Decentralization is apublic good

WatchTower tracks staking entities who have committed to cap their scope of control to under 22% of the Ethereum network's validators.

EntityNetwork Penetration
30.06% (143,086 validators)-0.25pt
11.59% (55,180 validators)-0.10pt
8.07% (38,365 validators)-0.08pt
5.13% (24,402 validators)-0.06pt
2.74% (13,013 validators)-0.03pt
Bitcoin Suisse
2.20% (10,634 validators)+0.13pt
2.00% (9,552 validators)+0.01pt
1.70% (8,081 validators)-0.02pt
Celsius Network
1.04% (4,943 validators)-0.01pt
0.71% (3,398 validators)+0.04pt
0.68% (3,214 validators)-0.01pt
0.60% (2,855 validators)-0.01pt
0.56% (2,678 validators)-0.00pt
0.50% (2,399 validators)-0.01pt
0.49% (2,307 validators)-0.01pt
Snapshot taken from API on Mon, 28 Nov 2022 12:22:38 GMT

Supported by our forward-thinking communities

The 22% cap signaling

Let's protect Ethereum decentralization

Inspired by tweets and Reddit posts by @superphiz.

In the early days of the Beacon Chain at the start of 2021, it seemed as if centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken might be poised to dominate Ethereum staking by making it easy for their massive user bases to pool their ether and earn staking rewards.

While centralized exchanges are indeed playing a large role in the ETH staking game, the largest staker on Ethereum's PoS Beacon Chain by far is Lido, a so-called liquid staking pool that has amassed a massive 30% share of all staking activity on Ethereum, according to Etherscan.

We'll invite entities to commit to not governing more than 22% of the beacon chain, we'll have some, but many will resist. The real goal is coordinating a community standard that says, "We don't support governors who don't respect our chain or its social governance layer."

superphiz.ethEthereum Beacon Chain community health consultant

Frequently asked questions

Can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to us on discord.

Why is 22% important?
If each entity is limited to 22% of the validators on the beacon chain, it takes more than three entities in collusion to finalize the chain with inaccurate data. At the same time, 22% control is still viable as any one entity could go down without threatening finality of the chain.
Why 22% precisely?
One threshold percentage had to be chosen to simplify this catalog's scope and prevent varied (and unfair) thresholds across staking entities. 22% is becoming a popular threshold in the community as it represents a middle ground between the entirely new set of dangers >33% control brings while still not going too low to discourage staking entity committment all together.
What happens at 33%?
If any entity controls 33% of the network they can disrupt the network by preventing finalization since 66% of validators need to agree on the chain for finalization. It's easy to assume that this would be a malicious attack, but there are plenty of scenarios where a well-meaning entity with 33% could be forced to go offline against their will - consider something like a ransomeware attack that cripples one entity for a prolonged period.
Are you fighting against X?
Improving decentralization on Etherem doesn't mean we're fighting against anyone, it means we're fighting for the network.