Lately, I've been discussing re-staking and shared security again, and it feels like many people are directly imagining "compound yields" as "non-compounding risks," essentially treating insurance like a printing press. If you split the same security into multiple protocols, when something goes wrong, they won't queue up to pay out one by one; instead, they often blow up and run a run on the bank at the same time.

The most I focus on during health checks is still permissions and upgrades: who can change parameters, who can pause, and who holds the vault keys. Re-staking adds another layer of delegation and penalty conditions; the longer the terms, the more it looks like "signing just based on APY."

By the way, I want to complain that recently, large on-chain transfers and hot and cold wallets of exchanges are being called "smart money positioning" whenever they move... but it could just be moving assets, risk control, or bookkeeping. Don’t get emotionally leveraged just because an address moves. Anyway, I’d rather earn a little less now and first think through "what’s the worst that could happen."