My current attitude towards the re-staking/sharing security model is roughly: it can be used, but don't take the yield stacking too seriously, especially don't imagine "an additional layer of protocol" as "an additional layer of moat"... Anyway, I’ll keep my expectations low.

To put it simply, security is not a free lunch. Lending out the same collateral as collateral makes the yields look thicker, but the risk boundaries also become blurred: who is penalizing, whether penalties can be transmitted, whether issues are technical or governance-related, in the end, it might all fall on the holders. I recently also saw large on-chain transfers and hot/cold wallet movements on exchanges being interpreted as smart money entering or leaving, but actually, many times it’s just operations/rebalancing, which has little to do with the returns from this layer of re-staking.

My own approach is very simple: only choose to explain clearly "what the worst-case scenario would be," and don’t fully load the position. I’d rather earn a little less and sleep more peacefully. That’s it for now.