Ethereum Official Staking Withdrawal Guide & FAQ

Ethereum.orgPublié le 2023-02-10Dernière mise à jour le 2023-02-10

Résumé

The withdrawal function will be enabled through a two-part simultaneous network upgrade: Shanghai + Capella.

On February 10th, the Ethereum official website updated the staking withdrawals page, which introduced details related to Ethereum staking withdrawals, including staking reward collection, staking withdrawal steps, withdrawal time cycle, etc., as follows:

How do I prepare?

Current stakers

Some users may have provided a withdrawal address when initially setting up their staking deposit—these users have nothing more they need to do

The majority of stakers did not provide a withdrawal address on initial deposit, and will need to update their withdrawal credentials. The Zhejiang Testnet Launchpad has instructions on when and how to do this

New stakers (not yet deposited)

By default, new stakers looking to automatically enable reward payments and withdrawal functionality should provide an Ethereum withdrawal address they control when generating their validator keys using the Staking Deposit CLI tool

This is not required at time of deposit, but will prevent the need to update these keys at a later date to unlock your funds

The Staking Launchpad will guide you through staking onboarding.

Important notices

Providing a withdrawal address is a required step for any validator account before it will be eligible to have ETH withdrawn from its balance.

Each validator account can only be assigned a single withdrawal address, one time. Once an address is chosen and submitted to the Beacon Chain, this cannot be undone or changed again. Double-check ownership and accuracy of the address provided before submitting.

There is no threat to your funds in the meantime for not providing this. Failure to add withdrawal credentials will simply leave the ETH locked in the validator account as it has been until a withdrawal address is provided.

Exiting staking entirely

Providing a withdrawal address is required before any funds can be transferred out of a validator account balance.

Users looking to exit staking entirely and withdraw their full balance back must also sign and broadcast a "voluntary exit" message with validator keys which will start the process of exiting from staking. This is done with your validator client and submitted to your beacon node, and does not require gas.

The process of a validator exiting from staking takes variable amounts of time, depending on how many others are exiting at the same time. Once complete, this account will no longer be responsible for performing validator network duties, is no longer eligible for rewards, and no longer has their ETH "at stake". At this time the account with be marked as fully “withdrawable”.

Once an account is flagged as "withdrawable", and withdrawal credentials have been provided, there is nothing more a user needs to do aside from wait. Accounts are automatically and continuously swept by block proposers for eligible exited funds, and your account balance will be transferred in full (also known as a "full withdrawal") during the next sweep.

When are staking withdrawals enabled?

Withdrawal functionality will be enabled through a two-part simultaneous network upgrade, Shanghai + Capella.

Shanghai

Withdrawal functionality will be enabled in the upcoming Shanghai upgrade planned for Q1/Q2 2023 (as with any upgrade, timing subject to change). This enables previously staked ETH to be deposited into execution layer accounts, closing the loop on staking liquidity, and taking one more step on Ethereum’s journey towards building a sustainable, scalable, secure decentralized ecosystem.

Shanghai marks the end of an undefined lock-up period for ETH staking. Users will be free to:

Stake their ETH

Earn ETH rewards that will be distributed automatically

Un-stake their ETH to regain full access to their entire balance

And of course, re-stake to sign back up and start earning more rewards

Capella

For the Shanghai upgrade to take effect, a simultaneous upgrade to the Beacon Chain must take place named Capella. Node operating stakers should stay tuned to client communication channels to be alerted of upcoming client updates planned for Q1/Q2 2023.

Stakers who need to update their validator withdrawal keys can broadcast this message once the Capella upgrade has taken place.

How do withdrawal payments work?

Whether a given validator is eligible for a withdrawal or not is determined by the state of the validator account itself. No user input is needed at any given time to determine whether an account should have a withdrawal initiated or not—the entire process is done automatically by the consensus layer on a continuous loop.

When a validator is scheduled to propose the next block, it is required to build a withdrawal queue, of up to 16 eligible withdrawals. This is done by originally starting with validator index 0, determining if there is an eligible withdrawal for this account per the rules of the protocol, and adding it to the queue if there is. The validator set to propose the following block will pick up where the last one left off, progressing in order indefinitely.

While a proposer is sweeping through validators for possible withdrawals, each validator being checked is evaluated against a short series of questions to determine if a withdrawal should be triggered, and if so, how much ETH should be withdrawn.

Has a withdrawal address been provided? If no withdrawal address has been provided, the account is skipped and no withdrawal initiated.

Is the validator exited and withdrawable? If the validator has fully exited, and we have reached the epoch where their account is considered to be "withdrawable", then a full withdrawal will be processed. This will transfer the entire remaining balance to the withdrawal address.

Is the effective balance maxed out at 32? If the account has withdrawal credentials, is not fully exited, and has rewards above 32 waiting, a partial withdrawal will be processed which transfers only the rewards above 32 to the user's withdrawal address.

How frequently will I get my staking rewards?

A maximum of 16 withdrawals can be processed in a single block. At that rate, 115,200 validator withdrawals can be processed per day (assuming no missed blocks). As noted above, validators without eligible withdrawals will be skipped, decreasing the time to finish the sweep.

Expanding this calculation, we can estimate the time it will take to process a given number of withdrawals:

As you see this slows down as more validators are on the network. An increase in missed blocks could slow this down proportionally, but this will generally represent the slower side of possible outcomes.

Frequently asked questions

Once I have provided a withdrawal address, can I change it to an alternative withdrawal address?

No, the process to provide withdrawal credentials is a one-time process, and cannot be changed once submitted.

Why can a withdrawal address only be set once?

By setting an execution layer withdrawal address the withdrawal credentials for that validator have permanently been changed. This means the old credentials will no longer work, and the new credentials direct to an execution layer account.

Withdrawal addresses can be either a smart contract (controlled by its code), or an externally owned account (EOA, controlled by its private key). Currently these accounts have no way to communicate a message back to the consensus layer that would signal a change of validator credentials, and adding this functionality would add unnecessary complexity to the protocol.

As an alternative to changing the withdrawal address for a particular validator, users may choose to set a smart contract as their withdrawal address which could handle key rotating, such as a Safe. Users who set their funds to their own EOA can perform a full exit to withdrawal all of their staked funds, and then re-stake using new credentials.

What if I participate in liquid staking derivatives or pooled staking

If you are part of a staking pool or hold liquid staking derivatives, you should check with your provider for more details about how staking withdrawals will affect your arrangement, as each service operates differently.

In general, users will likely have nothing they need to do, and these services will no longer be limited by the inability to withdrawal rewards or exit validator funds after this upgrade.

This means that users can now decide to redeem their underlying staked ETH, or change which staking provider they utilize.

Do full withdrawals happen automatically?

No, if your validator is still active on the network, a full withdrawal will not happen automatically. This requires manually initiating a voluntary exit.

Once a validator has completed the exiting process, and assuming the account has withdrawal credentials, the remaining balance will then be withdrawn during the next validator sweep.

How can I withdrawal a custom amount?

Withdrawals are designed to be pushed automatically, transferring any ETH that is not actively contributing to stake. This includes full balances for accounts

It is not possible to manually request specific amounts of ETH to be withdrawn.

Lectures associées

Des groupes catholiques et de l'application de la loi mettent en garde contre la loi CLARITY qui pourrait affaiblir les garde-fous contre la criminalité liée aux crypto-actifs

Une coalition de dirigeants catholiques, de groupes liés à l'application de la loi et de défenseurs de la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains met en garde contre le projet de loi CLARITY Act. Ils estiment qu'il pourrait affaiblir les garde-fous utilisés pour lutter contre la criminalité facilitée par les crypto-monnaies. Leurs critiques portent principalement sur des dispositions qui protégeraient les développeurs de logiciels non-custodiaux d'être assimilés à des transmetteurs de fonds. Ce débat soulève une question centrale de la régulation des crypto-actifs : comment distinguer un logiciel neutre d'une intermédiation financière ? Les partisans des crypto-monnaies soutiennent que les développeurs publiant du code non-custodial ne devraient pas être régulés comme des plateformes d'échange. Les critiques, quant à eux, craignent que des exemptions trop larges ne rendent plus difficile le suivi des financements illicites. Le logiciel non-custodial est au cœur de la finance décentralisée (DeFi), permettant des transactions sans qu'une entreprise ne contrôle les fonds. Si cette architecture est un pilier de la valeur des crypto-actifs, elle pose aussi des défis pour les autorités lorsque des acteurs malveillants l'utilisent. L'opposition rencontrée par le CLARITY Act signifie que ses partisans devront répondre aux préoccupations concernant d'éventuelles lacunes favorisant la finance illicite. Cela pourrait conduire à des amendements, des protections plus limitées ou des obligations de déclaration supplémentaires. Pour l'industrie, l'enjeu est de taille : des règles plus claires pourraient stimuler les investissements, mais si le projet est perçu comme affaiblissant la lutte contre le crime, son adoption politique deviendra plus difficile.

bitcoinistIl y a 2 h

Des groupes catholiques et de l'application de la loi mettent en garde contre la loi CLARITY qui pourrait affaiblir les garde-fous contre la criminalité liée aux crypto-actifs

bitcoinistIl y a 2 h

L'histoire complète de Blockstream, la licorne de la cryptographie, profondément impliquée dans de graves fraudes

Depuis le début de l'année, Blockstream, la société cofondée par le pionnier du Bitcoin Adam Back, est sous le feu des critiques. Une enquête publiée début juin par NatInfoSec accuse la société d'avoir potentiellement levé des milliards de dollars via des billets de mine (BMN) liés à des revenus miniers, mais soulève des doutes sur la réalité des fermes de minage et de la puissance de calcul sous-jacente, évoquant des caractéristiques de type schéma de Ponzi. Les principaux points d'accusation sont les suivants : 1. **Capacité de minage et de paiement douteuses** : Pour honorer ses obligations, Blockstream aurait besoin d'une puissance de calcul bien supérieure (20-45 EH/s) à celle affichée sur son tableau de bord (15 EH/s). Aucune preuve publique (connexions électriques, importations de matériel, parts de pool minier) ne corrobore l'existence d'une infrastructure à cette échelle. Les clauses contractuelles permettraient de plus d'utiliser des bitcoins provenant de sources non divulguées pour les paiements. 2. **Rendements élevés et risque** : Les billets offriraient des rendements fixes allant jusqu'à environ 20% par an, ce qui est considéré comme très élevé et difficile à justifier dans le secteur cyclique du minage de Bitcoin. 3. **Antécédents et divulgation concernant Chris Cook** : Christopher William Cook, ancien responsable des opérations minières de Blockstream et actuel PDG d'Exacore (une entité scindée), a été condamné en 2008 pour fraude postale. Ce passé judiciaire n'aurait pas été divulgué dans les documents d'offre des BMN. Des allégations portent également sur des déclarations trompeuses concernant son expérience professionnelle. 4. **Implications potentielles pour BSTR** : L'enquête soulève des questions sur l'entreprise Bitcoin Standard Treasury (BSTR), liée à Adam Back, qui prévoit une introduction en bourse via SPAC, s'interrogeant sur la divulgation des risques liés aux BMN et sur d'éventuels conflits d'intérêts dans sa structure. La recherche BitMEX a apporté des nuances, confirmant probablement les antécédents de Cook et s'interrogeant sur les rendements, mais estimant que d'autres accusations manquaient de preuves ou étaient trompeuses, notamment concernant la séparation juridique entre les BMN et BSTR. Le débat dans la communauté s'est concentré sur la **vérifiabilité** : les investisseurs et observateurs peuvent-ils indépendamment vérifier la puissance de calcul, les revenus miniers réels et la source des paiements ? Malgré les prises de position divergentes, des questions cruciales sur les BMN demeurent sans réponse claire : leur taille réelle et leurs limites de responsabilité, l'adéquation entre la puissance minière et les obligations, l'origine des rendements élevés, la traçabilité des paiements en BTC, et le rôle exact de Chris Cook. Blockstream n'a pas encore publié de réponse systématique à ces allégations.

marsbitIl y a 6 h

L'histoire complète de Blockstream, la licorne de la cryptographie, profondément impliquée dans de graves fraudes

marsbitIl y a 6 h

Le collectif Reddit qui avait "short-squeezé" Wall Street a-t-il trouvé le prochain GME ?

En juin 2024, l'action de Wendy's (WEN) a connu une hausse significative après la diffusion d'un post populaire sur le forum Reddit r/wallstreetbets intitulé "We need to save Wendy's". Cette dynamique rappelle le phénomène des meme stocks, comme celui de GameStop (GME) en 2021. Le post, jouant sur un running gag de la communauté (le fait de devoir travailler chez Wendy's après de mauvais trades), a généré un fort engouement retail, se traduisant par un volume d'échanges anormalement élevé et une hausse de prix. WEN présente certains ingrédients classiques d'un "short squeeze" potentiel : un taux de ventes à découvert élevé (environ 32% des actions en circulation) et une attention communautaire soutenue. Cependant, l'article nuance fortement la comparaison avec le squeeze historique de GME. La structure est jugée moins extrême : le taux de découvert est significatif mais loin des niveaux de GME (qui avait dépassé 100%), et il manque pour l'instant des preuves solides d'un "gamma squeeze" auto-entrenenu via les options. L'élan actuel semble davantage être un "meme pop" à court terme, alimenté par l'attention et un faible prix de l'action, plutôt qu'un mouvement de fond structurel. L'histoire montre que Wendy's, par sa notoriété et son lien avec la culture WSB, est propice à ce genre de vague, mais que la volatilité qui en découle est souvent temporaire. La durabilité de la hausse dépendra de la persistance de la discussion en ligne, des volumes d'échanges sur plusieurs jours et surtout de l'activité sur le marché des options, qui pourrait, ou non, amplifier mécaniquement la tendance.

marsbitIl y a 6 h

Le collectif Reddit qui avait "short-squeezé" Wall Street a-t-il trouvé le prochain GME ?

marsbitIl y a 6 h

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片