Recently, a friend asked again where the "additional returns" from LST/re-staking actually come from. Basically, it's about packaging the same security to sell to more people: you stake to earn basic rewards, LST makes it tradable, then re-stake and lend the validation/commitment to other services, and they pay you a "rent." It sounds pretty attractive, but the complexity of the lock also increases.

I'm more concerned about two risks: one is the extension of the permission chain—if the contract/operating party has upgrade rights or emergency pause rights, it’s like having extra keys; two is the correlation risk—when something goes wrong, it’s not a single point of failure but a chain that could collapse together. The psychological pressure from LST devaluation plus exit congestion is greater than it seems. Recently, there’s been debate in the group about privacy coins/mixing compliance boundaries. I actually agree: it’s not that the technology isn’t cool, but the line of "who can move your assets and who bears the blame if something goes wrong" becomes more blurred, making it easier to cause a crash. Anyway, I look at projects first by checking permissions and whether I can exit quickly, profits come second.