This is the third time I’ve seen everyone treating LST/re-staking as “passive income,” and I still can’t help rolling my eyes… The returns basically boil down to two parts: one is that real people are actually paying you (by using the security/liquidity you provide on-chain), and the other is that projects subsidize it to attract TVL. The former is slow but relatively solid; the latter is like handing out milk-tea coupons at a meeting—you drink them, and the whole thing might just be over.

The risks are pretty simple, too: staking already comes with penalties and the possibility of node failures, and re-staking is like taking the same “credit” and using it to back multiple times—stacking buffs, but also stacking risks. And then you add in smart contracts, oracles, and governance parameter changes—one day someone votes on a whim, and the whole yield model can instantly turn into a lottery.

Recently, some people have been using ETF fund flows and risk appetite in US stocks to explain crypto price swings, and it looks to me like “the macro will take the blame for me”… Once sentiment flips, subsidy-based yields drop first, and that on-chain leverage-style confidence can wobble right along with it. Anyway, I only dare to treat it now as a high-volatility cash-flow experiment—not a fixed deposit.