John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸|

Engineer. Libertarian. Immigrant 2x. Accelerationist. Obliterating trolls with facts and logic. Digital Assets Strategy @WisdomTree. Tweets are mine.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@preston_vanloon Anything that harms Ethereum's decentralization is bad. Whatever is done should, at a minimum, be net neutral. Or preferably, a net positive to decentralization.

Native delegation would be a very good start.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@Rainmaker1973 Bastards.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@PounderJane1 You are being invaded.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@JohnCleese That's genius marketing...

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@wmougayar The EIP authors are confusing high stake with stake composition (aka Nakamoto coefficient). The latter matters far more and will be severely negatively impacted by this EIP.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@coinbureau He is 100% right.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@CoinMarketCap He's 100% right.

[William Mougayar @wmougayar]

12 Points Dumbing Down the ETH Issuance Reduction Debate: A Strategic (and Realistic) Review

1. Wrong lever. If the goal is capping staking levels, crushing yield to near-zero is a blunt instrument. You're fixing centralization by accelerating it. A double-edged sword cuts both ways.

2. The inflation is already tame. Net of burns, ETH sits below 0.5% annual inflation. Compared to the 2% economists consider healthy, Ethereum's monetary policy is already conservative. The emergency isn't there.

3. You're defunding the ecosystem. Staking yields have quietly replaced EF grants as a funding engine for Ethereum development. Cutting them mid-cycle, while the EF is already pulling back, removes a pillar nobody has publicly accounted for.

4. LSTs aren't the enemy. Liquid staking tokens drive DeFi innovation, deepen onchain liquidity, and generate fee burn. The narrative that LST dominance is an existential risk ignores what LSTs actually produce for the network.

5. Security is insurance, not overhead. You don't cut insurance because the house hasn't burned down. A well-compensated, broadly distributed validator set is exactly what Ethereum's credibility as global settlement infrastructure requires.

6. Wrong conversation entirely. This debate obsesses over the bottom line. Ethereum's future is won by growing the top line: more apps, more users, more usage, more fee burn. Nail that, and this whole discussion becomes a footnote.

7. The Fed doesn't move 150bps in one meeting for a reason: it's foolish. Concurrently, jumping from .8% to 0.5% based on theoretical curves is a foolish move. Hypothetically, a step from 0.8% to 0.7% with a pre-committed trigger tied to the staking ratio is more sound monetary policy.

8. It won't dent Lido. Lido adapts faster than Ethereum's twice-yearly upgrade cycle. Every yield adjustment re-equilibrates at the same rate for all players. The dominant one wins that race every time.

9. The room is too small. Decisions of this magnitude are being driven by cryptography engineers in All Core Devs forums, deliberately insulated from the market practitioners, economists, and institutional voices who understand what these changes do in the real world.

10. Touch EIP-1559 before touching staking. If issuance needs adjusting, the fee and burn architecture has some room for innovation. The sacred staking yield should be the last lever pulled, not the first.

11. Worst possible timing. At ~$1,900 per ETH, compressing staking yield is asking validators to absorb pain while already underwater. At $6–8K (closer to ETH's intrinsic value), the same change might be a minor inconvenience against a backdrop of 20–30% annual appreciation.

12. Theory meets market: it loses. The unspoken risk: if the issuance cut lands while macro conditions deteriorate, rates stay high, sentiment turns risk-off, the institutional absorption bid collapses exactly when exit sell pressure peaks. The medium-term benefits evaporate. That scenario isn't modeled anywhere in this proposal. That's the real cost of inaction on intellectual honesty.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@JohnCleese Dude, please save your country. We need the Brits for civizilation to be salvageable.

[Arynne Wexler @ArynneWexler]

What people need to realize is that burqas don't only "cover" women

They also cover up physical abuse

They cover a woman's face to communicate for help

They are a physical fashion signal to remove a woman from society

Quite the feminist issue for the Left to support

[itamar @itamarl]

Why spend energy on EIP-8361?

We have a mechanism to reduce issuance: EIP-1559.

Instead of working on issuance reengineering that will have no impact on ETH price (or likely downward pressure), we should make Ethereum a usable chain for financial applications at scale.

We need higher throughput, sub-1s confirmation and privacy. Everything else is a distraction.

[The Defiant @DefiantNews]

There's Now a $1M Bet on EIP-8363:

@ether_fi CEO @MikeSilagadze offers a $1M public bet on EIP-8363:

"If this goes through, the network will be dramatically more concentrated as a result."

His case: Coinbase, Binance, BitMine and SharpLink have no cost of capital. Solo stakers do.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@joechalom DeFi is Ethereum's superpower.

What is the reason for wanting to kill it? That's the bigger question really.

[Joseph Chalom @joechalom]

https://t.co/EdLGKCJtsU

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

Will the EIP-8363 issuance debate result in a contentious Ethereum fork?

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@MikeSilagadze A key asumption is that staking itself survives, no?

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@wmougayar Hits the nail on the head.

[William Mougayar @wmougayar]

Ethereum's most consequential monetary decision is being dressed up as a math problem. So much for the idea that perfect theory equals common sense. https://t.co/foOofWxFtn

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@lex_node The best way to reduce the number of validators would be via a massive migration to 0x02 and EIP-8148: Custom sweep threshold for validators.

[John W. |🇮🇪🇺🇸🇪🇸| @_JohnWhelan]

@StaniKulechov And completely ignores the surge of RWAs onto public blockchains. How is a tradfi supposed to plan on something where the underlying economic security for its trillion dollar dream is fundamentally at risk? It's a self-own of the same degree as ignoring scaling of the L1.