The four most famous international exchanges:

Binance INTL	OKX INTL	Gate.io INTL	Huobi INTL
China Line　APP DL	China Line　APP DL	China Line　APP DL	China Line　APP DL

Note: The above exchange logo is the official website registration link, and the text is the APP download link.

Coin Circle (120bTC.COM) News: The centralization risk of Ethereum PoS staking has always been Vitalik
An important issue Buterin is concerned about. When he came to Taiwan to participate in ETHTaipei last week, he proposed "Rainbow".
Staking" concept hopes to increase the participation of individual pledgers, thereby improving the centralization concerns of the Ethereum network.

Earlier today, Vitalik posted on Farcaster to discuss this issue again: Are validators in the same cluster (such as the same exchange, the same user) more likely to miss the proof at the same time than unrelated validators? If so, can we adjust rewards to support decentralized staking? Probably yes.

 Vitalik proposed to encourage Ethereum decentralization through "punishment-related behavior"

At the same time, Vitalik published a new article "Supporting decentralized staking through more anti-correlated incentives" on the Ethereum Research Forum, proposing a strategy that hopes to encourage better decentralization by "punishing related behaviors."

It is proposed that if a validator misbehaves (including unexpectedly), their penalty will increase with the number of other validators who misbehave at the same time as them (measured by the total amount of ETH held).

In addition, Vitalik clearly defines two situations for common failure situations, such as "missed proof", which almost all validators make occasionally: (i) network failure during normal operation, and (ii) offline or long-term failure.

   (i)Fumbles: When the validator misses the proof in the current epoch but proved correctly in the previous epoch

   (ii)Misses: When the verifier misses the proof in the current epoch and also missed the proof in the previous epoch

 A validator in a cluster has a higher chance of missing a proof than a single validator

The figure below Vitalik calculates the expected and actual results of common failures, including the data of "fumbles" and "misses", and "SSfumbles" and "SSmisses" specifically for the single time period (slot) data set.

The results show that two validators in the same cluster are significantly more likely to miss attestations at the same time than two validators in different clusters. This answers the question Vitalik asked on Farcaster above, so perhaps we can adjust rewards to support decentralized staking.

 Penalty is proportional to the number of validators that missed the proof

Next, Vitalik proposed the concept of a penalty rule to be applied to decentralized staking scenarios.

“The “excess” penalty scheme is based on a simple assumption: in each slot, if the number of validators who miss proof exceeds the average over the past period, the penalties for all validators in that slot should increase. "

Vitalik showed the impact of four different penalty schemes on large, medium, small and all validators. The results show that the "excess" penalty scheme can reduce the advantage of large groups over small groups, thereby promoting a fairer and decentralized staking system. .

The proposal is currently under ongoing discussion, but judging from Vitalik's repeated possible solutions, Ethereum is indeed gradually facing the problems that may be caused by over-centralization of ETH staking.