@Ask_CarpeDiem@_proxystudio@AskSurplus You really need to fix things first. I'm a provider, my daily DIEM isn't even fully used (~18% still available, while the platform claims 0% capacity left) and more importantly: 0 dollars payout! Not the first time it has arrived, so please investigate and fix.
Unfortunately this proposal doesn't achieve the outcome it tries to achieve and is actually hurtful for Ethereum.
It caps Ethereum staking rewards to 0% when over 50% of supply staked.
What this mean is that Ethereum staking yield becomes unpredictable and even fully uneconomical activity for many, which is a negative factor for any institutional buyer who would considering taking ETH position (instead of other networks with predictable cash flows). This uncertainty has a significant adoption cost.
This also means unpredictable yield for solo stakers who might be even more sensitive on pricing.
For DeFi, with moving to 0% reward, this essentially makes ETH borrowing strategies mostly unviable and killing ETH borrowing and yield use-cases for ETH (only reason to borrow ETH ironically would be to short it). The only way to get ETH yield would be to stake, lock into a time period (instead of instant withdrawals in DeFi) and also have hopium ETH doesn't reach 50% staked of supply.
My concern is also that those who are fine with ETH beta and yield might also sell ETH for other yielding assets such as stables for yield, very common move when rates go down in TradFi, funds flowing from stables to equities but here we will have the other way around. Could be good for DeFi but not for ETH in DeFi.
From my personal take, this just makes ETH less viable as an asset and restricts its potential. I hope this proposal doesn't move fwd, otherwise we see lot of people moving their interest in other networks. There are many who share the same view.
Ethereum should not be punished for its growth.
This is so disappointing on every level.
EIP released with 48 hours notice for comments. Realistically 4 months before it goes live. For a major network economics change with far reaching implications for all of DeFi.
Every builder on Ethereum opposes this. Why is this a focus?
None of the reasoning makes any damn sense.
This will self evidently push out solo stakers who aren't subsidized by the EF or others. It will essentially guarantee that the only ones staking are large centralized entities with zero cost of capital where users passively hold their ETH. Why?
It will obviously kill a huge chunk of DeFi which is built around the staking ecosystem. Seven of the top 10 DeFi protocols with face a capital exodus. Why?
Is the idea that a 0.8% reduction in issuance is somehow going to help ETH price? People who stake ETH don't sell it. This change will halt any new ETH getting staked and realistically will result in tens of billions of $ of ETH getting unstaked and entering into the market, not to mention the implosion of the core Ethereum use case. Why?
Is the concern that liquid staking tokens, which intermediate about a quarter of staked ETH, displace ETH as money? This reasoning betrays a cash-accounting level of understanding of the economy, as if only M1 counts as real money. LSTs serve as valuable building blocks, and in fact implement a lot of user protections that would not be appropriate to do at the network level. At a near zero cost of 10-15 bps.
I say this as a builder on Ethereum, not as someone who stands to benefit from staking issuance. I don't have much at risk here. Almost all of @ether_fi revenue is now coming from vaults and payments, staking is a small (and shrinking) part of our business.
This is bad for decentralization, this is bad for Ethereum adoption, and this is bad for the credibility of the network to roll things out this way.
This reinforces the Ethereum critics' position that the network is run by a small group of insiders with no regard for the actual users and builders on the chain. I can say that neither I nor any builder I know was asked for feedback on this before it went live.
Any nation state or large institution looking at this will justifiably have a dramatic loss of confidence in the governance and stability of Ethereum.
💥NEW: ROMAN STORM, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD
We got to spend a day with Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm ahead of his hearing for acquittal.
Today, we are publishing the images we took. Free to use. For anyone. For anything. Forever.
https://t.co/Ea4g4ainFX
@KEmmra Extremely well written. Didn't know that moving from hybrid PoW/PoS to fully private PoS would make the chain that much faster. Seems it will synergize well with DeFi/Dex integration allowed with upcoming Gateway Addresses, thanks for the article.
Roger Ver was right about everything.
He was right about Blockstream, scaling, the Feds hijacking Bitcoin - all of it.
For this, he was attacked, prosecuted, robbed and silenced.
The crypto community doesn’t deserve him.
Trump says the war on crypto is over — but is it? Privacy developers are still being prosecuted.
Roman Storm faces prison for writing open-source code.
Ian Freeman is serving 8 years for peer-to-peer Bitcoin sales.
Roman Sterlingov sits imprisoned over disputed forensics.
Samourai Wallet’s founders are in prison for building non-custodial software.
🔗 https://t.co/rBDyKMwpty