SSV 2.0 could supercharge Ethereum’s validator set, turning it into a powerhouse for securing bApps like oracles, bridges, sequencing, etc, without putting staked ETH at risk.
I wonder, from a tokenomics perspective, could bApps be sustainable purely by asking Ethereum validators’ signatures without requiring slashable collateral?
On the long run, risk-free bApps will probably attract too many validators, pushing APR near zero and forcing validators to seek higher-yielding, riskier bApps that require extra collateral (slashable capital).
If so, since many bApps could deal with user funds, does that mean the future of bApps is one where slashing mechanisms become the norm to maintain security, align incentives and keep rewards competitive?
Hey Linko, Forwarding Adam’s reply (issues with his discourse account):
"In theory yes, bApps can set their security to be based on Ethereum Validators alone. There is a fair chance that some of the early stage teams will do just that, its a great way to bootstrap without risking capital. Apps might be able to launch faster and add slashable security as they progress.
Having zero slashable security over time is not very likely. slashsable and non slashable are important to fully secure a bApp.
An APR “race to the bottom” is a likely scenario. Going all the way to zero is probably not going to happen though. This is a scenario in which REM is very effective as users will be able to easily assume more risk and increase their yield using their existing capital base."