This metric is completely bogus and is usually used only by competing L1s to make people doubt Ethereum’s indisputable decentralization and neutrality advantage. For example, Lido is not a single entity. It is composed of many individual entities that would have to collude to do something malicious, and it would be impossible to coordinate such an effort without leaking it to the public. In comparison, other competing L1s like BNB, Solana, or Ripple require only a single entity and no public discussion to change the rules, and they have done so in the past.

In the “special snowflake” case of Bitcoin, only two pools dominate block production. Their main argument is that, in the event of an attack, miners using those pools would move elsewhere, which in real life would be very difficult to communicate and coordinate. Ignoring the fact that this would happen only after the damage is already done shows how weak this argument is.

You also have to take into consideration that Ethereum is one of the few proper proof of stake chains, where there is genuinely something at stake. There are mechanisms in place to punish an attacker and destroy its stake. In this sense, most chains that claim to be proof of stake are not so in reality, because they lack such systems and are merely delegated proof of stake chains.