Solanas issue is not failure to produce a high throughput network for protocol development, but that high performance consensus architecture concentrates value around speed while leaving the deeper questions of issuance, real holder accrual and transaction resilience structurally fucked
If we wanted to do in-protocol funding, this is the best way to do it. It's valid to ask whether we want it at all, but surely it's good to have a contingency plan we can activate if needed?
I've been a bit disappointed with both @not_qz who just said it's "dumb" without giving specifics and @lex_node who has me blocked so i can't respond to any of his arguments
Why is this the best way to do it? The plan doesn't touch issuance at all , there's no BS token voting nonsense & solves alignment since validators are parting with money they could have otherwise kept as profit
better takes, some good points are by @pepemon42069 who said we should just make contributing to Ethereum more fun so more OS hobbyists work on Ethereum, bypassing need for payment which can attract mercs. Or @banteg who doesn't want to overload the consensus layer
But surely getting our "best wrong answer" for in protocol funding is good?
@devanshmehta@not_qz Idk what the fuck any other layer 1 is doing trying to steal our democracy and security, our value and our adulthood. They all remain incapable and a rip off compared to ETH