10% Ethereum validator rate proposal looks to fix ‘deadweight’ problem

Kleros founder Clément Lesaege has shared a governance proposal on the Ethereum Research forum to fill the funding gap that the Ethereum Foundation’s austerity era has opened, proposing that validators send between 0% and 10% of their staking income toward shared infrastructure projects. 

Cryptopolitan previously reported on the scale of the cashflow problem facing the Ethereum ecosystem, as Ethereum Foundation (EF) coordinator Trent Van Epps warned that ending grant programs could push the ecosystem to crisis levels.

What is the new Ethereum validator about?

The proposal that Lesaege submitted is supposed to allow validators to set two preferences for redirecting their funds at the protocol level.

The first option is to settle to redirect a percentage (0-10%) of rewards. The other is the address that should receive those funds, which would be decided in a separate validator vote. If more than half of the validators signal a rate above zero, the contribution becomes mandatory for all participants on the network, according to the proposal.

Lesaege acknowledges the “free-rider problem,” where many projects that depend on shared tooling, security research, and developer infrastructure don’t volunteer any help or willingly bear any full costs.

Ethereum validators are said to collectively earn around 700,000 ETH per year in staking rewards.

If validators settle on a redirect rate between 5% and 10%, it could free up about 50,000 to 70,000 ETH for ecosystem funding annually, which comes up to around $87 million to $120 million at current ETH prices.

How is the ecosystem reacting to the proposal?

Some ecosystem voices, including Via Network’s Romano, have criticized the proposal, calling it a tax and asking what the ecosystem had produced to justify further contributions after years of Ethereum Foundation spending.

zeroproof, a commenter on the research forum where the proposal was published, wrote that the mechanism targets the wrong problem.

The real bottleneck, zeroproof wrote, is not how to distribute funding but whether Ethereum has a compelling enough mission to attract contributors in the first place. Early Ethereum development thrived without any coordination mechanism because “the perceived value of participation was high enough to make the question of compensation irrelevant,” the comment said.

One of the risks that threatens this proposal is validator cartelization, which is when a coordinated majority raises the redirect rate and routes funds to themselves or favored groups.

The second is a principal-agent gap between staking operators, who would set preferences, and the ETH holders who delegate to them and absorb the lost yield.

Some critics also raised a simpler objection, which is that if validators are willing to give up part of their rewards, Ethereum could just reduce issuance instead of creating a new redistribution layer.

Is this a solution that addresses Ethereum’s funding structure?

The proposal is one entry in a growing list of attempts to address Ethereum’s funding structure. The Foundation’s four-year Client Incentives Program expired in April 2026, and Protocol Guild, an independent initiative that channels money directly to core developers outside Foundation grants, has not yet scaled to cover the gap, according to Van Epps.

Lesaege acknowledged that the proposal is not a finished design, stating that it is meant as a starting point. He called it a “wrong answer” intended to provoke discussion about protocol-level funding. No formal vote has been scheduled.