Recently, I've been focusing on re-staking and shared security again, and everyone is arguing quite fiercely. To put it simply, it's about whether the same sense of security can be sold twice. When I look at the compounded returns, I usually break it down first: how much subsidy was issued, how much real fees can support, and who ultimately bears the lock-up period and penalty rules. Many seemingly attractive APYs actually mainly rely on subsidies; once subsidies decline, what's left is just stacking more risks—and it’s not always clearly stated.

Shared security sounds quite reasonable, but what I care more about is: who pays first if something goes wrong, how much they pay, and whether the chain can quickly stop the bleeding. Anyway, I’d rather earn a little less now than take the “nested” structure for granted… As for whether it’s truly innovative or just an illusion, what do you all think?