I understand the responsibility of good treasury management, but more concerned on the how these sequencer fees are staked on Ethereum. As @Gonna.eth already laid out in his post, step-by-step decisions are important because voices like mine can be heard rather than just presenting options that are pretty much exactly the same in terms of staking diversity. I think there are some things to think about when you’re allocating ETH for staking if you prefer not to do it yourselves.
As a protocol L1 dev, I can’t reiterate the importance of not centralizing stake. By going with centralized exchanges and centralized custodians, you actually inherit more risk for protocol health that isn’t seen on the surface when things are going well. Higher APR (generally from centralizing stake) comes with higher risks - the risk that the staking providers are using majority clients and are exposed to larger penalties should things like client bugs get deployed and parts of the network suffer from inactivity penalties. Luckily we’ve only had one non-finality incident on mainnet which didn’t amount to huge losses, but running majority clients Prysm and Teku at the time incurred some penalties.
I would also like you to understand that should mainnet ever experience anything similar to what happened on Holesky during the Pectra fork, that the way some of these larger providers are setup (running only 1 or 2 majority clients like Coinbase), is setting themselves up for potential trouble should mainnet ever experience turbulence.
I think there needs to be more conversation or more options before continuing to just hand over large amounts of stake to large entities and further centralizing it.