I believe in Vitalik’s post above, he’s referring to a Schellingcoin economic security model. In the Schellingcoin model (and UMA’s), individual service providers do not issue data, but instead the entire protocol does – And so the entire protocol’s marketcap is on the line.
From your blog post:
Overall, oracle networks and applications based on them are more affected by PoS with:
- service provider business model
- direct correlation of data correctness and PoS mechanisms
- same high potential profit of being hacked
- lower staking requirement and lower cost of being slashed
I agree with you that the service provider business model, which uses a “small slash for a small misbehavior” approach, is troublesome. Another example would be the Venus exploit, which came as a result of Chainlink turning off support for LUNA price oracle, something you might expect to see from a Web2 SaaS product.