Staring at the chain all night, I've always found "re-staking + shared security" to be quite contradictory: the on-paper returns stack up nicely, but the risks also accumulate, just not always visible to you. To put it simply, you're taking multiple promises on the same collateral; if a service fails or a contract upgrade crashes, the chain reaction could be faster than you think.

Recently, with the funding rates hitting extremes, the group has started arguing again about whether to reverse or continue squeezing the bubble. I think it's similar to this: everyone focuses on the profit/direction line, easily overlooking who actually controls the permissions, upgrade windows, and slash rules behind it. First, understand the timeline and verifiable facts clearly; don't mistake "stacking" for "guaranteed profit" — that's an illusion of stacking.