Bankers staking ETH 2.0?

[Abiky]

Getting your point, everything will fall back to centralization once banks managed to take the majorities, serving as the middleman for their investors to ETH chain,

Not good in the long run, why not allow people to do their own research and managed their own participation with this golden opportunities that crypto is offering for all of us.

Of course. But most people are "blind", and don't care about decentralization as long as they're able to fill their pockets with money. In a society where convenience matters most, people are willing to invest into a cryptocurrency that's profitable and easy to use even if it's utterly centralized. ETH's transition from PoW to full PoS, shows us that the network will become less decentralized over time.

Big players like banks, exchanges and companies will gain all of the advantage on PoS blockchain networks like Ethereum and Cardano. They'll be using customers' funds for their own interests. The same way Binance and Huobi approved the STEEM hard fork which confiscated witnesses' funds, the same could happen with Ethereum in the future. Imagine how disastrous this would become if only a few players controlled the ETH blockchain. If the situation worsens, we may end up with Bitcoin as the only truly-decentralized cryptocurrency on the market. I hope the ETH dev team does the right thing by adopting a mechanism that would prevent staking centralization for the good of the Ethereum project itself. Just my thoughts

[Ozero]

Recently, a financial institution called "Sygnum Bank" announced the launch of ETH 2.0 staking. It's the first time a bank offers crypto services to its customers (as far as I'm aware). While some may say this is good for mainstream adoption, I think this does more harm than good to Ethereum over the long term. If more banks join the game, they'll be able to control the Ethereum blockchain using customer's stake. Remember what happened with the STEEM/HIVE fork some time ago? Big exchanges like Binance and Huobi used customer's funds in order to manipulate the blockchain to their own desire. Imagine if centralized exchanges and banks dominate the whole ETH blockchain with their stake. It'll be a complete disaster for the decentralization and censorship-resistance of the world's second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap.

What are your thoughts? Do you think banks adoption of ETH will harm the decentralization of the blockchain in the long run? If not, why? Is going full PoS a bad idea for Ethereum? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I just don't see the need to use such a service from any bank. Why involve banks if there is already an established procedure for using Ethereum staking? Yes, indeed, with the services of banks when using cryptocurrency, you need to be more careful. They will not offer their services without calculating their benefits in advance, which may not only be material.

[paxmao]

There is certainly a case for banks or institutions or SICAVs staking ether and other PoS based chains. The fact remains that interest rates are near zero or sometimes below zero and they institutions and clients are desperate to find yield producing assets so ETH and other may cover that space of investment needs. These has obvious problems: firstly, the yield is based on paying for the security of the network which means that if the demand lowers so does the yield. Also, if real world interest rates of fixed rent assets improve their yields, Eth would become uncompetitive.