February 23 Is Ethereum in danger of becoming centralized? A closer look
in education
Below is Ethereum's transition to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism Merger In September 2022, he raised major concerns about a potential creeping centralization of the network. This shift has radically changed how transactions are validated and blocks are produced, moving away from a computationally intensive proof-of-work model to a system where validators stake ether as a form of security. This change has inadvertently led to a concentration of control within the network, primarily among a few large entities, sparking debate about the implications of Ethereum's decentralization ethos.
Has the merger negatively affected Ethereum's incentive alignment?
Proof-of-stake (PoS)-based blockchains have long received criticism from Proof-of-Work (PoW) advocates in the cryptocurrency world for what is seen as an unbalanced incentive structure. Proof of Stake (PoS) systems are seen as leaning towards centralization because they reward validators based on the amount of cryptocurrency they hold and are willing to “stake” as collateral. Thus, entities with larger holdings have a greater chance of being selected to validate transactions and create new blocks, thus earning more rewards. This feedback loop naturally provides an advantage to wealthier participants, leading to the accumulation of wealth and validation power in the hands of a few people.
Central to the discussion of Ethereum's post-merger centralization is the role of relays and the dominance of liquid staking services such as Lido, Kiln, Figment, and some major cryptocurrency exchanges such as Coinbase and Binance. Relay devices, which are essential for linking transactions between block creators and proposers, have become pivotal in maintaining network efficiency. However, relying on a small number of these entities for the majority of Ethereum transactions runs the risk of introducing systemic risks and potential points of failure. This concentration of power contradicts the basic principle of blockchain technology, which calls for a distributed and decentralized approach to validating transactions and securing the network.
Today, Lido, Coinbase, and Binance liquid staking pools collectively control a significant portion of Ethereum's ETH. This focus not only raises questions about the fair distribution of betting rewards, but also raises regulatory and security issues. The potential for these entities to influence network decisions or become targets of regulatory scrutiny could undermine Ethereum's resilience and independence. Furthermore, relying on a few central nodes to validate transactions and produce blocks challenges the network's ability to resist censorship and maintain its open and permissionless nature.
The economic incentives associated with the proof-of-stake mechanism exacerbate these centralization pressures. Validators with a large share of ETH have greater influence over the network, which can marginalize smaller participants and lead to an oligopolistic control structure. This scenario could hamper the network's ability to foster a diverse and competitive validation ecosystem, which is essential to ensuring Ethereum's long-term decentralization and security. The changes to the economic model following the merger, especially with regard to compensation and sustainability of the evacuees, illustrate the complexities of maintaining a balanced and decentralized network.
What's the worst that could happen?
Ethereum's creeping centralization, following its move to a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, poses significant risks to the network, if not adequately mitigated.
First, centralization can lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few validators or large entities, making the network more vulnerable to attacks, including possible collusion among validators to censor or reverse transactions. This concentration could also make Ethereum 51% more vulnerable to an attack, where a single entity gains control of the majority of the storage power and thus compromises the integrity of the network.
Second, a more centralized Ethereum may become an easier target for scrutiny and regulatory intervention. Regulatory bodies may put pressure on central entities that control much of the network, which could lead to coercive compliance measures that conflict with the decentralized and permissionless nature of blockchain technology. This may include, for example, monitoring certain transactions or freezing assets associated with certain addresses.
Decentralization is fundamental to the resilience and robustness of blockchain networks. Centralized Ethereum will be more vulnerable to failures or attacks on key infrastructure points, reducing overall network resilience. This could lead to downtime, loss of funds, or compromised data integrity, undermining user trust in the platform.
Ethereum's appeal lies in its decentralized nature, offering a platform that is not controlled by any single authority. If the community sees Ethereum as becoming too centralized, it may lose trust and support, which in turn could lead to decreased development activity, fewer decentralized applications (DApps) being built on the platform, and users migrating to alternative blockchains.
Centralization can also stifle innovation within the Ethereum ecosystem. A small number of entities with disproportionate control can prioritize their interests, which may limit opportunities for smaller players and reduce the diversity of applications and solutions developed on the platform. This may slow down the pace of innovation and growth within the ecosystem.
There is also a risk of economic centralization, if rewards are concentrated among a few large validators. This can discourage new participants from joining the network, as barriers to becoming a meaningful contributor become increasingly insurmountable.
What can the Ethereum community do to prevent centralization?
We don't think this will happen as there are several strategies the Ethereum community can follow to ensure the chain maintains its long-term success.
By lowering entry barriers for validators and fostering a broader pool of participants, Ethereum can distribute its verification process more evenly. This may include reducing the amount of ETH required to participate or supporting staking pools that enable smallholders to participate.
Modifying the Ethereum protocol to discourage centralization, such as penalizing very large hedging pools or adjusting rewards to favor smaller validators, can help maintain a more balanced network.
Supporting and developing decentralized staking solutions that provide an alternative to large centralized staking pools can help distribute validation power. Projects like Rocket Pool represent steps in this direction by enabling more individuals to become validators.
Educating the community about the dangers of centralization and how to co-sign responsibly can enable more users to contribute to network security. This also includes awareness of the importance of choosing various staking services.
Develop and use governance mechanisms that prevent any single entity from significantly influencing the network. This may include more democratic voting processes or algorithmic governance models that ensure a broad distribution of decision-making power.
Encouraging validators to use a variety of Ethereum client software and operate in different geographic locations can reduce the risk of network-wide failures or attacks targeting specific clients or regions.
Conduct regular audits of network decentralization metrics and be prepared to take corrective action if certain decentralization thresholds are approached. This could include community-led initiatives to redistribute power.
Engage in dialogue with regulators to ensure that compliance and regulatory frameworks do not inadvertently favor centralization by imposing requirements that only large operators can meet.
By taking these steps, the Ethereum community can work to create a more decentralized and robust network, preserving the spirit of blockchain technology while ensuring its long-term continuity and security.
With the price of Ethereum rising beyond the $3,000 mark this week, and with the potential approval of an ETH exchange-traded fund, it is becoming increasingly likely that Ethereum is under increased scrutiny, and now has the perfect opportunity to bolster its decentralized credentials.
