After looking at all those discussions about ETF fund flows and the risk appetite in the US stock market, I feel like everyone is tying crypto to traditional risk assets too tightly again—like if US stocks so much as twitch, BTC has to shiver right along. In fact, there’s also a quieter shift in the logic on-chain: for example, with LST and restaking—I've been mulling it over for days—where exactly does the yield come from, and where does the risk sit?

Put simply, the yield from restaking is like adding another loft to a house. You already have a roof (LST); now you build another layer on top and collect some “extra rent” (validator rewards or protocol incentives). But the question you have to ask yourself is whether the load-bearing walls of that loft are truly solid enough. If the underlying validator has a bug, or gets slashed, it won’t just be the loft that collapses—it could make the whole building sway. And to make matters worse, many restaking protocols are still using “carrot” incentives that are basically wishful thinking—like when you spread a bunch of fertilizer when planting: things grow quickly, but it may also attract pests. The “pests” are those arbitrage funds; once anything changes, they run faster than anyone else.

My own approach is: I only use a small portion of LST to test the waters, and I pick protocols with transparent underlying logic—ones tightly tied to the Ethereum consensus layer—rather than those complicated products that are “packaged and repackaged.” Anyway, a long-term mindset means I’m not in a rush to make quick money. I’d rather get the building solid first. You ask me how I choose specifically? I don’t know either—let’s leave it at that for now.