8 ms·

We will see how proof of stake will work, and in FAQ is a paper about it. POS have one big problem, that you only have to buy coins once and stake them and you

by GBiT 5y ago

We will see how proof of stake will work, and in FAQ is a paper about it. POS have one big problem, that you only have to buy coins once and stake them and you will get richer every day by doing nothing without any additional investment. Basically it will make rich richer and more centralized. We will see how it will works in future.

Cantinflas 5y ago
This is not true, you have to run a validator to get rewarded. Rewards will be much less than miners get now, and the whole "rich get richer" is literally how investment works in basically anything, even Bitcoin mining
- GBiT 5y ago
  Yes, running a validator will cost some money. I will explain how I think. If the rich want to get richer he have to make good investment decisions and some work. In POS you don't have to do anything at all, just buy and hold. So in POS, you don't need to innovate your business model. In POW, you always have to innovate to be a leader. Bitcoin ASIC innovation in last years shows how strong competition is. And competition makes innovation. In POS you just keep coins and stake them. Thats it
  - shawnz 5y ago
    This is often claimed to be an advantage of PoS: you can't get an extra increase in rate of profits by being richer (beyond the linear increase you'd expect). With PoW on the other hand, the richest have the best access to the most innovative technology and so you get superlinear profits the richer you are.
    - GBiT 5y ago
      Real world case: Intel had the most advanced chip and more money, until one day AMD got better. In POS this scenario is impossible. First will always be first.
    - atweiden 5y ago
      > This is often claimed to be an advantage of PoS: you can't get an extra increase in rate of profits by being richer (beyond the linear increase you'd expect). With PoW on the other hand, the richest have the best access to the most innovative technology and so you get superlinear profits the richer you are. And yet, anyone who buys these proof-of-stake coins now, years after they were launched, suffers from having a cost basis orders of magnitude higher than that of the early investors. Yeah, they’re all superficially earning “the same staking ROI”. But in relative terms, the earliest investors are mopping the floor with the later investors, because the earliest investors can stake orders of magnitude more coins. The earliest stakers become by far the biggest miners. They’re given an outsized influence over the network, and it’s sadly telling — and a bit unsurprising — that early PoS investors astroturf their coin by focusing on irrelevant minutia, e.g. “open access to staking ROI”, or whataboutism, e.g. “but what about ASIC miner distribution”. That is a classic Red Herring. “Rate of profits” doesn’t matter more to fairness than, say, premining half or more of the outstanding supply of a given coin to give early investors absurd ROI advantages. “Fair access to yield” doesn’t matter more to fairness than exclusive pre-ICOs rounds which only prestigious investors have access to.
      - 22c 5y ago
        > But in relative terms, the earliest investors are mopping the floor with the later investors, because the earliest investors can stake orders of magnitude more coins. PoS networks are typically not going to be minting coins in perpetuity. Most PoS networks aim to reach a "zero issuance" state where the network can sustain itself on TX fees alone. It's also typically in a networks interest to decentralise TX verification as much as possible (in contrast to banking, which tends lean towards the opposite). Ideally a PoS network will reach a steady-state where TX verification is profitable enough that people will be willing do it for TX fees alone, but efficient enough that you can be market competitive regardless of how you choose to run your validator nodes (ie. costs should not be prohibitively high as to prevent geographical distribution). There will always be rich and poor people - PoS networks don't aim to solve that - but the question will be is a rich person able to participate in the network more efficiently than a poor person.
        5y ago
  - 0134340 5y ago
    You're assuming that PoS is divorced from competition and innovation. Those who innovate tend to earn capital, be it fiat, or let's say Ethereum here. You're assuming those that have Ethereum didn't innovate in some way up the line to be able to buy their earned share. And if you want more shares for PoS, well, you innovate and earn to buy more shares. Your model only works if you assume a very closed and proprietary economic system.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      >And if you want more shares for PoS, well, you innovate and earn to buy more shares. If the devs have a 51% share of staked ETH and they never sell any ETH then even if you buy all ETH on the market you will never get beyond 49%. The only way that can happen is if the devs to decide to hand over control to you voluntarily. >Your model only works if you assume a very closed and proprietary economic system. What you are assuming is that the economy exists for the sake of Ethereum, people work and exist so that they can buy ETH shares for POS but reverse doesn't apply because owning ETH only entitles you to earning more ETH, nothing more. This is a trap that a lot of cryptocurrency enthusiasts fall into. The decentralized nature of blockchains doesn't extend into reality. You cannot have a house deed on the blockchain because it would require a central authority outside of the blockchain to recognize the deed. Therefore information can enter the Blockchain and be stored there, but it cannot have impact outside the blockchain because the world isn't being simulated inside a decentralized blockchain. In that regard the blockchain is similar to a sandbox, the only thing that exists is the sandbox itself and all the data you have decided to store inside it and since a lot of the data is meaningless, the focus is put on the sandbox being a goal in itself. Another common trap is to build a programming language where the only significant project written in that language is the compiler.
      - 0134340 5y ago
        >If the devs have a 51% share of staked ETH and they never sell any ETH then even if you buy all ETH on the market you will never get beyond 49%. The only way that can happen is if the devs to decide to hand over control to you voluntarily. In that case the currency loses value to other currency competition because currency, Eth in this case, doesn't exist in its own ecosphere. The big holders still have an incentive to sell some portion of it. PoS signifies the power of currency just as PoW does. The whole basis of PoW is to expend work and in return exchange and project power. Stake is projected power earned, sometimes not because not everyone is said to earn what they get, from other expended power. The whole world works on powers, be it financial, physical, etc and we're all exchanging one for another. As long as those powers have power to project themselves and protect themselves enough to propagate well, either through military or math (through the network), they are valid. The network is its own authority (much as the military or government is a network) and through various governments, hard powers, cryptocurrencies have also recently earned some legitimacy that way. To me this all seems silly. You can trade sticks and if someone imbues them with symbolic powers and everyone agrees, it can just as well become a currency. We can disagree from here to the moon on what currencies or methods therein should or shouldn't have legitimacy but if no one cares, you have little to no power to change it. If you can get a big network behind it, there's legitimacy of authority whether you agree or not. > Therefore information can enter the Blockchain and be stored there, but it cannot have impact outside the blockchain because the world isn't being simulated inside a decentralized blockchain. And to reiterate, economic predictions are very hard due to us not living in a closed economic system, other powers influence economics, they don't exist just within their own sphere. You seem to imply this but seem to forget that your same argument could also be applied to traditional fiat. Blockchains may be decentralized but they have their own authorities and realities to which they're bound to. What happens in the crypto world very much affects the non-crypto world as we've seen. >Another common trap is to build a programming language where the only significant project written in that language is the compiler. The common theme here seems to be that you're railing against domain discretion, which itself, is a valid strategy within certain domains but I've reiterated that it has its own negatives in that nothing is totally discrete in reality, you can't have your own perfect domain without influence of other domains. Eth in this case, or PoS specifically, doesn't and can't exist within its own reality, it's no more a feedback currency than traditional fiat which is exemplified in that the rich tend to get richer, a theme which exists in many other domains, power attracts power, there's no escaping that. Yet there is a universal fairness in that more power for individual benefit means more power that can turn against you, which is a whole other topic. I think you're trying to argue against something more universal and it's pointless because it's so embedded in the universal machine. PoW, PoS, whatever, both require vigilance to acquire and maintain power that are ultimately derived from some form of work in the real world, regardless of method. PoS is old money, it can perpetuate decadence in the real world by relying on what's done while PoW, new money, may exemplify newness and chaos by relying on change or what's to become, both can work as methods of power transactions in crypto just as in the real world. Silly argument, I spent way too much time talking about this so guess that means I'm silly, no doubt about that.
meowkit 5y ago
>Basically it will make rich richer and more centralized. So PoW doesn't have this problem? It costs money to run mining hardware and supply electricity. The more valuable a PoW coin is, the greater incentive there is to run more hardware. With Bitcoin specifically the block rate is limited via the difficult adjustment. With this in mind it sounds like whoever is mining will get richer faster and centralize the competition. PoS just abstracts all of this into the code itself. I don't buy the quoted argument.
- GBiT 5y ago
  You right, but I will write how I think. Incentive in not only to run more hardware, but to run more effective hardware. This incentivises innovation. In POS you don't need to do anything else. Just stake coins. No innovation, you can always be a monopoly if you have the cash to make a one-time investment. In POW you always have to invest to be competitive and have the most competing hardware.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    > This incentivises innovation. It's only innovation into how to extract more profit from that specific pow function. Why would we care about it? (Or why call that innovation?) > In POW you always have to invest to be competitive and have the most competing hardware. I struggle up find a positive impact of this. There's been a number of negative side effects though.
  - rcxdude 5y ago
    > This incentivises innovation What useful innovation has come out of mining? Mostly I see very innovative ways to cheat energy markets and create ewaste.
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  While you need to be rich to be able to mine Bitcoin, you also have to dump those mined coins on the exchanges to cover your running costs (electricity, hardware, server operators, etc).
chrisco255 5y ago
POS has a big problem when a coin starts as proof-of-stake. I agree with this. Because there's no fair way to do distribution. Many proof-of-stake coins happen to start out with the majority of supply owned by the core devs or VCs. It ends up becoming a cartel, which is not decentralized. I think Ethereum's approach is interesting, because after 6 years of Proof-of-Work and several up and down markets, the distribution is widespread at this point. For example, even the co-founder Vitalik, only has about 300K of 115M circulating supply. So now I feel like they can migrate to proof-of-stake and it will not lead to excessive centralization.
- wmf 5y ago
  I would argue that auctions (ICOs) are fairer than mining. Devs can give themselves coins directly or they can have a dev tax (e.g. Zcash) or they can fail; I don't think it makes sense to hold crypto devs to a higher standard than, say, startups.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    No, an ICO + POS is not fair at all. It might make sense for a crypto startup but not for a layer 1 blockchain currency. The base layer has to be plausibly neutral, or it defeats the purpose and you might as well open a Robinhood account. Censorship resistance, plausible neutrality, decentralization, antifragility, uptime, and security are features of layer 1 blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum. If a dev team starts off with 80% of supply they aren't going to ever achieve any of the above.
    - wmf 5y ago
      I wonder about an ICO that gets burned...
    - yourabstraction 5y ago
      > Censorship resistance, plausible neutrality, decentralization, antifragility, uptime, and security are features of layer 1 blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum. I completely agree, all the the above must come before throughput in an L1 blockchain. So many of the so called ETH killers sacrifice on some or all of the items you listed. Do you think anything else ticks all the boxes and can stand alongside BTC and ETH as a legitimate L1?
AlexCoventry 5y ago
That paper is quite old, and I believe its objections are addressed by new PoS systems. In particular "costless simulation" is addressed by using cryptographically verifiable randomness, e.g. the VRF-based lottery in Algorand, and the VDF in Eth 2.0.
thescriptkiddie 5y ago
> you will get richer every day by doing nothing I have some bad news for you about the dominant economic system.
- gruez 5y ago
  Investors take risk, perform price discovery which helps allocate capital. Stakers comparatively do very little.
rawtxapp 5y ago
It literally codefies "the rich gets richer" deep into the protocol. While I'm pro-eth, this makes it a lot less "fair" in my opinion. With PoW, miners can't really hold on to the coins for very long, so they have to dump it to cover electricity and hardware costs which always creates supply whereas with PoS, a staker can just hold on to the coins they get forever at no cost and their share of the pie keeps getting larger and larger forever. To be clear, I'm not complaining, if eth decides to pay me 5-10% per year based on my holdings for a simple cryptographic signature, I'm not gonna say no, but it definitely creates a weird dynamic where new entrants will have to buy at the price the stakers decide to sell, which could be sky high since we have no pressure to sell.
- Sargos 5y ago
  The difference is that anyone can stake. It's going to be the default way to store ETH akin to a savings account for most people so pretty much everyone is going to share in that PoS issuance. This also doesn't affect new buyers as they are buying ETH to use it most likely so it's not being held long term. If they decide to buy long term then they also get the PoS issuance so everyone wins.
  - useryman 5y ago
    > The difference is that anyone can stake. Unless you're entering a pool, you need 32 ETH to stake. I remember when that wasn't a lot.
    - Sargos 5y ago
      The base protocol uses 32 ETH for technical reasons but yes, as you said, pools like RocketPool, Lido, etc along with exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, and even everyday banks also allow staking any amount of ETH by anyone to take advantage of the stable staking returns. In a practical sense there's no barrier to staking ETH and it'll likely be the default way to hold ETH long term as a low risk savings vehicle.
- intotheabyss 5y ago
  It wont be 5-10% for long. At steady state, it'll be a tug of war between staking Ether in the beaconchain, or depositing Ether into defi protocols. While it might seem like your ETH are just passively earning, actually staking 32 ETH today can be quite involved, so it's not exactly passive at the protocol layer.
Geee 5y ago
No one is getting richer in PoS. The currency inflates at the same rate. It's similar to stock split. You get more shares in the same ratio as the value is reduced. In PoW, energy is used to mine more coins. Thus, total value of the currency grows. There's a difference between inflation from thin air, and inflation from added energy / work.

by GBiT 5y ago

Cantinflas 5y ago

This is not true, you have to run a validator to get rewarded. Rewards will be much less than miners get now, and the whole "rich get richer" is literally how investment works in basically anything, even Bitcoin mining

GBiT 5y ago
Yes, running a validator will cost some money. I will explain how I think. If the rich want to get richer he have to make good investment decisions and some work. In POS you don't have to do anything at all, just buy and hold. So in POS, you don't need to innovate your business model. In POW, you always have to innovate to be a leader. Bitcoin ASIC innovation in last years shows how strong competition is. And competition makes innovation. In POS you just keep coins and stake them. Thats it
- shawnz 5y ago
  This is often claimed to be an advantage of PoS: you can't get an extra increase in rate of profits by being richer (beyond the linear increase you'd expect). With PoW on the other hand, the richest have the best access to the most innovative technology and so you get superlinear profits the richer you are.
  - GBiT 5y ago
    Real world case: Intel had the most advanced chip and more money, until one day AMD got better. In POS this scenario is impossible. First will always be first.
  - atweiden 5y ago
    > This is often claimed to be an advantage of PoS: you can't get an extra increase in rate of profits by being richer (beyond the linear increase you'd expect). With PoW on the other hand, the richest have the best access to the most innovative technology and so you get superlinear profits the richer you are. And yet, anyone who buys these proof-of-stake coins now, years after they were launched, suffers from having a cost basis orders of magnitude higher than that of the early investors. Yeah, they’re all superficially earning “the same staking ROI”. But in relative terms, the earliest investors are mopping the floor with the later investors, because the earliest investors can stake orders of magnitude more coins. The earliest stakers become by far the biggest miners. They’re given an outsized influence over the network, and it’s sadly telling — and a bit unsurprising — that early PoS investors astroturf their coin by focusing on irrelevant minutia, e.g. “open access to staking ROI”, or whataboutism, e.g. “but what about ASIC miner distribution”. That is a classic Red Herring. “Rate of profits” doesn’t matter more to fairness than, say, premining half or more of the outstanding supply of a given coin to give early investors absurd ROI advantages. “Fair access to yield” doesn’t matter more to fairness than exclusive pre-ICOs rounds which only prestigious investors have access to.
    - 22c 5y ago
      > But in relative terms, the earliest investors are mopping the floor with the later investors, because the earliest investors can stake orders of magnitude more coins. PoS networks are typically not going to be minting coins in perpetuity. Most PoS networks aim to reach a "zero issuance" state where the network can sustain itself on TX fees alone. It's also typically in a networks interest to decentralise TX verification as much as possible (in contrast to banking, which tends lean towards the opposite). Ideally a PoS network will reach a steady-state where TX verification is profitable enough that people will be willing do it for TX fees alone, but efficient enough that you can be market competitive regardless of how you choose to run your validator nodes (ie. costs should not be prohibitively high as to prevent geographical distribution). There will always be rich and poor people - PoS networks don't aim to solve that - but the question will be is a rich person able to participate in the network more efficiently than a poor person.
      - 5y ago
- 0134340 5y ago
  You're assuming that PoS is divorced from competition and innovation. Those who innovate tend to earn capital, be it fiat, or let's say Ethereum here. You're assuming those that have Ethereum didn't innovate in some way up the line to be able to buy their earned share. And if you want more shares for PoS, well, you innovate and earn to buy more shares. Your model only works if you assume a very closed and proprietary economic system.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >And if you want more shares for PoS, well, you innovate and earn to buy more shares. If the devs have a 51% share of staked ETH and they never sell any ETH then even if you buy all ETH on the market you will never get beyond 49%. The only way that can happen is if the devs to decide to hand over control to you voluntarily. >Your model only works if you assume a very closed and proprietary economic system. What you are assuming is that the economy exists for the sake of Ethereum, people work and exist so that they can buy ETH shares for POS but reverse doesn't apply because owning ETH only entitles you to earning more ETH, nothing more. This is a trap that a lot of cryptocurrency enthusiasts fall into. The decentralized nature of blockchains doesn't extend into reality. You cannot have a house deed on the blockchain because it would require a central authority outside of the blockchain to recognize the deed. Therefore information can enter the Blockchain and be stored there, but it cannot have impact outside the blockchain because the world isn't being simulated inside a decentralized blockchain. In that regard the blockchain is similar to a sandbox, the only thing that exists is the sandbox itself and all the data you have decided to store inside it and since a lot of the data is meaningless, the focus is put on the sandbox being a goal in itself. Another common trap is to build a programming language where the only significant project written in that language is the compiler.
    - 0134340 5y ago
      >If the devs have a 51% share of staked ETH and they never sell any ETH then even if you buy all ETH on the market you will never get beyond 49%. The only way that can happen is if the devs to decide to hand over control to you voluntarily. In that case the currency loses value to other currency competition because currency, Eth in this case, doesn't exist in its own ecosphere. The big holders still have an incentive to sell some portion of it. PoS signifies the power of currency just as PoW does. The whole basis of PoW is to expend work and in return exchange and project power. Stake is projected power earned, sometimes not because not everyone is said to earn what they get, from other expended power. The whole world works on powers, be it financial, physical, etc and we're all exchanging one for another. As long as those powers have power to project themselves and protect themselves enough to propagate well, either through military or math (through the network), they are valid. The network is its own authority (much as the military or government is a network) and through various governments, hard powers, cryptocurrencies have also recently earned some legitimacy that way. To me this all seems silly. You can trade sticks and if someone imbues them with symbolic powers and everyone agrees, it can just as well become a currency. We can disagree from here to the moon on what currencies or methods therein should or shouldn't have legitimacy but if no one cares, you have little to no power to change it. If you can get a big network behind it, there's legitimacy of authority whether you agree or not. > Therefore information can enter the Blockchain and be stored there, but it cannot have impact outside the blockchain because the world isn't being simulated inside a decentralized blockchain. And to reiterate, economic predictions are very hard due to us not living in a closed economic system, other powers influence economics, they don't exist just within their own sphere. You seem to imply this but seem to forget that your same argument could also be applied to traditional fiat. Blockchains may be decentralized but they have their own authorities and realities to which they're bound to. What happens in the crypto world very much affects the non-crypto world as we've seen. >Another common trap is to build a programming language where the only significant project written in that language is the compiler. The common theme here seems to be that you're railing against domain discretion, which itself, is a valid strategy within certain domains but I've reiterated that it has its own negatives in that nothing is totally discrete in reality, you can't have your own perfect domain without influence of other domains. Eth in this case, or PoS specifically, doesn't and can't exist within its own reality, it's no more a feedback currency than traditional fiat which is exemplified in that the rich tend to get richer, a theme which exists in many other domains, power attracts power, there's no escaping that. Yet there is a universal fairness in that more power for individual benefit means more power that can turn against you, which is a whole other topic. I think you're trying to argue against something more universal and it's pointless because it's so embedded in the universal machine. PoW, PoS, whatever, both require vigilance to acquire and maintain power that are ultimately derived from some form of work in the real world, regardless of method. PoS is old money, it can perpetuate decadence in the real world by relying on what's done while PoW, new money, may exemplify newness and chaos by relying on change or what's to become, both can work as methods of power transactions in crypto just as in the real world. Silly argument, I spent way too much time talking about this so guess that means I'm silly, no doubt about that.

meowkit 5y ago

>Basically it will make rich richer and more centralized. So PoW doesn't have this problem? It costs money to run mining hardware and supply electricity. The more valuable a PoW coin is, the greater incentive there is to run more hardware. With Bitcoin specifically the block rate is limited via the difficult adjustment. With this in mind it sounds like whoever is mining will get richer faster and centralize the competition. PoS just abstracts all of this into the code itself. I don't buy the quoted argument.

GBiT 5y ago
You right, but I will write how I think. Incentive in not only to run more hardware, but to run more effective hardware. This incentivises innovation. In POS you don't need to do anything else. Just stake coins. No innovation, you can always be a monopoly if you have the cash to make a one-time investment. In POW you always have to invest to be competitive and have the most competing hardware.
- viraptor 5y ago
  > This incentivises innovation. It's only innovation into how to extract more profit from that specific pow function. Why would we care about it? (Or why call that innovation?) > In POW you always have to invest to be competitive and have the most competing hardware. I struggle up find a positive impact of this. There's been a number of negative side effects though.
- rcxdude 5y ago
  > This incentivises innovation What useful innovation has come out of mining? Mostly I see very innovative ways to cheat energy markets and create ewaste.
rawtxapp 5y ago
While you need to be rich to be able to mine Bitcoin, you also have to dump those mined coins on the exchanges to cover your running costs (electricity, hardware, server operators, etc).

chrisco255 5y ago

POS has a big problem when a coin starts as proof-of-stake. I agree with this. Because there's no fair way to do distribution. Many proof-of-stake coins happen to start out with the majority of supply owned by the core devs or VCs. It ends up becoming a cartel, which is not decentralized. I think Ethereum's approach is interesting, because after 6 years of Proof-of-Work and several up and down markets, the distribution is widespread at this point. For example, even the co-founder Vitalik, only has about 300K of 115M circulating supply. So now I feel like they can migrate to proof-of-stake and it will not lead to excessive centralization.

wmf 5y ago
I would argue that auctions (ICOs) are fairer than mining. Devs can give themselves coins directly or they can have a dev tax (e.g. Zcash) or they can fail; I don't think it makes sense to hold crypto devs to a higher standard than, say, startups.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  No, an ICO + POS is not fair at all. It might make sense for a crypto startup but not for a layer 1 blockchain currency. The base layer has to be plausibly neutral, or it defeats the purpose and you might as well open a Robinhood account. Censorship resistance, plausible neutrality, decentralization, antifragility, uptime, and security are features of layer 1 blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum. If a dev team starts off with 80% of supply they aren't going to ever achieve any of the above.
  - wmf 5y ago
    I wonder about an ICO that gets burned...
  - yourabstraction 5y ago
    > Censorship resistance, plausible neutrality, decentralization, antifragility, uptime, and security are features of layer 1 blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum. I completely agree, all the the above must come before throughput in an L1 blockchain. So many of the so called ETH killers sacrifice on some or all of the items you listed. Do you think anything else ticks all the boxes and can stand alongside BTC and ETH as a legitimate L1?

AlexCoventry 5y ago

That paper is quite old, and I believe its objections are addressed by new PoS systems. In particular "costless simulation" is addressed by using cryptographically verifiable randomness, e.g. the VRF-based lottery in Algorand, and the VDF in Eth 2.0.

thescriptkiddie 5y ago

> you will get richer every day by doing nothing I have some bad news for you about the dominant economic system.

gruez 5y ago
Investors take risk, perform price discovery which helps allocate capital. Stakers comparatively do very little.

rawtxapp 5y ago

It literally codefies "the rich gets richer" deep into the protocol. While I'm pro-eth, this makes it a lot less "fair" in my opinion. With PoW, miners can't really hold on to the coins for very long, so they have to dump it to cover electricity and hardware costs which always creates supply whereas with PoS, a staker can just hold on to the coins they get forever at no cost and their share of the pie keeps getting larger and larger forever. To be clear, I'm not complaining, if eth decides to pay me 5-10% per year based on my holdings for a simple cryptographic signature, I'm not gonna say no, but it definitely creates a weird dynamic where new entrants will have to buy at the price the stakers decide to sell, which could be sky high since we have no pressure to sell.

Sargos 5y ago
The difference is that anyone can stake. It's going to be the default way to store ETH akin to a savings account for most people so pretty much everyone is going to share in that PoS issuance. This also doesn't affect new buyers as they are buying ETH to use it most likely so it's not being held long term. If they decide to buy long term then they also get the PoS issuance so everyone wins.
- useryman 5y ago
  > The difference is that anyone can stake. Unless you're entering a pool, you need 32 ETH to stake. I remember when that wasn't a lot.
  - Sargos 5y ago
    The base protocol uses 32 ETH for technical reasons but yes, as you said, pools like RocketPool, Lido, etc along with exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, and even everyday banks also allow staking any amount of ETH by anyone to take advantage of the stable staking returns. In a practical sense there's no barrier to staking ETH and it'll likely be the default way to hold ETH long term as a low risk savings vehicle.
intotheabyss 5y ago
It wont be 5-10% for long. At steady state, it'll be a tug of war between staking Ether in the beaconchain, or depositing Ether into defi protocols. While it might seem like your ETH are just passively earning, actually staking 32 ETH today can be quite involved, so it's not exactly passive at the protocol layer.

Geee 5y ago

No one is getting richer in PoS. The currency inflates at the same rate. It's similar to stock split. You get more shares in the same ratio as the value is reduced. In PoW, energy is used to mine more coins. Thus, total value of the currency grows. There's a difference between inflation from thin air, and inflation from added energy / work.