Ethereum Lighthouse: Chasing Serenity
Crafting the Staking and Validator User Experience for Ethereum 2.0 — UX Report
Overview —
The report seeks to provide results, key insights, and recommendations from eth2 User Experience research conducted to better frame the Validation process for Ethereum Network participants and to help various ecosystem projects align on items of further collaboration.
To kick off our preliminary research, we surveyed 111 interested Ethereum network participants and conducted 10 in-person interviews with key stakeholders across various existing Proof of Stake blockchain communities to determine the necessary steps required to better understand and improve the overall Staking / Validation User Experience, support the network participant’s primary objectives and ensure a successful main net launch of Ethereum 2.0 — Phase 0.
This is an on-going open-source design effort and we will continue to further engage the community to gather and share out key insights for Ethereum Proof-of-Stake UX, if you are interested in having your input or learning more be sure to sign up for our mailing list here: http://eepurl.com/gYB3r9
If you are interested in accessing the raw survey results you can find them here:
We would like to thank all the individuals who took out the time from their busy schedules to provide key insights during the interview process and by filling out the surveys in great detail. If you have any additional questions, concerns, or insights you would like to share please do reach out on Twitter: @qnou / @sigp_io or join us in the Lighthouse Discord: https://discord.gg/cyAszAh
Preface — Chasing Serenity
Ethereum’s inevitable integration or transition to Proof of Stake (PoS) has been at the core of the research and ethos of the project since it’s inception and one of the primary reasons many of us were initially drawn to the Ethereum ecosystem. Vitalik’s blog post on Slasher: A punitive Proof-of-Stake algorithm went live Jan 15, 2014 on the Foundation website a week before the project itself went public with Ethereum: Now Going Public.
Eth 2.0 (Serenity) will replace the mining process and utilize a PoS consensus model, where validators will be the ones maintaining the network. Serenity has been a part of the development roadmap for the project as early as 2015, prior to the Frontier launch. A great amount of research and development (by a very dedicated team) has since gone into ensuring that a viable main-net specification exists. The Eth 2.0 spec requires an additional chain known as the “Beacon chain” that operates solely via PoS, while relying on the existing Proof of Work (PoW) Eth 1.0 chain for validator on-boarding and bootstrapping the network. Additionally, Eth 2.0 hopes to address the scalability trilemma with the introduction of independent Shard Chains which relay to the Beacon chain and eWASM to enable a dedicated virtual machine for each of the Shard Chains. The beacon chain is the operational control center and the scaffolding upon which the sharded system functions. The Eth 2.0 specification underwent significant revision in late-2019/early-2020 and continues to evolve as implementation continues. However, the external security review conducted this month indicates that the overall structure is stable. Although, the shift to PoS has been a contentious and lengthy process, Eth 2.0 remains one of the most engaging and anticipated topics in the blockchain ecosystem.
“Eth2.0 is a scalable PoS infrastructure in which we’ll place the Ethereum we know and love today.”
Danny Ryan — Ethereum Foundation
Research Stewards
Ethereum Lighthouse is an open-source Ethereum 2.0 client with a strong focus on; security, performance, and usability, written in Rust and maintained by Sigma Prime.
Visit the Lighthouse Github Repo: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse
Learn more about Sigma Prime: https://sigmaprime.io
EMPIRE is a Product Strategy and Design firm championing product-market fit and user adoption for emerging technologies.
Introduction —
Proof of Stake: Consensus mechansim in which a participant can mine or validate block transactions according to how much tokens of the network they hold.
Benefits of PoS
- Conservation of energy — Unlike POW there is no need for stakeholders to keep trying to produce blocks.
- A higher level of security.
- Improved Performance and Scalability.
Eco-system Considerations
The current staking market cap of existing PoS networks stands at approximately $9.6 Billion with $6.3 Billion locked in staking and with the complete launch of Eth 2.0 we stand to bring in close to another $14.5 Billion in market cap at the current rates.
The enormous shift of the Ethereum network to PoS brings with it a set of unique challenges and risks factors that need to be accounted for and mitigated accordingly over a long time horizon. Therefore, a phased approach has been implemented by the Ethereum Foundation which will ensure that the network has a sufficient incubation period needed for it to succeed in the long-term. As can be seen by the detailed long-term roadmap presented by Vitalik (found below) there are many interdependent parts to the system with varying degrees of UX complexities that need to interoperate for the system to function as intended. Therefore, our current focus is to ensure that there is a clear alignment between the Eth 2.0 Phase 0 User Experience and the long-term vision and success of the Ethereum network as a robust decentralized PoS protocol.
Phase 0
In phase 0 of Eth 2.0 (Serenity) we will see:
Beacon Chain — The beacon chain will be launched as the core consensus and backbone of eth2 and subsequent phases.
Deposit Contract — Allows single direction transfer for becoming a validator on ETH2 from ETH1. All initial deposits, that happen on the ETH1 chain, will be used by the ETH2 chain to secure the network upon launch by leveraging the security pool and value of existing Ether.
One-way Bridge — No bi-directional transfers, meaning the ETH deposit gets locked in the Beacon Chain. There will be a seamless tie between the community. Two chains will operate, but still stay unified.
Testnets — Large scale public testnets with multi-client functionality. Testnets that simulate production context, validators on-boarded and familiar with the expectations of running nodes and clients.
Users — As no transactions are occurring on the chain the users will mainly consist of validators and stakers looking to earn rewards and utilize this opportunity to intimately learn the emerging eco-system before it becomes fully operational.
On Decentralization
Mining centralization has always been an important consideration for the move to Staking as a consensus mechanism, however with the launch of various delegated staking protocols over the past few years, it has become quite clear that in reality a small handful of well-established validators and Staking service providers inevitably control a large percentage of all the networks currently operating. With Eth 2.0 the objective is to drastically change this paradigm. However, if the user experience for independent enthusiast validators is comparatively poor, we will naturally see much of the participation occur on external staking services that require little to no cognitive overhead for the end-users.
“I feel hopeful that ETH 2’s launch will help shift today’s commonly-held perspective that there are only fewer than 100 (or even 50) qualified Proof of Stake Validators in the world today.”
Chris Remus — Chainflow
Client implementations
Unlike the other PoS networks currently operating, Ethereum will have a breadth of open-source client implementations in various programming languages being built by a set of highly skilled and motivated independent teams. Client diversity is a strong objective for Eth 2.0, with the ideal situation being for no particular client to have over 30–40% of the network, giving the network an overall better security profile.
Objective —
In an effort to on-board a new generation of independent enthusiastic validators for the decentralization of the Ethereum network, we need to ensure the overall User Experience is intuitive and conducive to the needs of various user segments with differing technical abilities and educational needs. With the integration of PoS, Ethereum hopes to scale the validation eco-system to 1000’s of independent network participants, each with an active stake in maintaining the network.
Understanding the needs, pain-points, and motivations of these participants is therefore of utmost importance. With our introductory research efforts we hope to:
• Profile the interested User Segments for Phase 0
• Understand the main motivations of the various participants
• Determine the informational needs of the intended users
• Gauge the expectations for client implementations
• Evaluate criteria for developing User Interfaces and additional User touchpoints
User Research Methodology —
User research is the systematic study of the goals, needs, and capabilities of users so as to specify the design, construction, or improvement of tools and resources to benefit how users work and live.
Stakeholder Interviews
In order to better orient our efforts and gain perspective on the challenges we should anticipate we chose to interview key stakeholders with varying degrees of expertise within existing Proof of Stake eco-systems and the broader Ethereum community.
Online Survey
As a research method, surveys allow us to quantify concepts — a sample or subset of the broader audience is used, the learnings from which can be applied to a broader population.
N=111
Eth 2.0 PoS UX Survey / Respondent Selection
The Definitive Eth2.0 PoS UX Survey️ was geared and marketed towards individuals that were already consuming Eth2.0 related content and actively interested in participating in Phase 0 validation/staking. Therefore, only those invested in providing valuable feedback towards improving the overall staking UX for Eth2.0 will have taken the steps necessary to fill out this survey. Meaning that the main outreach was to the core Ethereum community through Twitter and other developed social touchpoints.
Survey Results —
Participant Persona
Going into the research phase, we were faced with a general preconceived notion that the user base for the initial participants in Phase 0 would mostly be technical professionals and development-oriented individuals. However, the survey results demonstrate otherwise:
When asked how the respondents would categorize their involvement in the eco-system the general participant 67.5% in aggregate categorized themselves as not particularly technically oriented although knowledgeable. They are distributed amongst Enthusiasts (35.1%), Investors (24.3%), and Novices(8.1%). While the remaining 32.5% categorize themselves as professionals or developers working in the eco-system.
A very high percentage of 85.6% of these users currently hold the necessary 32 ETH required to start staking on Eth2.0 Phase 0. Only ~30% of these participants have previously participated in mining on the current PoW Ethereum network and ~40% have staked or validated on another PoS Network. Meaning that the majority of these Validation / Staking users will be new to the eco-system and it will be their first time actively participating in independently managing validator clients and nodes to help secure a decentralized network.
The main motivating factor for 62.2% of participants is to earn Rewards / ROI on their Stake with 27.9% motivated to help secure the network. With the remaining 9% hoping to support the community through their participation.
Participant Education
61.3% of participants were not comfortable stating full confidence in their understanding of key concepts for Validating and Staking on eth2 in Phase 0. While 90.1% were not confident when it came to knowing the key differences between the leading Eth2.0 Client implementations.
Most of the participants 56.8% actively seek information through self-initiated research on platforms such as Medium, Discourse, and Google. 41.4% actively look to Conferences and Podcasts to learn more. While 54.1% passively consume the content that is shared on Social Media to keep up to date. A considerable amount 35% still look at the Ethereum Foundation as their main source of information.
Validator Expectations
When asked how the respondents planned on participating in eth 2.0 Phase 0 74.8% of participants were excited to be able to run their own nodes and validator clients to Stake ETH in the system and validate on the network. 41.4% planned on participating in Staking pools and 18.9% plan on utilizing staking as a service providers. While 8% will not participate in Phase 0 due to the unknown nature of the lock-in period, 9.9% of users do not yet know the benefits,
There is a general lack of reference when it comes to the need or requirements for running a beacon node, with 49.5% of participants expressing their lack of understanding. While 42.3% would like to fully participate in the network and run their own and only 8% would like to connect to an external node. As for the validator clients 45% of participants plan of running multiple validators with 25.2% planning to run 5+ and 19.8% planning to run between 2–4. While 27.9% of the participants would begin with a single validator in Phase 0 and 25.2% have yet to decide.
One of the biggest considerations to account for is the expected device or infrastructure the participants expect to utilize to run their nodes and validators. 37.8% of respondents believe they will be able to securely run a node and manage a validator on a personal computer. 26.1% will be looking to rely on an external VPS. 25.2% will be looking to purchase or utilize a dedicated node device such as dApp Node or Avado, 23.4% will create their own local server, and 21.6% expect to be able to use a small device such as a Raspberry Pi.
Ethereum 2.0 Client Experience
The most common consideration when choosing which Eth 2.0 client to utilize is Security with 66.7% of users choosing that as a factor, followed closely behind with 62.2% is the Usability of the client, and 59.5% with the Stability of the client. Performance is less often a top 3 consideration with only 45.9% choosing to factor that in. While trusted rankings and reviews will be considered by 36.9% of the participants and ~30% of participants will factor in Rewards/ Economic considerations attached to each client and the Popularity of the client. Only 11.7% of the participants will make the choice based on the programming language of the implementation.
When asked if participants were comfortable utilizing a CLI to setup, execute commands, run scripts and manage beacon node / validator client 63.1% answered that they felt capable, 25.2% were sure they could not manage and 11.7% did not yet know. 64.9% of participants would rather use a reliable GUI to help setup/manage their node and validator client, 30.6% of participants would use it depending on the security and usability of the GUI and 4.5% plan on not using a GUI.
Insights —
User Profile
Has a strong high-level ecosystem knowledge base, but not particularly technical.
Actively seeking and researching relevant information through various mediums.
Interested in Validation for the Rewards and ROI.
Holds 32 ETH+ and plans on running multiple validators.
First time helping secure a Decentralized network. Has not mined on Ethereum previously and most likely not participated in an existing PoS network.
Wants to experiment and use this as a unique learning opportunity, is mindful but not overly concerned about the lock-up period.
May currently underestimate the educational requirements, personal resources, and overhead required to run and manage a beacon node and validator client on Eth 2.0.
Prioritizes network security and decentralization.
Interestingly, those looking to participate in Staking do not seem to consider DeFi as a favorable alternative due to the systematic differences, varying risk profiles, and differing incentive models involved.
—
Educational Needs
With the introduction of PoS and a breadth of new systems in Eth2.0, we naturally introduce a laundry list of novel concepts and terminology that need to be introduced and taught to the users for them to be able to succeed as validators. Interview candidates expressed their concerns with existing Validator documentation often being targeted to the wrong demographics and being difficult to navigate while attempting to locate information when things do go wrong. Areas of educational topics with participant quotes regarding their need for respective information are presented below:
- Hardware Requirements: Most users expect to use local devices to run and manage their nodes / validator clients. Considering the fact that a large percentage of participants feel that a personal computer and Raspberry Pi would be the ideal solution implies that there is a certain degree of preconceived notions when it comes to topics relating to the necessity to sync to an ETH1 chain, security, and operational risks with running on personal devices and more. In addition, users may be overestimating the reliability of having persistent internet connectivity. Guidance on the best setup that maintains core principals of decentralization is required.
“What Hardware to use and whether I could set up a cheap machine through e.g. AWS or similar to ensure it stays online.”
- Lock-up Period: Participants need better indications of how long the lock-up period is, both from a financial and operational standpoint as they cannot voluntarily exit the system and then restart later. Their stake will be stuck until phase 1 or longer.
“When will be able to withdraw ETH 2.0 tokens? This will affect my decision on when to begin staking. i.e. What is the lock up period?”
- Deposit Contract: The irreversible one-way nature of the deposit contract and the key generation process is a novel concept. Additionally, there is a very high-risk factor for potential phishing attacks. Sources highlighting trusted interfaces and service providers is required.
“Would love EF to push out a single page as a source of truth.”
- Locked-up Ether (bETH /ETH2.0?): The locked-up Ether should not technically be considered another asset class. However, due to the nature of the lock-up phases, service providers will naturally see an opportunity to provide liquidity on the staked ETH. Many have begun to refer to the staked ETH as beacon ETH or “bETH”, while others are referring it to as “ETH2.0” which can become a problematic concept for new participants to grasp, additionally, other services providers such as Rocketpool intend to introduce their own liquidity mechanisms such as “rETH” etc further complicating matters.
“How will bEth earnings be converted to regular ETH?”
- Client implementations: All the clients will have different programming languages, performance, security, tooling, usability, stability, and even differing rewards/penalties based on how widely the client is being utilized on the network and what type of optimizations have been done for attestations. Participants will need a source of truth to gain unbiased information and perspective on what client might be optimal for their use and why they should consider diversification among clients.
“Key differences between clients and how rewards differ from client to client.” “Which client is reliable? I don’t want my deposit being slashed.” “Understanding uptime/performance of different clients before network starts”
- Syncing to the ETH1 chain: Most users do not yet realize that in order to become a validator you are required to run or connect to an existing ETH1 node.
“Do we need to be running a Ethereum 1.0 node to switch to staking?”
- BLS Key pairs: Introduction of new Key generation mechanisms. Key management will be nuanced with a Signing key for validator activities and a Withdrawal key required to exit the system. Additionally, existing software wallets and hardware wallets do not currently support BLS Keys.
“Key Generation. Key Management. Which keys to store and how they are used to exit the system?”
- Beacon Node requirements: 49.5% of participants expressed that they did not know if they should run their own beacon node. More resources are needed on the requirement for running and maintaining a beacon node and for what purpose.
“Clarify Incentivization and de-infura-ization of beacon nodes.” “Finally decide if connect to node or host by myself”.
- Eth 2.0 Economics: The system economics are complicated and ever-evolving. Participants will require clear insights into how things will mature and how they can optimize their participation based on varying circumstances.
Some sort of stats regarding returns. Like how much ROI would I get if there are these many validators in the network etc.
- Rewards and ROI: Rewards are tied to the overall amount of ETH staking in the network. Rewards are the main motivating factor for people to be interested and willing to participate in the validation process. Therefore, participants should have a clear indication of what type of returns and benefits they should receive for early participation and how that will impact them moving forward.
“What can be done with staking rewards in Phase 0 e.g. can they be used to stake? Are staking rewards based on the total value currently locked (including previous rewards), or only the 32Eth initially staked? That is, can rewards be used to generate any value (prior to a 2 way bridge or Phase 2)?”
- The risk profile of participation: Participants do not yet have a clear indication of risks involved with validation and staking in Phase 0. Guidance should be provided upfront in an easy to understand manner and the related consequences highlighted appropriately for people to evaluate before choosing to participate.
“Is there a possibility that I lose my investments if anything goes wrong or can you rewind the system.” “Would want to fully understand slashing and what risks I take on by running my own validators in that regard”.
- Validator Duties & Guides: ~75% of participants wish to fully participate in the validation and management process. This will be the first time most of them will be actively taking part in securing a decentralized network and will have varying degrees of understanding. Guides are needed that explain the nature of the duties involved, the benefits, risks, and provide guidance toward best practices to follow and how to troubleshoot issues.
“I am a non-dev, but I have an Avado and plan to run a validator and stake. However, I am not sure regarding the “security” of my network. Things like VPNs and network security are like another language to me. I could have a huge security issue (network or device) and I don’t think I would know.”
- Slashing vs Penalties: Participants often confuse the concepts of slashing/penalties and the nuances of what are actual Slashable events and what events are instead simply penalized and to what extent.
“Under what circumstances my stake could get slashed. For example, if the machine freezes or my router breaks and I’m on vacation?” “How likely will it be that a staking pool would get slashed”.
- dPoS vs PoS: Participants still have a varying understanding when it comes to the nuances related to Validating and Staking on Ethereum and how it differs from other Delegated PoS networks.
“How can I stake without running an own node, validator etc. I would like to delegate like in cosmos or tezos with my ledger or trezor.”
- Staking vs Validation: The term Staking is utilized in the blockchain eco-system with quite a few different implications. Unlike delegated PoS networks, only validators that actively participate in consensus receive rewards in the Ethereum PoS Network. Unless using external services, participants need to not only post ETH as collateral / Stake but also perform active duties.
“Understand staking mechanisms, so I know what I’m committing to”.
- Phases: Since the various development phases have large implications for validators and how they are able to actively participate, there is a need to ensure that the information being presented about the progression and implications is easily accessible and simple to understand for non-developers who are not actively following the development work being done. Estimations of development phases are always difficult and often unable to effectively map to the real-world consequences of systems, but are nonetheless required as a frame of reference for people looking to decide to participate.
“I need more clarity surrounding the transition from ETH1 to ETH2 (especially in regards to a potential Eth2 Phase 1.5) and how this will affect my validating abilities.”
- Terminology: Approximately 40% of participants expressed having staked on other PoS networks in the past and therefore have a certain frame of reference when dealing with key terminology which may be utilized under different circumstances in other networks. We need to be mindful of providing appropriate context when referring to key terminology about Ethereum and how it is used amongst interoperable systems.
“Being certain I know all the terminology for validators, nodes, clients.”
- Experimentation / Testnets: Participants want to experiment and learn in a low-risk environment before committing to the network.
“I would like to run my setup for a while first. To know everything will run properly when it’s time for phase 0.” “I don’t have programming background. So far interaction with testnets make me worried about staking more than a few validators for the sake of supporting the community’s work”
—
Fears and Anxieties
When asked about the greatest Fears and Anxieties respondents had with participating in Phase 0 of Eth2, most of the replies fit under the following categories: Client / Validator Management, Security, Usability, Exposure of Funds, Ethereum Phase progression / Lock-in, and Errors.
Client / Validator Management:
“Losing the stake due to hardware failure/power etc ie: long offline period.” “Client is not reliable” “Unsure about reliability of internet connection” “Sync issues” “Stability of the software”
Security:
“Unknown major vulnerabilities.” “Hack occurs while ETH is locked up” “Vulnerabilities of deposit contract”
“Lack of understanding risks on home network security”
“An attack on my private keys.”
Errors:
“I won’t be able to do anything to fix a problem. So far all I’m able to do is copy paste the command line instructions and seems to work. But no clue what to do if need to upgrade or if any problem.”
“Mostly related to technical proficiency and doing something wrong. I think most people are the same. Make it idiot proof!”
Usability:
“Validator goes offline and aren’t properly informed. Also managing multiple validators if the UX sucks.” “My only concern is lack of CLI experience”.
“Mixing up all the keys and withdrawal keys of several validators”.
Exposure of Funds:
“Price of ETH 1 remains higher than the price of ETH 2, creating little incentive to convert from ETH 1 to ETH 2.”
“ Losing all 32 eth due to factors outside of my control”
“Overcommitting and needing access to the locked funds before it becomes available”
Ethereum Phase Progression / Lock-in:
“If phase 1 and later are delayed a ton, will ETH 1 remain the de-facto chain for a significant time after phase 0 release, and are my funds permanently stuck on the beacon chain until activity picks up there?”
“One way bridge means a significant chunk of my holdings might be inaccessible for 1 to 1.5 years, being unsure how far out Phase 1 / 2 are.”
—
Competition to Decentralization
Staking on exchanges and Staking as a service providers are intrinsically counter-intuitive to decentralization. With many creating services that facilitate custody solutions, pooling of tokens for leverage, and exchange functionality. Barriers to entry to act as a validator need to be on-par to that of the user experience with using Exchanges, Pooling, and Staking as a service. However, these services are necessary to filter out and facilitate individuals who may not have the resources or facilities to effectively participate in validation, causing needless losses to their funds and unreliable nodes.
Results showcase that most respondents who are actively following the space for Phase 0 are not interested in utilizing Staking as service providers, however that requires that the UX allows anyone interested to easily become an active participant and understand the benefits of maintaining system decentralization. Additionally, participants are far more likely to choose to participate in Staking pools over Staking as a service.
“Why should I stake? I need incentives other than the return. Explain to me what I am helping”.
—
Staking / Validator User Experience
There is a clear need to focus on end-user interactions and help craft mental models that allow users to easily understand and contextualize the benefits, risks, and duties required with participation in Eth 2.0 Staking without having a deep technical knowledge of the protocol and implementations.
Participants do not currently have a good indication of the key differences between the various client implementations, with only 9.9% of respondents expressing their confidence. Users state Security as the main consideration when choosing a client, User Experience and Stability follow closely behind. Although, most individuals are interested in participating in staking due to the ROI, the anticipated differences when it comes to reward generation amongst the different clients is not one of their leading concerns when choosing which client to utilize. Additionally, most users do not yet know the intricacies of the Economic models behind Eth 2.0 and how specific client resource consumption and attestation optimizations have an impact on resultant rewards. With only 30% of participants choosing Rewards as a decision point for clients, it would seem that they instead consider the security, performance, and stability as better indicators of their ROI due to the risks associated with Penalties and Slashing on the client-side.
—
Validator Tooling
Understandably, not many of the client implementers have begun to work on helping participants overcome and navigate the technical challenges and risk factors associated with validation and staking independently. Therefore, most of the UX/UI innovation is coming from the staking service providers or staking pools which currently stand to capture the lion’s share of the participation market.
Participants also state that they would be far more likely to utilize a well designed GUI over a CLI for managing their nodes and validator clients, to circumvent user errors from their end which in turn would potentially expose their Staked Ether to penalties.
More granular insights around Validator UIs and tooling will be shared in upcoming posts.
Recommendations —
Education, Education, Education
Considering the user segments interested in Validating and Staking on Eth2.0 Phase 0, it is necessary that the client communications and documentation also need to account for non-developers. Ensuring that the validators entering the system do not have a difficult time participating due to the lack of educational resources with the appropriate language, tone, and medium geared towards their respective needs. More attention and resources need to be allocated in ensuring that the messaging and positioning for the changes occurring are in-line with the reality and participants can clearly understand the intended consequences.
Educational Resources required:
Tools and Articles to calculate and better understand; Rewards, Returns, Penalties, Slashing for the general public.
Validator Guides — highlighting Hardware Requirements, Duties, expectations, risks, troubleshooting tips and more.
Tools and articles on effective and secure key management, with guidance on what is required to enter and exit the system.
Articles on the differences between the ways to participate in Staking for Ethereum and what impact each option has on the network. Individual participation vs Staking Pools vs Staking as a service.
Articles on the differences between the different clients, the need for interoperability and network distribution amongst clients for security.
Participant Experimentation tools — Allow users to simulate going through the process of running a node, play with testnets, and go through a dry run before committing real funds.
Nomenclature
Terminology such as “ETH2.0” and “bETH” should ideally be phased out (no pun intended) as soon as possible and not be propagated beyond the research / development phases to actual UI’s, communications and educational resources intended to be consumed by the general public as the PoS system goes live. Contextual references to the “Ethereum” Network with Proof-of-Stake and to the Staking or Validating “Ether” token for security guarantees should be made instead, without creating new mental models for participants that help to further create dividing distinctions between the two chains operating within the same system as we progress.
The staked or validated ETH should be considered the same asset locked within a different state for a specified period of time.
“It is probably worthwhile using the word Ethereum where possible (e.g. ‘validate on Ethereum Today!’, ‘contribute to Ethereum’s core consensus’, etc) to push the dialogue in that direction”
Danny Ryan — Ethereum Foundation
For future efforts: stakeholders should be very mindful of choosing naming conventions that counter-act and convolute the general public’s understanding of the relationship between the technology and the token. Whereas “ETH” was predominantly used to refer to the ticker for the ETHER token in the past, it has now been attached to the technology pipeline due to the ETHx.y naming convention, complicating matters further for newcomers and less involved participants researching the eco-system.
Stylizing the Ethereum 2.0 Shorthand — Eth2, Eth 2.0, eth2, eth 2.0, ETH2, or ETH 2.0
Realistically, there will remain use cases for researchers, implementers, and educational resources to continue to use the eth2 naming convention to refer to the development phases in technical communications. However, as a community we can help alleviate some of the cognitive dissonance by agreeing on an ideal standardized way to stylize the transitional technological phases of the network to clearly differentiate them from the ETH (Ether) Token moving forward.
It would be suggested to move away from the ETH2 and ETH2.0 styling and in turn adopt the communication style of the research team with “eth2” or perhaps if ever needed “Eth 2.0” which helps to differentiate between the token.
A list of some relevant projects in the eco-system and how they currently stylize the Ethereum 2.0 Shorthand:
Experimentation
Phase 0 is the time to apply First principles thinking around the UX/UIs for staking and Validation and how they will evolve over the various phases to help dictate the level of network participation for Ethereum. We encourage projects to begin engaging Designers, Copywriters, Facilitators, Researchers, and System thinkers to help move ideas forward so that we can iterate on what works in a more timely and open-source manner.
Collaboration
The immense reliance on existing systems and interoperable nature of the amazing work being done by individuals, teams, and organizations at every level of the technology stack for eth2 progression requires that we are in sync when we do create communications and commit to user-facing decisions that will impact how the system is generally perceived. Sharing of insights, consensus on terminology, and educational resources will go a long way in ensuring success for Ethereum as a leading PoS decentralized network.
Next Steps —
As previously mentioned, this report is intended to be a starting point for the entire Ethereum community and not in any way exhaustive in its nature. Differing hypothesis, research methodologies, user segmentation, and approaches are necessary for us to gain a more holistic view of the challenges at hand. If you have any suggestions, disagreements, or ideas please do reach out. We are encouraging all stakeholders in the eco-system that will be impacted by the launch of Eth 2.0 to join the effort in facilitating more research and feedback loops to help craft the UX for staking and validation in Phase 0.
Current areas of focus that need further attention and collaboration by the community are: Shared Terminology, easy to understand guidance on Eth2.0 Economics (rewards and penalties), and validator operational guides/recommendations. If you are interested in creating any of this content and require assistance we are more than happy to provide guidance.
Ethereum Brand Identity Survey
Please take sometime to let us know how you view the brand Identity for Ethereum, EF, and the Ether token. http://bit.ly/ethbrand
Additionally, we are looking forward to the work and collaboration that is already being done by our fellow peers and will continue to share efforts, resources, and results:
Be on the look out for Codefi — ConsenSys ETH usage survey Results
The Consensys Research team has sought more in-depth information regarding ETH Usage & Phase 0 participation and will be sharing results shortly.
Things are about to get a lot more exciting as we approach multi-client testnets and Phase 0. We look forward to being able to continue our efforts to provide the best UX /UI for staking and validation with the Ethereum Lighthouse client. If you would like to get involved in further efforts and collaboration be sure to get in touch via twitter @qnou (DMs are open).
Footnotes:
Special Thanks to Adrian, Mehdi, Paul, Danny, and Chris for their support and feedback through the process.
