Lately I've been going through those documents about re-staking and shared security again. The more I read, the more it feels like unboxing a blind box: the outer layer promises "more returns," while the inner layer carries "more risk." The idea of stacking returns itself isn't strange; what's strange is that people automatically treat each layer as "safe," then take the expected returns as guaranteed wages... In other words, the illusion of stacking is much faster than stacking actual returns.

Shared security sounds very appealing: one set of security is sold to many protocols, everyone shares the burden. But when it comes down to the details—slash conditions, correlations, who triggers first, whether a breach spreads or not—it all feels like hidden lines. Recently, someone criticized it as "nested dolls," which I can understand. Nested dolls aren't scary; what is scary is that the inner doll is actually just paper-thin and is being used as a load-bearing wall.

Right now, I feel pretty cautious: I only understand and can clearly explain the penalty mechanisms and exit paths of those few layers. The rest I’ll just listen to as stories. Forget it, let's not talk about how tempting the returns are; first, I need to think about whether I can sleep tonight.