@Lorenzo Protocol #lorenzoprotocol $BANK
To answer the question of whether Lorenzo is more suitable for DeFi retail or institutional DeFi, I believe we need to start with a not-so-'pleasant' observation: Lorenzo was not built to optimize for the experience of DeFi retail, but it is also not a product solely for institutions.

They are building for a layer in between – where technical decisions and systemic risks are more important than the feeling of being 'user-friendly' or 'immediate high returns'.

If viewed superficially, it is easy to conclude that Lorenzo is more suitable for DeFi organizations.

Complex products, many technical concepts, non-linear risks, and no attractive APY to draw in retail users.

I also thought so when I first looked at restaking.

But when observing more closely how Lorenzo is designed, I realize that this complexity is not meant to serve organizations, but to protect the ecosystem from behaviors that often originate from retail.

The biggest issue for DeFi retail is not the lack of opportunities, but the lack of tools to understand and manage risks.

Retail often approaches DeFi through yield, narrative, and FOMO.

This is not their fault; it is how the ecosystem was designed in the early stages.

Lorenzo does not try to change this behavior through marketing or education, but through structure.

They package restaking risks into products with clear limits, rather than letting retail face the entire risk surface of EigenLayer on their own.

In my view, this is an indirect but effective way to serve retail, even if it isn’t ‘friendly’ in the traditional sense.

A common misunderstanding is that if a product is complex, it is only for organizations.

In fact, in traditional finance, it is precisely because of complex products that retail needs intermediaries.

Lorenzo is playing that role in restaking.

Instead of requiring retail to understand AVS, operators, slashing, and incident scenarios, Lorenzo takes on that complexity.

Retail is not promised high profits, but is protected from risks they cannot assess themselves.

From my perspective, this is a very different kind of ‘suitability’ from optimizing UX.

Conversely, Lorenzo is also not entirely a product for DeFi organizations in the traditional sense.

Organizations are concerned with customization, control, and private agreements.

Lorenzo is not designed to favor any large capital group.

They maintain neutrality, standardize products, and avoid exclusive agreements.

This makes Lorenzo less appealing to organizations wanting to optimize their own benefits, but suitable for organizations willing to play by the common rules of the ecosystem.

In my opinion, this is a very important distinction.

The real logic behind the question of retail or organizations lies in the role that Lorenzo wants to hold.

They do not want to become a product where users come to ‘make money.’

They want to become the distribution layer and security coordination for EigenLayer.

This role requires balance: simple enough for retail to not harm themselves, but serious enough for organizations to trust using it.

This explains why Lorenzo appears to be ‘not favoring anyone’ in the early stages.

An inevitable consequence of standing in the middle is that Lorenzo will receive complaints from both sides.

Retail finds the product difficult to understand, and the profits unappealing.

Organizations feel a lack of control and the ability to optimize their own interests.

But from an ecosystem perspective, this is a positive sign.

Neutral infrastructure layers rarely fully satisfy any side, as their task is to maintain balance, not to maximize local benefits.

In my opinion, Lorenzo is best suited for the phase where DeFi is transitioning from experimentation to serious operation.

At this stage, retail is still participating, but is no longer encouraged to take blind risks.

The organization has started to engage, but cannot impose the rules of the game.

Lorenzo provides a structure that allows both to coexist, without either side being able to disrupt the system for their short-term interests.

If looking long-term, Lorenzo could become increasingly suitable for retail as UX layers improve and risks are communicated better.

At the same time, they can also serve organizations better through specialized modules.

But the core will not change: Lorenzo does not choose sides between retail or organizations; they choose the ecosystem side.

And in a sufficiently large ecosystem, choosing a side in the ecosystem is ultimately the only way to serve both sides.

To sum up, in my view, Lorenzo is not completely ‘suitable’ for DeFi retail in the sense of being easy to use and offering high profits, nor is it completely ‘suitable’ for DeFi organizations in the sense of customization and exclusivity.

They are suited for a maturing DeFi, where retail needs protection from risks they do not fully understand, and organizations need a neutral layer to not bear the entire operational responsibility.

If DeFi continues to evolve in that direction, then Lorenzo's not favoring either side could be their biggest advantage.