Recently, I've come across a bunch of discussions about LST/re-staking again, and honestly, the returns aren't that mysterious: part of it is the safety margin provided by the underlying staking, and the other part is more like a premium gained from "bundling the same trust and selling it to more systems." Money doesn't fall from the sky; either someone pays a safety fee/incentive, or everyone is gambling on someone else taking over and continuing to pay in the future.

The risks are pretty straightforward: adding a layer of packaging means adding a new point of failure—contracts, oracles, liquidation, liquidity—all could cause issues; re-staking is more like amplifying tail risks. It looks stable on the surface, but when penalties or correlations explode together, it can be psychologically crushing. My biggest fear isn't losing money, but losing it and stubbornly insisting "it should be fine."

In the past couple of days, before and after that mainstream public chain upgrade, some people have been speculating whether projects will migrate or not. At such times, on-chain funds tend to move in and out, and small glitches like LST discounts or redemption delays tend to get amplified... Anyway, I plan to avoid high leverage for now, I’d rather be bored. For now, I’ll go over the penalty clauses and exit queue of a few re-staking protocols again.