BeaconLayer Podcast

Accelerating Web3 builders, products, and networks.
Podcasting the conviction, craft, and scale behind them.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

Amid Venezuela's suspicious @Polymarket win, Rep. Ritchie Torres is fast-tracking his bill to bar officials from trading on nonpublic info.

Here's why getting prediction market rules right could shape their future as trusted tools — or exploits for our political elites.👇

~~ Analysis by @sachitakamura ~~

The Political Case

The argument for restricting public officials is straightforward: if politicians can legally profit from bets on outcomes they directly influence or have advance knowledge of, it twists incentives and erodes the already near-record low public trust in the U.S. government.

This dynamic already plays out in traditional securities markets, where the STOCK Act of 2012 was supposed to address congressional insider trading. The results have been underwhelming. Despite the law's existence, examples of suspicious trading by members of Congress have continued to surface with regularity:

- Senator Richard Burr sold $1.7M in stock immediately following a classified COVID-19 briefing; the DOJ later dropped the investigation without charges.
- Senator Kelly Loeffler offloaded millions in assets after the same confidential pandemic warning, yet faced no legal consequences when federal probes concluded.
- Senator Tommy Tuberville traded millions in defense contractor stocks and violated the STOCK Act's reporting deadline 132 times, yet faced no significant consequences.

Since the STOCK Act passed in 2012, not a single member of Congress has been prosecuted under its provisions, while the penalty for concealing trades is a trivial $200 fee, which ethics committees routinely waive.

Prediction markets present an even more direct temptation. Unlike stock trading, where connections between policy decisions and price movements can be complex and deniable, prediction markets offer explicit bets on government actions. Will a military intervention occur? Will a bill pass? The path from insider knowledge to profit proves incredibly clear.

While the specifics are still unclear,
@RitchieTorres

bill reportedly extends STOCK Act principles to prediction markets, hopefully with greater, more meaningful enforcement. Legal frameworks matter and must be established. Without clear rules explicitly covering prediction markets, prosecuting suspicious trades becomes even harder.

Why It Matters for Prediction Markets

The broader issue extends way beyond politicians.

Prediction markets generated over $44B in combined trading volume in 2025. They've proven their value as information aggregation tools — Polymarket's accuracy during the 2024 election cycle demonstrated what these platforms can do when they function properly.

Functionally, insider participation doesn't necessarily break these markets. The transparency of blockchain-based platforms means suspicious positions are visible. Traders can tail wallets showing unusual activity. Information still gets priced in, even if the source is questionable.

But reputation is a different matter. Prediction markets are still fighting for legitimacy with regulators, institutions, and the broader public. If the prevailing narrative becomes that these platforms are just another vehicle for connected insiders to profit from privileged information, the policy progression and mainstream adoption get harder when every major market move triggers headlines about who knew what and when.

There's also a pragmatic concern: if today's broadly crypto-friendly regulators don't work with platforms to address these issues, hostile administrations of the future could do so with a much heavier hand. The window for self-regulation and productive collaboration is now.

The Path Forward

None of this means prediction markets need heavy-handed regulation across the board. Skepticism toward regulatory overreach is warranted. But there's a meaningful difference between resisting regulatory capture and acknowledging that certain narrow restrictions serve everyone's interests.

Legally barring public officials from betting on outcomes they can influence falls squarely in the latter category. Few believe politicians should have new avenues to monetize their positions. The broader crypto community, which arose in part as a check against establishment abuse, has reason to support exactly this kind of accountability.

We don't yet know the full details of Torres's bill. The specifics will matter. But the direction is right. Prediction markets work because they aggregate dispersed information into prices, and that function can survive some insider activity. The bigger risk is reputational: repeated incidents of apparent insider trading invite the kind of regulatory scrutiny that could constrain the industry far more than targeted rules around public officials ever would.

The honest reality is that this behavior will likely continue regardless of what rules get passed. Enforcement is hard. Proving intent is harder.

But there's much to be said for establishing clear norms and for the transparency that blockchain-based markets provide. Every trade on Polymarket is visible. Wallet activity can be tracked. The same infrastructure that enables suspicious trades also enables scrutiny of them. Researchers and journalists can monitor for patterns. Communities can call out suspicious activity in real time.

These are formative years for these technologies, which, if stewarded well, will reshape how we aggregate information about uncertain futures. Getting the foundations right matters. Ensuring that government officials can't exploit these tools for personal profit seems like a reasonable place to start.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“DA layers really differ across three dimensions: performance, programmability, and AI-native design — because on-chain AI can’t operate in a world measured in mere megabytes per second.”

@sachitakamura catches up with @michaelh_0g, Founder of @0G_labs, to break down how 0G compares with Celestia, Avail, and EigenDA: why throughput needs to increase by orders of magnitude, how to move beyond the broadcast bottleneck, and why a decentralized storage network is essential for ultra-fast data ingestion and retrieval.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“After moving from Berlin to Silicon Valley, I found myself bored at a new school — so I started spending time at my dad’s SAP Lab: fast internet, endless reading, and the beginning of my love for technology.” Our host

@kenzi_mori sits down with @michaelh_0g (@0G_labs) to trace his origin story — from early curiosity and a growing obsession with tech to his path into Web3, and ultimately, the founding of his company.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“Back in 2016–17, crypto felt like a true idea factory — hundreds of experiments, zero gatekeeping, and pure creative energy.” Our host

@dikshananduri sits down with @michaelh_0g, Founder of @0G_labs, to explore one of the most exciting parts of building in Web3: a culture shaped by experimentation first. They also dive into how tokenization creates new ways to fund and sustain projects — including open-source work — beyond the limits of the traditional Web2 business model.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

This week’s episode features Michael Heinrich (@michaelh_0g), founder of 0GLabs (@0G_labs).

We dive into Michael’s journey from high school boredom to building 0G Labs, the first modular AI blockchain platform, and how an unconventional path shaped the way he thinks about leadership, focus, and company building.

The conversation explores how spiritual practices like meditation influenced Michael’s mindset as a founder, helping him build with more clarity, discipline, and long-term conviction.

Michael also breaks down the future of decentralized AI infrastructure, and why community-owned data and compute networks may become one of the most important foundations for the next era of artificial intelligence.

We dig into how 0G Labs is building AI blockchain tools and applications that connect decentralized networks, unlock data infrastructure, and make storage, machine learning, and AI systems more open for businesses and builders.

At its core, this episode is about the intersection of AI, crypto, data ownership, and founder psychology — and why the next wave of AI infrastructure may need to be decentralized from day one.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“What happens when someone inside one of the most iconic retail platforms of the last cycle sees its limits up close?”

@kenzi_mori speaks with @jayendra_jog, Co-Founder of @SeiNetwork, to trace the path that took him from the early days of @Robinhood in Palo Alto — through hypergrowth, the IPO era, and the shock of the GameStop moment — to building in crypto.

They discuss how witnessing the mechanics and constraints of traditional financial infrastructure firsthand reshaped his thinking, why the suspension of buys during one of retail’s most defining episodes left such a lasting impression, and how that experience ultimately pushed him toward systems designed to be more open, more resilient, and less dependent on centralized control.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“High-performance infrastructure only matters if it expands what users can actually do onchain — and makes that experience accessible at scale.”

@sachitakamura sits down with @jayendra_jog, Co-Founder of @SeiNetwork, to examine why parallelized execution is becoming increasingly important for the next generation of onchain applications.

From trading and DeFi to high-frequency user activity that simply breaks in low-throughput environments, they discuss how lower fees and greater execution capacity can fundamentally reshape the user experience — especially for smaller participants who are otherwise priced out.

They also explore how this plays out in practice through projects like Bancor’s Carbon DeFi, where Sei has emerged as the ecosystem driving the strongest activity and volume, underscoring how performance advantages translate into real adoption.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“Virtual machines are like cities — once they reach critical mass, they become magnets that are incredibly hard to displace.”

@dikshananduri catches up with @jayendra_jog, Co-Founder of @SeiNetwork, to unpack this idea at a deeper level — why systems with flaws can still dominate simply because that’s where the activity, liquidity, and people already are.

From New York and San Francisco to onchain environments like the EVM, they explore how network effects compound over time, why newer ecosystems struggle to pull users away even with better tech, and what it actually takes to break that inertia.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

This week’s episode features Jayendra Jog (@jayendra_jog), Founder of @SeiNetwork.

We dive into Jay’s journey from traditional finance at @Robinhood to building Sei Network, and unpack how his view of markets, users, and product feedback shaped the way he thinks about blockchain infrastructure.

The conversation explores the parallels between established cities and virtual machines: why dominant systems like the EVM are so difficult to displace, what makes developers stay, and what it actually takes for a new ecosystem to earn attention.

We also dig into the need for higher throughput in Web3, how parallelization can help solve today’s performance limits, and why scalability matters if crypto applications are going to serve real users at a much larger scale.

Jay also reflects on the role of memecoins, not just as speculation, but as community-driven movements that can reveal how culture, attention, and network effects form onchain.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

Selling crypto to cover expenses hurts: you trigger taxes and lose exposure.

DeFi borrowing fixes both. Instead of selling your ETH, lock it as collateral, borrow USDC instantly onchain, spend like cash, and stay long — no taxable event in the U.S.

And now, do this directly through Coinbase👇

~~ Analysis by @punk0360 ~~

This is an integration I can happily recommend to my family and friends, as @coinbase is one of the most trusted and easy-to-navigate crypto exchanges, while @Morpho is one of the most proven and dependable DeFi lending protocols.

With this integration, you can now borrow against your ETH without leaving the comfort of the Coinbase app. Assuming you already have some ETH holdings on Coinbase, you just:

1. Click on your ETH balance to bring up your Ethereum dashboard.

2. Scroll down to the "Borrow" tab and press "Start."

3. Review the primer info—your Borrow up to amount (based on your ETH deposited to Coinbase), the Variable rate (the fluctuating interest Morpho will charge on your loan), and the Liquidation LTV (the "loan-to-value" point at which your underlying ETH could be liquidated for repayment)—and then press "Continue."

4. Input the amount of USDC you want to borrow, then click "Review loan."

5. Check that your loan details are satisfactory. When ready, press "Borrow now," then "Accept and continue." Your loan will be submitted, though it may take a minute or two to finalize in Coinbase's UI.

That's all it takes to get started!

If you open a loan, navigate to your Coinbase "Cash" tab and in the "Borrow" section you'll see a "Manage Loans" button. Go here for the "Repay" option to pay back the USDC you borrowed over time.

These ETH-backed loans have a flexible term, so you don't have to pay back specific amounts per a specific schedule. Just repay whenever in whatever amounts suit you, though keep a close eye on your loan health to avoid liquidation.

Also, keep in mind that USDC borrowed on Coinbase can't be used for buying crypto on Coinbase, so this particular avenue is meant for cashing out and spending.

As far as DeFi onramps go, this integration is about as simple and safe as it gets. If you or someone you know hasn't gotten around to borrowing against ETH yet, this is certainly a good place to start.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

It's been one month since Hyperliquid's HIP-3 went live, letting anyone stake 500K $HYPE can now launch custom markets backed by the platform’s deep liquidity.

The result is an exchange where you can long or short anything: stocks via Trade or Felix, commodities, bonds via Aura, pre-IPOs via Ventuals, even Pokémon cards via Trove.

Learn how HIP-3 works and how it make impact Hyperliquid 👇

~~ Analysis by @DikshaNanduri ~~

The upgrade works like this: a deployer stakes 500K
$HYPE (~$19.3M at time of writing). They can then list three markets for free before entering an auction process to secure additional slots.

For each market they launch, the deployer sets leverage limits, configures the oracle, and manages key technicalities. To ensure acceptable standards, deployers risk having their stake slashed, though Hyperliquid notes this mechanism is temporary and expected to fade as standards and tooling improve.

Once live, the deployer earns 50% of the fees from their markets, with Hyperliquid taking the other half. To balance revenue, HIP-3 market fees are set at double those of standard markets, keeping @HyperliquidX's take roughly equivalent.

While most deployers are still building, early activity from just one HIP-3 market already live — to the tune of $1.3B in volume — paints a positive picture that the upgrade's potential may match its hype.

What Will the Impact of HIP-3 Be?

As a result of how it's designed, HIP-3 introduces new supply crunches on $HYPE, additional revenue for buybacks, and potentially increases rewards earned by stakers and traders.

➢ Locking up $HYPE: Each deployer must stake 500K
$HYPE, effectively removing that amount from circulation. The result is persistent buying pressure as new deployers acquire $HYPE to secure their slots. For example, Trove raised $20M to purchase $HYPE for its launch. Further, Hyperliquid Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs) like @HyperionDeFi and @HypeStrat have already begun exploring how to get involved in HIP-3, alleviating the threat of these vehicles dumping their tokens as we're seeing more DATs do.

➢ Additional revenue for buybacks: The 50/50 fee split on HIP-3 markets provides a new inflow to the protocol Assistance Fund, which uses 97% of all fees to buyback its token. Because HIP-3 market fees are set higher than standard ones, this stream will not be reduced by the split in fees with the deployer, potentially offering a significant source for $HYPE buybacks if even a handful of markets achieve sustained volume.

➢ Incentive Wars: A likely next phase is direct competition among deployers for trader flow, especially given the success of @tradexyz's XYZ100 HIP-3 market, which generated $100K in fees before it even reached two weeks. Expect escalating incentive programs — liquidity mining, fee rebates, staking boosts — as providers fight to draw and retain users. These will likely extend to $HYPE stakers too as validators vie for stake to participate in secondary economics like "exchange-as-a-service" models, where staking providers like @kinetiq_xyz essentially crowdsource $HYPE to lower the cost of launching a market.

Together, these dynamics tighten HYPE's supply, expand its buyback base, and create new competitive layers across the ecosystem.

How Could HIP-3 Fail?

HIP-3's success will depend on two things: quality markets launching, and those markets generating sustained demand.

Permissionless listings don't guarantee quality. A HIP-3 market is only as strong as its deployer — how they configure leverage, oracles, and risk parameters. Deploying non-crypto or thinly traded assets like stocks or bonds requires continuous data and stable pricing. Without that, markets face thin liquidity, wide spreads, and erratic execution that will quickly drive traders away.

Oracle providers like @redstone_defi are building hybrid systems that blend onchain and offchain data, maintaining live pricing even when the base asset isn't trading. HIP-3's architecture allows deployers to implement proper oracles into individual markets and tailor risk parameters accordingly.

But demand remains the harder part. As @felixprotocol's founder Charlie (@0xBroze) notes, the lion's share of Hyperliquid's volume comes from five markets, mostly composed of major assets like $BTC, $ETH, and $SOL.

Smaller assets tend to be left with little natural flow, meaning nascent, niche assets launched via HIP-3 will face a cold-start problem. Without early liquidity, traders hesitate; without traders, liquidity providers leave.

If simply introducing novel markets isn't enough to spark activity, deployers will need to experiment with market structures and pairs, introducing new collateral for perps or unique pair-markets like $BTC / $GOLD. Incentive programs should help smooth the initial launch, but in the end, these markets will have to stand on their own.

Ultimately, HIP-3's trajectory depends on the competence of its deployers. The framework is in place, but its outcome will hinge on whether deployers can build markets that trade well and sustain activity.

Final Thoughts

HIP-3 represents another structural bet on decentralization — a next step for Hyperliquid shifting responsibility for growth from the protocol to its participants.

Whether it succeeds will come down to the quality of the markets that launch, the liquidity they attract, and the flywheel effects that follow. If deployers can navigate those early hurdles, HIP-3 could define the next phase of onchain market design.

It doesn't need scale in the traditional sense to succeed. As Charlie noted, just a few high-performing markets could validate the model and materially impact both Hyperliquid's growth and $HYPE's price, with one firm, @FalconXGlobal, estimating $.8B in additional fees if HIP-3 captures less than one percent of Mag7 derivatives trading.

For the platform that keeps defying expectations, rising from a fully-bootstrapped team to become a protocol responsible for earning 35% of all blockchain revenue some months, the success of HIP-3 wouldn't be something I bet against.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

Last week, Ethereum’s ecosystem (L1 plus rollups) blasted through a new high, briefly hitting 24,000 transactions per second.

From 0.7 TPS in 2015 to regular spikes above 10,000 TPS today on @growthepie_eth, the modular bet is delivering explosive gains after a decade of building.

Welcome to Ethereum’s exponential age.👇

~~ Analysis by @punk0360 ~~

To be sure, the bulk of this current TPS surge is stemming from Lighter, the newer perps L2 whose custom appchain architecture minimizes what data touches Ethereum.

@Lighter_xyz just posts compressed state diffs and proofs to the L1 while keeping its high-frequency order flow offchain. This zk appchain design is unique in the rollups scene today, but more teams will experiment with this model and extend it in new directions.

Beyond this design evolution, Ethereum's roadmap has plenty of ecosystem-wide advances on the way that will help push performance gains. Foremost to mind is PeerDAS, which the Fusaka upgrade will bring to mainnet next month.

PeerDAS will be a powerful upgrade, as it's projected to facilitate around an 8x increase in Ethereum's blob capacity. With improved data availability, rollups are set to march past 1 million in ecosystem TPS in short order.

For instance, @base hit 1,500 TPS in June 2025 with Ethereum's current blob limits. Blob capacity going up 8x makes 10,000+ TPS feasible for the L2 at some point next year.

This math applies to zk appchains like Lighter, too. If Lighter can handle ~45,000 TPS today, it can potentially pass 350,000 TPS in 2026. Of course, there will be impactful project-level advances as well. ZKsync's upcoming Atlas upgrade has the potential to facilitate 15,000+ TPS for ZK Stack L2s. And that's just one stack and one upgrade.

So yes, Ethereum is scaling horizontally, and the prospects here are impressive. But Ethereum also has considerable vertical scaling potential. There are ongoing efforts, like EIP-7938 and "Lean Ethereum," that can help the L1 reach 10,000 TPS in its own right.

With this "all of the above" approach, we can dream big. We can build a new substrate for all the world's commerce and culture. And all of that builder potential is possible precisely because Ethereum is going tall and wide in its scaling.

This is the endgame: many chains spreading out to the horizon in every direction for any need, all anchored around an incredibly secure and robust network that's worthy of powering an entire civilization.

The progress here is clear. Meanwhile, the Ethereum community will continue to create its own destiny, just as it always has. We know the path forward, and nothing can stop us now.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

For Bitcoin holders, this year’s been a bitter draft — gold blasting to $4.4K/oz with endless all-time highs, while "digital gold" barely scrapes by.

Marketed as a superior store of value, $BTC’s 3x underperformance in a safe-haven surge stings hard.

Is gold’s rally a 70-100 day lead-in to Bitcoin’s boom, or the cycle’s final curtain? Here’s how to decode it.👇

~~ Analysis by @eliasselborg ~~

What's Going on with Gold?

Gold's relentless 2025 performance can be attributed to unprecedented central bank buying, driven by inflation concerns, geopolitical tension, and a fundamental shift in how central banks think about reserves.

Central banks had their second largest Q1 gold purchases on record this year. Poland added 67 tonnes amid the Ukraine conflict. Turkey picked up 19.5 tonnes as its currency weakens. China continues to quietly accumulate amid tensions with the U.S., swapping out U.S. Treasuries, while in Shanghai, gold futures volumes have tripled since early 2024.

Gold is increasingly replacing U.S. Treasuries as the "riskless" asset in global portfolios. With mounting U.S. debt and political dysfunction, central banks are diversifying. Some reports suggest gold has even flipped Treasuries to become the number one central bank reserve asset globally.

Why? Gold doesn't carry counterparty risk and can't be printed or devalued by central bank decisions. In an era where trust in institutions is eroding, that matters.

Still, gold is showing signs of being clearly overbought. Parabolic moves like this rarely end smoothly, which raises the question: what does a gold rally of this magnitude actually signal?

What Have Gold Rallies Meant in the Past?

Similar rallies have signaled different outcomes. Sometimes gold's parabolic moves have preceded major crises. Other times, they've set the stage for broader risk-on rallies, with Bitcoin following months later.

The Bear Case: Late-Cycle Behavior

Gold surges often coincide with late-cycle uncertainty. From 2007 to 2008, gold spiked as the subprime crisis unraveled. In 1999 and 2000, gold shot up ~34% as the dot-com bubble burst and recession followed.

While today is different, there's a parallel level of unease against the backdrop of geopolitical tension and economic uncertainty. Steep climbs tend to end in sharp corrections. Gold experienced this in 2010 and 2011 when it surged 70% before collapsing 45%.

But is this really a late-cycle warning? Gold similarly rallied during 2020's COVID crisis, but that surge led to recovery, not prolonged downturn. Central banks are now accumulating over 1K tonnes per year amid a structural shift away from dollar reserves.

The Bull Case: Gold as a Leading Indicator for Bitcoin

Evidence suggests that when gold breaks out, Bitcoin has followed, usually with a lag of 70-100 days.

The clearest example is 2020. Gold surged to $2,075 amid pandemic uncertainty. About 85 days later, Bitcoin began its climb from $5K to $10K, then exploded 590% to hit $64K by early 2021. A similar situation happened last August, with gold ripping to new all time highs while Bitcoin lagged for about two months before surging come November.

If the historical pattern holds, gold's rally could be setting up Bitcoin's next leg higher. Once gold peaks, capital could flow into Bitcoin as investors shift from defensive positioning to offensive plays.

The key is recognizing that gold moves first in debasement trades, and Bitcoin follows once the narrative crystallizes. While past performance doesn't dictate future results, gold's run is not a death sentence for Bitcoin.

Things to Consider

Whether you believe gold's rally signals late-cycle risk or sets up Bitcoin's next move, it's worth understanding what these assets do in a portfolio.

Gold is a preservation tool that maintains purchasing power. It can't be printed or manipulated by central banks, providing an anchor when other assets fail.

➢ A portfolio with 5% gold and 95% S&P 500 returned 152% since 2018
➢ A portfolio with 5% Bitcoin and 95% S&P 500 returned 199%
➢ At 10% allocations, gold delivered 155% while Bitcoin hit 253%

Gold provides stability during uncertainty. Bitcoin, still growing into this role, behaves with more volatility but significantly outperforms. If your goal is wealth preservation, gold makes sense. If you're willing to stomach volatility for outsized returns, Bitcoin remains the better bet.

So, while Bitcoin holders might feel frustrated watching gold gains, if history repeats itself, that frustration could be short-lived.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“We focused on four core areas: finance, gaming, social, and entertainment — but DeFi on @Aptos has seen the strongest traction.”

@sachitakamura sits down with @averyching to unpack Aptos’ real-world use cases and why DeFi has emerged as the breakout category: the safety of Move, the composability that allows products to plug into larger protocols, and an ecosystem that is now beginning to hit meaningful momentum.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“Bitcoin was the first distributed systems paper I read with an economic layer built into it — and that changed everything.”

@kenzi_mori catches up with @averyching, Co-Founder & CTO of @Aptos, to trace his journey from high-performance computing and supercomputers, to scaling data infrastructure at Meta, to discovering Bitcoin and realizing that crypto was distributed systems with incentives natively embedded — the insight that ultimately led him to co-found Aptos Labs.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“What inspires you to get up and build every day? For me, it’s pushing Web3 forward — making blockchain a true public utility for everyone.”

@dikshananduri sits down with @averyching (Co-Founder & CTO of @Aptos) to talk about what drives him: building the next era of the internet where blockchain brings ownership back to users and enables permissionless, trustless transactions that connect people globally.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

New episode out today featuring @AveryChing - Co-Founder & CTO of @Aptos.

We explore the intersection of crypto and Al, Aptos' fundraising journey, how the network compares to other Layer 1s such as Solana and Ethereum, and what lies ahead for the Move programming language.

Avery also shares his perspective on decentralized use cases, Aptos' long-term ambitions, and how more than a decade spent scaling distributed systems at Meta — including his work on the Diem blockchain — continues to shape his vision for the future of Web3 infrastructure.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

There's a war brewing in Bitcoin world over whether "arbitrary data" — non-financial data like images and text — should be allowed on the blockchain 👇

~~ Analysis by @kenzi_mori ~~

This is the same debate that's been going on since @ercwl and @udiWertheimer trolled a large part of the Bitcoin community with their Taproot Wizards project, which productized the extra space in blocks and allowed anyone to have their "magic internet JPEGs" inscribed forever on the Bitcoin blockchain.

The opposition is fighting back, and we now have a name for this camp: Bitcoin Knots.

This is the camp of @LukeDashjr, perhaps the most hardcore Bitcoin monetary maximalist and anti-shitcoiner. The "knots" name is an explicit Biblical reference to the "whip of knots" that was used by Jesus to expel the money changers from the Temple...

The Knots camp's argument:

Arbitrary data in the Bitcoin blockchain is an irresponsibly risky use of Bitcoin resources. Bitcoin code should exclusively serve the use of BTC as money. If arbitrary data is allowed, an attacker could flood Bitcoin with transactions that include illegal data (namely, child pornography) that would cause anyone running a Bitcoin node to be prosecuted.

In theory, an attacker could load CP into Bitcoin transactions, meaning Bitcoin nodes would all download this "arbitrary data," and anyone running a node would find themselves transmitting and in possession of CP. This would make running Bitcoin illegal and would be a censorship attack on the network.

It might sound farcical, but this is actually how the argument goes.

The tradeoff Bitcoin Knots want is to censor the types of transactions that Bitcoin users can make so that node-operators are protected from censorship due to processing arbitrary non-BTC-spend data.

Bitcoin Core, on the other hand, is saying that morality and policy should not be conflated, and that Bitcoin Core ought to be neutral software and be unopinionated about the data that the market decides to place in its UTXOs. Core is also the 'default mode' of what Bitcoin is today.

I do find elements of the Knots side compelling.

Not because the state-level censorship and CP transmission worries are valid, but simply because Bitcoin is ultimately just an app-chain for BTC, and taking a monetary maximalist approach seems right.

Bitcoin is for bitcoins, always has been, always will.

But the point of this article is to highlight that Ethereum has taken a radically different approach to essentially the same issue.

Ethereum's Fork-Choice Enforced Inclusion Lists (FOCIL)

FOCIL is the mechanism that @ethereum core devs want to implement to solve Ethereum's censorship problem.

With the OFAC sanctioning of Tornado Cash, parts of the Ethereum tech stack started censoring Tornado Cash transactions.

FOCIL makes sure "important but ignored" transactions still get into blocks, even if a builder or proposer would prefer to censor them.

1. In each Ethereum slot, a small committee of validators scans the mempool and publishes "Inclusion Lists" (ILs) of transactions they think should be included.

2. The next slot's proposer builds the block and can order transactions as they see fit, but must include the IL transactions.

3. Attesters can only vote for blocks that satisfy the ILs. If they don't see the IL transactions, the block won't be voted on, won't be built on, and the block builder doesn't get the reward.

This removes the exclusive power of transaction inclusion from just block builders to a wider variety of staking participants.

So, in stark contrast to Bitcoin Knots, Ethereum's strategy is to force everyone to download all the data.

Rather than attempting to censor data, Ethereum is forcing the entire network to download all fee-paying transactions, regardless of the data contained in them.

It's worth pausing and reflecting on how hardcore this is.

There are different ways to be a cypherpunk, and some are more radical than others. Ethereum's strategy of forcing transaction inclusion is pretty hardcore.

Ethereum doesn't give you an option. You include the transactions, or you don't get the reward. And if you don't get the reward, why are you bothering to stake at all?

Include or die.

To what degree all of this matters, or is deep-crypto-tech nerd shit... idk it remains to be seen. Maybe this attack vector never comes to fruition and the choice to include arbitrary data is more innocuous than Luke Dashjr makes it out to be. After all, we've had arbitrary data in Bitcoin and Ethereum since their respective genesis blocks, so why would this all start now?

I'll leave this all for the reader to ponder. Meanwhile, please appreciate one of my favorite bits of arbitrary data in Bitcoin, which is the first ever Bitcoin inscription, inscribed in block 767753:

Dickbutt.

[BeaconLayer Podcast @BeaconLayerHQ]

“Back then I was nerding out on central banking—then I showed up at MIT and ended up mining Ethereum from my dorm room.”

@kenzi_mori catches up with @annakaz (@Vana) about her early arc: how a straight-line interest in institutions and monetary policy flipped into crypto after she found the small, ideology-heavy MIT Bitcoin crowd—right as Ethereum was starting to take off.