters staking. I think you’re kidding yourself if you think RPL:ETH ratio will have another surge comparable to the merge and Atlas upgrade spikes
Uh yeah. Collateralize with Eth instead of RPL and every problem is solved. Unfortunately that option doesn’t enrich the DAO members so they won’t do it
ETH RPL ratio is where it was before the Rocketpool upgrade and almost 2x from when it went live in mainnet. Once staking interest in running nodes pick up in the bull run, I’m sure the ratio will rise again.
That's liquid staking, very different from running a node. Doing the same thing with Rocket Pool's rETH doesn't require any RPL.
That's exactly my issue with it and the only reason I could summise as to why RPL was required. That can only be the reason, fund the overhead.
I remember making a comment when everyone in the sub was Shilling RPL I told them it was too scary and seems unstable. LOL at everyone just now finding this out after fighting with me.
RPL is there to fund the protocol. Paying devs, liquidity incentives, etc.
I'd rather not have subjective gates to entry, I'm not in love with holding RPL as collateral either.
I can confirm. Had to convert 4.8 ETH to RPL for the collateral of 2 minipools. Right now this is worth about 2.8 ETH. I can't imagine how people feel who have much more than 2 minipools, they will probably never break even.
If you look at the Rocketpool subreddit. The eth/rpl ratio bouncing back is the answer to all their problem. So yes the problem is irrelevant if the ratio goes back up. Which is the whole reason why there is a problem, that there is RPL:ETH ratio to begin with.
For one Node operator are vetted based on their qualification to run a node. They do not need to buy into a shitty tokenomic such as RPL.
The minute they decided to create RPL the project was doomed. This was not part of the plan at first. Ofc they saw the opportunity for a cash grab and took it. There is no reason for the creation of RPL, except to line pockets.
RocketPool was never intend to solve partional staking only made to sell RPL token, such a bad project.
I’m an NO who sold a lot of ETH for RPL to get collateralized right before Atlas aka the top. I’m down so much on the RPL, it would take years and years of staking to break even. Takes some of the fun out of it; would be better if I was making money from rocketpool.