According to Buterin, staking is not a casual activity but a commitment to defend the network. In that light, frictions such as exit delays serve as safeguards.
“An army cannot hold together if any percent of it can suddenly leave at any time,” he wrote, stressing that Ethereum’s reliability depends on ensuring validators cannot abandon their role instantaneously.
However, Buterin conceded that the current design is not perfect. Nevertheless, he argued:
“That’s not to say that the current staking queue design is optimal, rather that if you reduce the constants naively then that makes the chain much less trustworthy from the PoV of any node that does not go online very frequently.”
He explained that the wait time protects against worst-case scenarios, such as coordinated validator attacks where participants might attempt to exit before facing slashing penalties.
Considering this, Kannan warned:
“Unstaking cannot be instantaneous.”
He continued that shortening the process to a matter of days could expose Ethereum to attacks that drain its security assumptions.
By contrast, the longer window allows for detecting and punishing malicious behavior such as double-signing. This design ensures that misbehaving validators cannot easily escape accountability.
Kannan highlighted that this buffer allows inactive nodes to reconnect and periodically validate the correct fork. He argued that competing forks could each claim to be valid without such a mechanism, leaving offline nodes unable to determine the truth when rejoining.
He concluded:
“Instead of having a fixed long unstaking period, ethereum engineered its exit queue to be instantaneous if only a small amount of stake withdrew in a given period. But if lot of stake wants to withdraw the queue builds up – worst case to several months.”
