We contributed to Lido DAO, P2P.org, =nil; Foundation, DRPC, Neutron and invested into 150+ projects
We are excited to announce results of the grants from the MVI Grants program.
Ethresear.ch post & full study by Cryptecon: J. Beccuti, T. Chantramonklasri, M. Hafner and N. Oderbolz. Summary. There are three types of stakers assumed in this study: i. Retailers: they use centralized Staking Service Providers (SSPs), such as professional staking companies and CEXs. In the extended model Retailers are divided into two subtypes: sophisticated Institutions and inattentive Retailers who stake on CEXs. ii. Techies: they use decentralized SSPs, aka liquid staking solutions. iii. Experts, aka solo stakers: they stake by themselves. Central to this study is stakers' sensitivity (aka elasticity) towards issuance change: in other words, how strongly different types of stakers react to reduction of the issuance. These sensitivities are responsible for how issuance reduction will affect the distribution of stake, and hence Ethereum network's decentralization. The key findings of the study are: A. Sensitivities of different types of stakers towards issuance change are interdependent (Observation 3). B. Lower marginal costs lead to higher sensitivity of the stake towards issuance change (Observation 1). C. In the extended model, where CEX retailers are assumed insensitive while institutions are assumed to be reactive, the change of staking deposits upon issuance reduction are as follows: (Table 4) > Experts, staking by themselves: -26.9% > Techies, staking with LSTs: -24.3% > Retail + Institution, staking with centralized providers: -19% D. Despite B, solo stakers are actually most sensitive to issuance changes, due to competitive dynamics (A) and lack of DeFi & MEV extra yield sources (Observation 5). E. The liquid staking sector loses market share with issuance reduction. This means that centralized staking solutions are the least affected, and Ethereum decentralization decreases (Observation 5). F. Profitability of solo stakers can become negative after the issuance reduction (Observation 8).
Ethresear.ch post & full study by A. Eloranta, S. Helminen.
Summary. The key findings of this empirical study are:
Large staking pools have 12% higher mean returns compared to single-validator stakers / solo stakers
Ethereum Issuance can exacerbate the above dynamic
Elasticity analysis shows strong correlation between solo stakers' deposits and relative staking yield compared to staking services
Positive events result in higher inflows to large staking pools, compared to small ones
Ethresear.ch post by 20 Squares: W. Deng and D. Palombi. Summary. This study focuses on analyzing through data the correlation & causation between [inflows or outflows of staked ETH] and [short-term & long-term changes within Ethereum]. The key contributions of the paper are: A. Developing new agent-based simulation model of the Ethereum staking ecosystem, providing a framework for analyzing agent reactions to different market conditions and policy changes. B. Showcasing through simulation that altering the issuance policy alone may not be sufficient to meaningfully impact staking distribution or promote greater decentralization among smaller stakeholders. C. Demonstrating through an event-based analysis that staking behavior is significantly influenced by long-term protocol changes (e.g. the Shanghai upgrade) and fundamental market shifts (e.g. the BTC ETF approval) rather than short-term price shocks and volatility.
Ethresear.ch post by members of FranklinDAO: V. Zhu, O. Korinek, A. Duckworth.
Summary. 13 interviews were conducted in this study, uncovering interesting information, preferences and opinions of various actors within the staking economy:
Investors that stake ETH
Solo stakers
Centralized Exchanges
Centralized Staking Providers
Decentralized Staking Middleware pools
DVT service providers
Retail investors
Institutions