To answer the question of why restaking needs an intermediary layer like @Lorenzo Protocol , I believe we need to start from a rather uncomfortable reality: restaking is technically correct, but it is not yet ready to become a mainstream product.
EigenLayer addresses the foundational problem of reusing ETH's security, but itself is not designed to serve a large number of users. The gap between 'technical capability' and 'large-scale usability' is precisely where an intermediary layer like Lorenzo becomes necessary.
Restaking, by nature, allows the same amount of already staked ETH to continue protecting other services (AVS). This makes a lot of sense from a capital efficiency perspective. But when I tried to approach restaking as an ordinary user, the story quickly became complex.
Which AVS to choose? Where does slashing risk come from? If an AVS encounters an issue, how does that affect the staked ETH?
Who is responsible for oversight? These questions not everyone is able — or willing — to answer themselves.
The first issue that makes restaking need an intermediary is the complexity of risk. In traditional staking, the risk is relatively clear: if a validator does wrong, they get slashed. With restaking, the risks are no longer linear. ETH can be penalized for faults in a service that is entirely unrelated to Ethereum core.
For users, this is a form of layered risk. Lorenzo appears to package that risk into understandable and manageable structures, rather than letting users confront the entire risk surface of EigenLayer directly.
A common misconception is that intermediaries only 'take a cut' from users. But from my experience looking at complex financial systems, intermediaries exist not to take fees, but to reduce cognitive costs and the costs of mistakes.
Restaking, if left to users to do themselves, will lead to two consequences: either only a very small specialized group participates, or the majority of users participate in a state of not understanding what risks they are taking on. Both are not good for the ecosystem. Lorenzo helps standardize the experience so that restaking does not become a game reserved for insiders.
The second issue is fragmentation and reverse concentration risk. If each user chooses their own AVS, the flow of restaking capital will be heavily fragmented. Some AVS may lack security, while others attract too much capital due to narrative. This creates an imbalance.
#lorenzoprotocol with the role of capital aggregation and allocation can regulate the flow of security, avoiding the ecosystem being skewed by herd behavior. From a systemic perspective, this is a very important role that EigenLayer itself does not fulfill.
Another point that makes restaking need an intermediary is UX and scalability. EigenLayer is built for validators and operators, and its UX reflects that. But for restaking to become a natural part of DeFi, it needs to integrate with other products like lending, structured products, or vaults.
Lorenzo issues LRT representing the restaking position, allowing ETH to participate in restaking while maintaining liquidity and composability. In my opinion, this is a necessary step if restaking does not want to become a 'dead end' for capital.
When talking to some capital managers, I realized one thing: they are not afraid of risk; they are afraid of unstructured risk. Restaking directly places users in that state.
Lorenzo addresses this by building mechanisms for monitoring, risk allocation, and buffering. This does not eliminate risk, but structures it, and that is a prerequisite for large capital to participate. Without an intermediary layer, restaking is very difficult to reach the threshold of small individual users.
Another important reason is operational responsibility. Restaking is not just about sending ETH and waiting for rewards. It requires continuous monitoring: Is AVS functioning correctly? Is the operator compliant? Do parameters need adjustment?
Most users do not want — and should not — bear this responsibility. Lorenzo takes on that role. In traditional finance, layers like asset managers or clearing houses exist for similar reasons. DeFi is no exception; it's just learning this lesson later.
It should also be noted that intermediaries are not always good. If the layer is too centralized or lacks transparency, it can become a new point of risk. Therefore, the question is not 'whether we need intermediaries', but 'what kind of intermediaries we need'.
Lorenzo chooses to build on-chain, clarifying the structure, and allowing users to withdraw when it is no longer appropriate. In my opinion, this is a balanced approach between efficiency and decentralization in the current phase of DeFi.
From a cycle perspective, the need for an intermediary layer in restaking also reflects a larger shift. DeFi is moving from the phase of 'everyone doing everything' to a phase of specialization. Not everyone is a trader, not everyone is a validator, and not everyone should directly manage restaking risk.
Intermediaries like Lorenzo allow everyone to focus on their role while the system still operates smoothly.
In summary, in my view, restaking needs an intermediary layer like Lorenzo not because EigenLayer is flawed, but because a technically correct system is not necessarily correct in its usage. Lorenzo fills that gap: reducing complexity, structuring risk, maintaining liquidity, and paving the way for large-scale adoption.
If restaking is an important piece of the next phase of DeFi, then intermediaries like Lorenzo are not an 'option', but a necessity for that piece to truly realize its value.
@Lorenzo Protocol #lorenzoprotocol $BANK
