Lefteris warns Ethereum funding plan could create staking cartel
Rotki founder and Ethereum developer Lefteris Karapetsas has opposed a new proposal that would fund Ethereum ecosystem work through validator rewards.
- Lefteris said the validator funding proposal could let top stakers form a reward-routing cartel network.
- The proposal would redirect up to 10% of validator rewards toward shared Ethereum public goods.
- He also argued Ethereum core development needs consolidation and closer contact with protocol users.
The proposal, called Validator Redirected Revenue, would let validators route part of their staking income toward public goods, infrastructure and core development.
Karapetsas said he had read both the proposal and the response to it before forming his view. He criticized people who argued against versions of the plan that were not in the original post, but said he still opposed the actual mechanism.
Staking cartel risk drives opposition
The proposal would allow validators to redirect between 0% and 10% of staking rewards. If more than half of validators support a non-zero rate, the contribution would apply across the validator set. Validators would also choose preferred recipient addresses, with a splitter contract routing funds to selected projects.
Karapetsas said the design could create “a cartel of the top stakers” able to divert up to 10% of the network’s validator rewards. He argued that the remaining validators could be left funding choices made by the largest staking entities, even if they disagreed with those choices.
Ethereum core development criticism widens debate
Karapetsas also tied his opposition to broader concerns about Ethereum core development. He said he was disappointed with how core development had progressed over the past decade and argued that it had lost contact with protocol users, especially developers who deal with Ethereum’s technical choices.
He said Ethereum has built too much technical complexity and cited RLP, SSZ and RLPx as examples. In his view, a funding squeeze could force consolidation in research and core development. He called that outcome overdue and said he did not want to keep rewarding the same development culture.
Who decides funding remains unresolved
The proposal’s supporters frame the mechanism as a response to Ethereum’s free-rider problem. Many projects benefit from shared tools, security work and public infrastructure, while only a few groups pay for that work directly. The proposal argues that validators benefit from Ethereum’s long-term value and may therefore be natural funders.
The proposal estimated that a 5% to 10% redirect could raise 50,000 to 70,000 ETH each year for ecosystem funding. It also noted concerns over staking operators setting preferences while ETH holders bear the yield reduction.
Karapetsas said that if Ethereum needed a funding mechanism, he would prefer using burned ETH fees rather than a share of validator proceeds. He said that option has its own problems tied to gas use, but viewed it as preferable to the cartel risk.
He also questioned a suggestion for a pre-approved funding list, asking who would decide what appears on that list. The debate remains early because Validator Redirected Revenue is still a research forum proposal, not a live Ethereum rule change.
The next step will depend on whether researchers can answer the governance and incentive questions without weakening confidence among stakers. For now, his argument adds a clear warning: funding reform should not give large stakers too much control over rewards that belong to the wider validator set.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
The AI boom may follow the path of the 19th-century railway bubble, and builders may not be the ultimate winners
Goldman Sachs analyst Bobby Molavi compared the current situation to the 19th-century British railway mania: 500 companies spent more than the nation's annual income building 8,000 miles of railway, with most early investors losing out, while the real beneficiaries were the later "passengers." He pointed out that the current AI craze is driven by both debt and momentum, and that the S&P 500’s forward P/E ratio of 18x is only "a bit cheaper." Whether the builders can retain value is uncertain, and history does not offer an optimistic answer.

If Anthropic's IPO goes smoothly and the stock price rises next week, then everything remains the same for AI. Otherwise, some companies will go bankrupt.
The shrinking valuations of two major giants have triggered a chain reaction—investors are adopting more conservative revenue multiples for AI startups and are directly halting high-valuation financing for companies with zero revenue. Multiple venture capital firms have advised their portfolio companies to lower valuation expectations and to quickly build up cash reserves. Market participants warn that the outcome of Anthropic’s IPO will be a barometer for the industry: if successful, the boom will continue; if it fails, some companies may face elimination.
After the Brazilian election, political discount deepens; Morgan Stanley remains bullish on Petrobras (PBR.US), focusing on fuel pricing and dividends
Morgan Stanley still maintains its most optimistic "Overweight" rating, but has lowered its year-end 2027 target price from $31 to $25.

Corning (GLW.US) receives initial "Buy" rating from Jefferies! AI factories driving a fiber optic rush, with a potential global supply gap of up to 30%
For Corning, the recent profit growth mainly comes from the expansion of AI clusters. As the number of optical links crossing cabinets and campuses increases, customers need to deploy more optical fibers within limited conduit and cabinet space, thus driving demand for high-density optical cables and connection systems.

