Seeing a lot of misconceptions and confusion around $stETH (@LidoFinance liquid staked Ether)

Thought I’d write a short thread on my perspective
$stETH is a fully collateralized representation of $ETH staked on the Ethereum PoS beacon chain

1 $stETH = 1 staked $ETH

When withdraws are enabled on beacon chain, 1 $stETH can be redeemed for 1 ETH

Any comparisons to an undercollateralized stablecoin like $UST are misguided
I think any comparisons of $stETH to $GBTC are misguided as well

$stETH is an ERC20 token that has utility within a growing DeFi ecosystem

It also have a native yield attached which you cannot get by having liquid $ETH alone

There are many who will take the carry risk
$stETH doesn’t have a target peg, it continues to be collateralized regardless of what the secondary market values it at

Being able to exchange your $stETH on the secondary market for $ETH is simply for convenience, but you’ll get what the market values it at
Generally $stETH won’t trade at a value above 1 ETH as long as deposits is uncapped

This is because of arbitrage

If $stETH trades at 1.05 ETH

I can deposit 1 $ETH to Lido, get 1 $stETH, sell it on a secondary market for 1.05 $ETH, profit 0.05 $ETH and push price of $stETH down
Currently this arbitrage only works one direction

$stETH can’t be redeemed *yet* but once it can, reverse arbitrage is simple

If $stETH trades at 0.95 ETH, I can buy 1 $stETH for 0.95 $ETH, then redeem it for 1 $ETH, for a profit of 0.05 $ETH and pushing the price of $stETH up
Important to note that withdraws of $ETH from the beacon chain will not be enabled once the merge happens

It will be the first hard fork 6-12 months after the merge

Hence, $stETH may not be redeemable for a while

Also there is a withdraw queue on the beacon chain
There’s various reasons $stETH may temporarily trade above/below its collateral value

- Liquidity premium
- SC bug risk discount
- Beacon chain risk discount
- Forced sellers from leverage

etc etc
That last one is what most of the current fud around $stETH is coming from

$stETH is an ERC20 which can be used in the DeFi ecosystem as collateral

People have deposited $stETH as collateral on Aave, borrowed $ETH, deposited into Lido for $stETH, and repeat
Thus if people continue to sell $stETH on the secondary market, there may be a liquidation cascade from these leveraged positions being flushed out

Larger market makers/manipulators have already exited, but some still remain
Celsius may or may not be running into liquidity issues, but they hold a significant amount of $stETH which is being used as collateral to borrow stablecoins

If sold, this would definitely cause stETH’s secondary market value to decrease, at least temporarily
The flip side to all of this, is that regardless of how the secondary market values $stETH

$stETH is still backed 1:1 by staked $ETH

Depending on your time preference and risk tolerance, buying $stETH below its treasury value is boosted yield
If 1 $stETH is trading at a value of 0.70 $ETH (30% discount) and Ethereum staking yield remains 4% APR

Then in two years, your aggregate yield will have been 38% APR, rather than 8% as a normal staker

(Ethereum staking doesn’t auto-compound yield)
Is that worth two yield of illiquidity and Lido risk exposure?

Not for everyone, but definitely for some

So while a liquidation cascade won’t be pretty, and secondary market price for $stETH probably won’t be 1:1 $ETH for a while

It’s no death spiral situation
I think after the event passes, $stETH will probably trade at a discount to its collateral value

3-5% seems likely but it depends largely on market sentiment

Regardless, the beacon chain will keep working, so will DeFi, and so will Lido for that matter as well
This is a decent thread on the situation, but read it with the above context in mind
Like and retweet the first tweet in this thread if you found it insightful and so the twitter algo gods provide their blessing

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with ChainLinkGod.eth

ChainLinkGod.eth Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChainLinkGod

Jun 11
1/ Two major things stood out to me from Sergey's Consensus presentation

- Public good fast lanes
- Blockchain gas grants

These initiatives, along with other improvements, will eliminate the majority of costs for #Chainlink oracle networks

A 🧵 on improving tokenomics of $LINK Image
2/ Chainlink oracle networks connect smart contracts to external resources like data and computation

This requires Chainlink nodes to make on-chain transactions, incurring a gas cost

These on-chain gas costs are covered by $LINK rewards paid to nodes
market.link Image
3/ Thus, Chainlink nodes today need to convert some of their $LINK rewards to a chain's native coin to pay for transactions

But what if these on-chain gas costs were negligible or entirely eliminated?

Nodes would be able to keep all their $LINK rewards and compound via staking
Read 18 tweets
Jun 7
1/ A new blog post by @chainlink was just published on $LINK staking

Lot’s of new information was presented, including a roadmap and initial implementation details

In this thread, I’ll break down what you need to know 👇
blog.chain.link/chainlink-stak…
2/ First it’s worth setting some context, as staking is a broad term in crypto

Chainlink Staking introduces a new layer of cryptoeconomic security by applying rewards and penalties to incentivize the network’s proper operation
3/ With #Chainlink Staking, there are four long-term goals

These serve as guiding principles in its development and as the pillars on which the success of staking will be defined
Read 25 tweets
Jun 6
If smart contracts become the dominant form of digital agreements

Which they will because they’re superior to paper promises in every way

Then society will become more trust-minimized. transparent, and economically free

Fuck the ponzi meta-games, this is why I’m in crypto
It helps to zoom out every once in a while

People’s trust in traditional institutions are at an all-time-low, and there’s good reason for that

As the global economy continues to show its systemic cracks, demand for a viable alternative will become louder and louder
Nobody will care about your hot-potato ponzi speculation games

That just keeps the degens distracted and helps stress test the infrastructure

Ethereum, Chainlink, Rollups, etc were created to facilitate trust-minimized interactions between mutually non-trusting entities
Read 7 tweets
Jun 1
In its current state, I don’t see how $OP will capture value either

Optimism’s sequencer revenue will go to funding public goods, rather than flowing to tokenholders

Token holders will get to choose where inflationary rewards are directed and say yes to upgrades
The docs argue that value accrues to tokenholders because they benefit from public goods being funded

However, everyone benefits from public goods, regardless if you’re a tokenholder or not

So why hold the token unless you’re extremely passionate about governance?
There is a positive virtuous cycle:

Demand for blockspace -> more sequencer revenue -> funding for public goods -> Optimism as a network improves -> more demand for blockspace

But it’s unclear how the success of Optimism translates to the success of $OP in this current version
Read 4 tweets
May 30
.@mirror_protocol has just been exploited again due to Terra Classic validators reporting the price of the new Terra 2.0 $LUNA coin (~$9.80) instead of the original Terra Classic $LUNC coin (~$0.0001)

This is a massive operations failure
terra.stake.id/#/
Just two days out I pointed out how the $LUNA -> $LUNC rebranding is example of why oracle networks are dynamic and require an administrator role

It's to handle exactly situations like these
It seems the root cause was that Terra Classic validators were running an outdated version of the oracle software
Read 4 tweets
May 27
“Complaining about a problem without proposing a solution is called whining” - Teddy Roosevelt

Effective constructive criticism involves offering a solution in order to achieve positive outcome

Without such signal, all you are providing is noise
Best case scenario, it’s a good solution and it’s implemented to improve a system or process

Worse case scenario, the solution is unsuitable but it creates a conversation

This conversation sets context for the conditions and limitations that resulted in the initial approach
Future proposed solutions can be refined to address the perceived issue

Or ultimately people understand that the current approach is the most optimal for current conditions

This is how systems/processes improve over time, complaining alone is not an effective means of change
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(