This is the 3rd time I’ve seen everyone talk about re-staking and shared security, and the more I look at it, the more I feel the real point of controversy isn’t “whether you can make money,” but rather that when returns stack on top of each other, risks do too—just not as directly. To put it plainly, you take the same piece of trust and use it as collateral multiple times: on the surface you gain a few more layers of interest, but underneath you also add a few layers of correlation around the “possibility that things could go wrong together.”

I feel the same way when I look at bridges: things are calm most of the time, but when something actually goes wrong, it’s usually a chain reaction—no one gets away. Now someone says that compounded returns are like “matryoshka dolls,” and I think the criticism isn’t entirely off… Anyway, I’d rather take less. I’ll think through the exit paths, the penalty conditions, and which intermediaries I’m relying on first—otherwise what you’ve earned is numbers, and what you’ve been carrying is emotions. That’s it for now.