Recently, I've seen a bunch of "re-staking + shared security" approaches again, basically taking the same trust and using it multiple times for collateral. The returns seem to stack up, but the risks are also accumulating underneath... It's just that people don't like to do the math. New L1/L2 incentives boost TVL, and old users complain about "mining, selling," which I actually understand: Are you here for security or for subsidies? If the subsidies stop, how much security remains? The symmetry is immediately broken. That said, re-staking isn't inherently wrong; what I care more about is the boundaries: How are payouts transmitted, who makes the decisions, and who ultimately bears the risk if something goes wrong? If these closed loops aren't clear, the stacked returns might just be an illusion. Anyway, I prefer to take it slow.