<\/p>\n
Ethereum Foundation researchers Dankrad Feist and Justin Drake are catching flak for their multimillion-dollar deals with the restaking protocol. Some defend them, however. <\/p>\n
A pair of Ethereum\u2019s top researchers are at the center of a widespread controversy surrounding their recent involvement as advisors to restaking protocol EigenLayer \u2013 in no small part due to their lucrative compensation.<\/p>\n
Justin Drake<\/a> was the first to disclose his new role \u2013 although Dankard Feist pointed out that his deal with Eigenlayer has the same conditions \u2013 outlining the details in a lengthy May 19 X post<\/a>.<\/p>\n He began his 11-point post by saying the \u201ccommunity deserves transparency\u201d and then dove straight into the meatier aspects of his deal.<\/p>\n According to Drake, the advisorship comes with a significant financial incentive in the form of EIGEN tokens that have the potential to exceed any of his other holdings, including ETH, and lands well into the millions of dollars.<\/p>\n That first point alone immediately set the house on fire.<\/p>\n EigenLayer<\/a> is the industry\u2019s largest restaking protocol, commanding more than 95% of the sector\u2019s total value locked (TVL). According to DefiLlama<\/a>, the protocol has experienced a 25% increase in TVL, now holding more than $18 billion. It is followed from afar by Karak, which showcases a similar weekly trend but only holds $739 million in TVL.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Many members of the Ethereum community are complaining about a concept dubbed credible neutrality, which has been a longstanding point of contention<\/a>.<\/p>\n Essentially, people are asking that if Drake and Feist take these million-dollar advisorships, how are they going to remain neutral regarding the direction of the Ethereum network? Might they subtly favor EigenLayer above competing protocols?<\/p>\n Now, it\u2019s important to note that both Drake and Feist have signaled that they will be advising in a personal capacity, independent of the work they do at the Ethereum Foundation. But will that be enough? For some, the conflict of interest \u2013 thereby tearing down credible neutrality \u2013 is simply too big to ignore.<\/p>\n \u201cI am appalled that we have EF researchers, the people who guide the protocol development, take 6-7 figure compensation packages from protocols,\u201d wrote<\/a> Lefteris Karapetsas, founder of Rotkiapp, a privacy-focused portfolio tracker.<\/p>\n He added, \u201cthis is a clear-as-day conflict of interest of key decision makers of Ethereum protocol development and should absolutely not be tolerated.\u201d<\/p>\n Karapetsas isn\u2019t alone in his view. \u201cWhat is a core EF contributor doing when he accepts roles on projects that have conflicted incentives with Ethereum? Where\u2019s the credible neutrality?\u201d quipped<\/a> the pseudonymous eMon.<\/p>\n Questions also surfaced from the pseudonymous safetyth1rd, who asked<\/a>, \u201cYou\u2019re seriously stating that taking huge compensation from an organization with different incentives than Ethereum will not influence your decision-making? You realize we\u2019re not five-year-olds, right?\u201d<\/p>\n However, the community remains divided over the issue.<\/p>\n For Hudson Jameson, VP of Polygon Labs, disclosing advisor roles when working on Ethereum should be a requirement. That said, he isn\u2019t against the deals struck by Drake and Feist.<\/p>\n Jameson voiced concerns<\/a> about Karapetsas\u2019 view.<\/p>\n \u201cI am concerned that this type of pure idealism could result in good, honest core developers and researchers leaving Ethereum protocol development because they aren’t allowed to partake in the same advising situations that others, including many devs on L2 and MEV projects, commonly do,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n And along with Jameson, there were dozens of other Ethereum community members that congratulated both Drake and Feist for their transparency.<\/p>\n \u201cBest disclosure I\u2019ve ever seen. Should be a model for the industry going forward,\u201d posted<\/a> Hart Lambur, co-founder of Across Protocol, an interoperability protocol on the UMA protocol, along with another user who shouted out<\/a> \u201cfull respect for Justin\u2019s transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n Within Drake\u2019s disclosure post were a couple of comments regarding potential backlash from the community.<\/p>\n Specifically, point 8 read, \u201cSome people may ask if EigenLayer is trying to systematically “bribe” or “corrupt” the EF, wrote Drake, adding that \u201cEFers are some of the highest integrity people I know, and I don’t see the 1% of EFers formally involved with EigenLayer compromising their morals.\u201d<\/p>\n And Drake underscored the potential risks that come with his advisory role.<\/p>\n \u201cI do acknowledge that accepting the EigenFoundation advisorship inevitably comes with downside risk beyond my personal reputation. I hope the above shows that it is at least a considered move with calculated risks.\u201d<\/p>\n In another move to assuage the ire in some areas of the Ethereum community, Feist explained that he and Drake live on separate sides of the aisle when it comes to restaking.<\/p>\n And his aisle is one that acknowledges the significant risks involved in this type of protocol.<\/p>\nCredible Neutrality<\/h2>\n
Not Everyone Is Against The Advisorship<\/h2>\n
Drake Preemptively Addresses Concerns<\/h2>\n
Feist Will \u201cBe Expected\u201d To Be Contrarian Regarding Eigenlayer<\/h2>\n