The foundation of any blockchain network lies in its node layer — the backbone that ensures decentralization, security, and consensus. While the ideal scenario is for every user to run their own node, enhancing network resilience and reducing centralization risks, the reality is far more complex. Technical complexity, hardware demands, and operational overhead often deter individual participation. This gap has given rise to centralized node providers and decentralized alternatives alike, shaping a critical evolution in how blockchain infrastructure is accessed and maintained.
The Rise of Node Service Providers
Centralized node service providers like Infura and Alchemy emerged as essential tools for developers and dApps, offering reliable access to blockchain data without the need to manage physical infrastructure. These platforms operate on a simple but powerful premise: specialization drives efficiency. By consolidating resources and optimizing performance, they lower entry barriers for builders.
However, this convenience comes at a cost — centralization risk. A significant portion of Ethereum traffic flows through just a few providers, many of which host their nodes on centralized cloud services like AWS. This creates a paradox: a decentralized network resting on centralized infrastructure.
Historical incidents underscore this vulnerability. MetaMask outages have often traced back to Infura downtime, and Infura’s compliance with regulatory actions — such as blocking access to Tornado Cash — revealed how single points of control can compromise censorship resistance.
This mirrors broader Web2 platform dynamics: tools built for efficiency can become systemic risks once they dominate the ecosystem.
👉 Discover how decentralized infrastructure can reshape blockchain reliability
Can We Decentralize the Node Layer?
Efforts to decentralize node provisioning are gaining traction. Projects like Pocket Network aim to create peer-to-peer markets for RPC services, where independent node runners serve requests in exchange for token rewards. Unlike Infura, Pocket doesn’t operate nodes directly — it coordinates supply and demand through economic incentives.
Yet, adding layers of protocol abstraction introduces new trade-offs. Each additional layer increases complexity and potential attack surfaces. More importantly, protocols like Pocket face a security paradox: high-security chains may not need them, while low-security chains could undermine their credibility.
An alternative approach focuses on simplifying node operation itself. If running a node were as easy as installing an app, adoption would naturally increase. Light clients represent a promising path forward — lightweight nodes that verify consensus without storing full chain data. When paired with a smaller number of fully validating, anti-censorship nodes, light clients can maintain network integrity while drastically reducing resource requirements.
Still, incentive models for light clients remain underdeveloped. Without proper rewards or penalties, node stability becomes unpredictable — a challenge yet to be fully solved.
The Evolution of Staking Services
Node hosting solves technical barriers, but Ethereum’s 32 ETH staking requirement remains a major hurdle for most users. This threshold excludes retail participants from earning staking rewards and contributing to network security — contradicting the ethos of open, permissionless systems.
Enter liquid staking derivatives (LSDs) and staking-as-a-service platforms like Lido and Rocket Pool. These services pool user deposits to meet the 32 ETH minimum, allowing individuals to stake smaller amounts and receive tradable tokens (e.g., stETH) representing their stake and yield.
Two dominant models have emerged:
- Lido uses a permissioned model where its DAO selects trusted node operators.
- Rocket Pool employs a permissionless system where node operators must stake ETH and RPL tokens, aligning their interests with users through slashing mechanisms.
While both reduce entry barriers, they introduce new risks — particularly around centralization and counterparty trust. In Lido’s case, governance concentration raises concerns about rent-seeking or collusion. Rocket Pool’s design mitigates some of these issues via economic penalties, reflecting a stronger commitment to decentralization.
DVT: Enhancing Trust Through Technology
Decentralized Validator Technology (DVT) addresses a core weakness in pooled staking: single-point-of-failure risk. Traditional validators rely on one private key; if compromised or offline, funds are at risk.
DVT solves this by splitting the validator key into encrypted fragments distributed across multiple nodes. Only when a quorum agrees can the validator act — ensuring fault tolerance and resistance to downtime or attacks.
SSV.Network is a leading DVT implementation, enabling staking pools to operate more securely without relying on any single entity. This innovation allows protocols like Lido to enhance their security posture significantly.
Even more ambitious projects like Diva Labs are combining LSDs with DVT to offer non-custodial, permissionless staking. Users retain control of their keys while benefiting from pooled validation — pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in trust-minimized infrastructure.
LSDs: The Battle for Yield Dominance
Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs) gained massive attention in 2022, especially as Ethereum prepared for the Shanghai Upgrade — which finally allowed unstaking of ETH. Prior to this, staked ETH was locked indefinitely, deterring many potential participants.
With withdrawals now possible, LSDs are positioned to unlock billions in dormant capital. Analysts estimate that if Ethereum’s staking rate reaches levels seen on other proof-of-stake chains, the LSD market could exceed $100 billion in value.
But competition is intensifying. It's no longer just Lido vs. Rocket Pool — it's LSDs vs. the entire DeFi ecosystem.
Protocols like Frax Finance have introduced yield-enhanced variants (frxETH, sfrxETH), leveraging existing DeFi primitives to offer higher returns. Other sectors — including lending platforms and DEXs — are integrating LSDs into their strategies, turning staked ETH into a foundational asset class.
👉 See how next-gen staking models are redefining yield generation
This shift means LSDs aren’t just competing for stakers — they’re competing for liquidity dominance across DeFi.
Restaking: Unlocking Composability at the Node Layer
Perhaps the most transformative development of 2022 was the emergence of restaking, pioneered by EigenLayer.
Restaking allows ETH validators to reuse their stake as security for additional protocols — effectively extending Ethereum’s trust layer to other applications. Validators earn extra rewards, while new protocols gain instant security without launching their own consensus mechanisms.
This creates a powerful flywheel:
- More restaking → higher yields → more participation → stronger security → more protocols adopt EigenLayer
EigenLayer transforms Ethereum into a modular security hub, enabling innovation without reinventing consensus. For LSD providers like Lido, this is a game-changer — their pooled stakes can now secure multiple networks simultaneously.
Critically, EigenLayer assumes exclusivity: once you opt into restaking, you can’t easily switch or duplicate your stake elsewhere. This creates a high barrier to entry for competitors — because replicating both yield and security at scale is extremely difficult.
Restaking embodies the same principle that powers DeFi’s “money legos”: composability. Just as financial primitives interconnect in DeFi, now even consensus security can be reused across layers and protocols.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is the main risk of using centralized node providers like Infura?
A: Centralized node providers create single points of failure that can lead to network outages or censorship. Since many dApps depend on them, disruptions can affect large portions of the ecosystem.
Q: How do liquid staking derivatives (LSDs) work?
A: LSDs allow users to stake less than 32 ETH by pooling funds with others. In return, users receive tokens (like stETH) that represent their share and accrue rewards over time.
Q: Why is restaking considered a breakthrough?
A: Restaking enables validators to reuse their staked ETH to secure additional protocols, increasing capital efficiency and allowing new blockchains or services to inherit Ethereum’s security.
Q: Can I run a blockchain node without technical expertise?
A: Not easily today, but projects focused on light clients and simplified setups are making progress toward user-friendly node operation in the future.
Q: What’s the difference between DVT and traditional staking?
A: DVT distributes validator responsibilities across multiple parties using secret sharing, reducing reliance on any single operator and improving fault tolerance compared to traditional setups.
Q: Will LSDs replace traditional DeFi yield opportunities?
A: Not replace — but evolve them. LSDs provide base-layer yield that other DeFi protocols can build upon, creating hybrid strategies that combine staking returns with lending or trading income.
The node layer may not capture headlines like NFTs or new L1s, but it underpins everything in Web3. From decentralized infrastructure to restaking-driven composability, 2022 laid the groundwork for a more efficient, interconnected blockchain ecosystem — where security itself becomes a reusable resource.
As innovation continues, the line between infrastructure provider and financial primitive will blur further — driven by core keywords like node layer, liquid staking, DVT, restaking, decentralized infrastructure, LSD, validator security, and composability.
👉 Explore how cutting-edge protocols are reshaping blockchain fundamentals