arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2503.14385

Towards a Formal Framework of the Ethereum Staking Market

Abstract

This paper examines how various categories of Ethereum stakers respond to changes in the consensus issuance schedule, and the potential impact of such changes on the composition of the staking market. To this end, we have develop and calibrate a game-theoretic model of the Ethereum staking market, incorporating strategic interactions between various staking agents. Our findings suggest that solo stakers may be more sensitive to variations in staking rewards than ETH holders using centralized exchanges or liquid staking providers. This increased sensitivity is driven not only by the cost structure of solo staking, but also by the competitive dynamics between different staking solutions in the market. When faced with a downward-sloping issuance schedule, staking agents compete for limited staking yields, and their choice of staking supply affects the revenues of other stakers. Therefore, the presence of other staking methods with access to MEV revenues and other DeFi yield sources when staking, as well as inattentive stakers, puts competitive pressure on solo stakers. Consequently, our model predicts that a reduction in issuance is likely to crowd out solo stakers. We present preliminary empirical evidence to support this result, using an instrumental variable estimation approach to estimate the yield elasticity of staking supply for different staking categories.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Juan Beccuti, Thunj Chantramonklasri, Matthias Hafner, Nicolas Oderbolz. 2025-07-20. Towards a Formal Framework of the Ethereum Staking Market. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14385

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN