Here’s how insiders are getting rich off the Ethereum Merge

u.todayPublished on 2022-09-12Last updated on 2022-09-12

Abstract

Five ways wealthy insiders profit from the Merge at the expense of average investors.

Ethereum has scheduled its Merge to occur this week, as early as September 15. Ethereum’s Bellatrix update is now complete ⏤ the final step ahead of Ethereum’s transition from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake.

The Merge is by far the year’s most publicized blockchain upgrades of the year ⏤ understandable, considering that Ethereum is the second biggest digital asset by market cap. However, less publicized is the enormous profit that wealthy insiders have extracted from retail traders around the event.

Five ways wealthy insiders profit from the Merge at the expense of average investors

1. Charging less wealthy people (with less than 32 ETH) for staking-as-a-service

If someone has less than the 32 ETH (~$54,000) required to activate validator keys in Ethereum 2, they can’t participate in Proof-of-Stake rewards, which pay a variable 3-18% annually. Missing out on even a conservatively calculated 4% worth of annual rewards is tantamount to losing half of an otherwise staked position every 17 years, so ETH investors need to utilize staking-as-a-service.

There are various services to stake ETH with a third party who will validate blocks on one’s behalf and pass along some of its staking rewards. Of course, administrators of these services charge a fee ⏤ the first example of wealthy insiders extracting money from retail traders through the Merge.

2. Trading de-pegs of Lido’s staked ETHs

As noted above, passing along staking rewards without the minimum 32 ETH obviously incentivizes retail investors to deposit their smaller ETH positions with a staking service. The most popular staking services give back a proprietary “staked ETH” token as a representation of their position.

For example, the most popular Ethereum 2 staking-as-a-service provider is Lido, which gives users back its proprietary token, stETH, in exchange for their ETH deposits. Administrators for Lido control the private keys to $7.7 billion worth of ETH or a stunning one-third of all Proof-of-Stake ETH.

Lido has issued $7.2 billion in fully diluted stETH. It claims that ETH and stETH are supposed to trade a 1:1 parity, but alas, the pegs between ETH and the various staked ETHs break periodically, including stETH. This is the second example of wealthy insiders extracting money from retail traders through Ethereum’s Merge: trading de-pegged stETH.

Lido’s stETH became the first popular target for wealthy insiders capitalizing on this de-peg trade. Amid the June 2022 collapses of Celsius and Three Arrows Capital ⏤ both of which held large bags of stETH ⏤ traders began selling stETH at a discount to ETH. At its lowest, stETH was selling for 9% less than ETH. Days later, it fully regained its peg.

Tens of millions of dollars worth of stETH transactions cleared while it was de-pegged, allowing arbitrageurs to make millions in profit at the expense of stETH’s overwhelmingly retail investor community.

Worse, stETH has continued to regain its peg and de-pegged, repeating cycles of arbitrage profits. Today, over $5 billion worth of stETH are trading about 3% lower than ETH, an arbitrage opportunity of yet another $140 million. If it cycles through regaining its peg and then de-pegs again, arbitrageurs could siphon even more money.

3. Arbitraging cbETH

A third example of wealthy insiders extracting money from retail traders through Ethereum’s Merge simply mirrors the above model. The same arbitrage profits are available with Coinbase’s version of staked ETH: cbETH.

Lido’s staked token is stETH; Coinbase staked token is cbETH. There’s over $1 billion worth of cbETH that de-pegs at fluctuating discounts. Today, cbETH is trading for 5% less than ETH ⏤ a delta of $50 million.

4. Lido bribes

Unlike Coinbase, Lido allows members of its DAO to vote on governance matters selected by its administrators. Votes are cast based on holdings of Lido’s so-called governance token, LDO.

Governance tokens are susceptible to bribes. Because votes are largely unregulated across jurisdictions, the industry of DAO bribes is well-established. So much so, in fact, that an entire organization controlling $4 billion called Convex exists almost exclusively to benefit from bribing another multi-billion dollar organization, Curve.

Similarly, LDO holders negotiate — or outright publish — their rates to sway their votes to the highest bidder. This is the fourth example of wealthy insiders extracting money from retail traders through Ethereum’s Merge: bribing LDO token holders to act in their best interest.

It bears repeating, as noted above, that Lido’s LDO controls voting for approximately one-third of all Proof-of-Stake ETH.

5. MEV

A fifth example is simply ongoing Miner Extractable Value (MEV), which continues through the completion of the Merge and will morph into its Proof-of-Stake form: “MEV-Boost.” MEV (and its Proof-of-Stake equivalent, MEV-Boost) allow wealthy insiders to systematically front-run trades, disadvantaging average investors who cannot afford to pay for expensive, MEV-resistant software. MEV has extracted billions of dollars from average investors whose orders were front-run or forcibly re-ordered.

Wealthy insiders and financial professionals will continue to use these five tactics, plus many alternative strategies and variations, to enrich themselves during Ethereum’s Merge.

Untold numbers of fund managers have already quietly maneuvered into multi-million dollar trades that run counter to the interests of average investors. As long as they can find profit, they will continue to remain quiet.

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片