First, we’re excited to see this proposal being published, we’re fully aligned with its direction. Moving cluster fee accounting from SSV → ETH & introducing SSV staking are important steps toward long-term protocol sustainability and smoother adoption!
That said, we see a few areas where extra clarity and some small design tweaks could significantly reduce friction during the transition:
Legacy SSV clusters: no top-ups after go-live might generate liquidation friction
Since SSV-based clusters become “legacy” and can’t be extended via additional SSV deposits once this goes live, any cluster with low runway (or users who miss the top-up window) could face a hard liquidation path. Avoiding liquidations by introducing a temporary “transition grace” ithout liquidations for SSV-based clusters could be a good approach. This gives users time to migrate even if runway ends earlier than expected.
Operator readiness / rollout sequencing
The proposal do not specify if operators will be requested to upgrade to a new version. If so operators do have to migrate, we propose creating a window for operators to upgrade before clusters can migrate.
Permissionless Oracle incentives: please clarify the incentive design
For the initial permissioned oracle phase, compensation is defined. For the permissionless oracle phase, the proposal mentions a protocol-level compensation mechanism but doesn’t specify the incentive model.
This matters because it directly impacts whether permissionless oracles actually lead to decentralization, or whether participation concentrates in a small set of actors.
Thanks for the hard work behind this proposal!