Bobby Belev

All about the future of money, evolution and psychology... Early blockchain investor, founder previously co-founder

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@Innerdevcrypto @MustStopMurad https://t.co/RbKp7d6X54

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@Innerdevcrypto which country did you build your eco farm in

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@caprioleio It's too late for a flippening, the network effect is in BTC. It may be a nice speculation for some time but unlikely more than that

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@Innerdevcrypto What is the key benefits of owning an eco farm like the ones you have in mind?

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@AriDavidPaul sure, the stage now is "it feels silly/stupid to believe in long term success" but let's just hold some bag just in case. This is bottom dispair

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@mdudas @serpinxbt are these numbers real or they just recycle tokens from one pocket to another. The net dollar buying of the token is not very high despite high revenue. The revenue just compensates for inflation no?

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@laurashin @nic_carter @austincampbell doesn't make sense, Kyle is not so rich to create such a selloff and not so stupid to market sell at such a low sentiment point...

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@cryptomanran @KyleSamani Show me a VC fund which is good for the same period. You are just sour for not being accepted in fund 3. Show your trades to compare. Changing thesis is good after a an apparent regime change in the industry.

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@grok @DeanEigenmann @grok the big liquidation happened on Oct 10th 2025 so this entity must have had these assets of $100M+ already in Q3 2025 and they must have been reported already. Why would know more with this upcoming filing?

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@grok @DeanEigenmann @grok would it reveal them if these assets no longer exist or they file for a specific period

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@VinnyLingham @ZeroHedge_ @CalebFranzen Q&A worth watching, MSTR can withstand a much bigger drop IMO https://t.co/NxBVokRdhY

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@caprioleio He has the most incentive of everyone to do something. His conclusion is that quantum is 10+ years away though. Premature hurrying can also be harmful. Bitcoin will outlive this.

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@KyleSamani @multicoin Thanks for your work Kyle!

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@nic_carter @kale_abe How do we solve Bitcoin's reduced capacity when Falcon is 15x, ML-DSA is 35x and SHRINCSis 5x larger than ECDSA?

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@VinnyLingham me neither, but stocks are also high, including risky higher beta indexes while bitcoin underperforms significantly vs every major benchmark since liberation day and esp since Oct 10th

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

@TheBlueMatt @nic_carter Thanks for the answer Matt! What is the scaling solution when PQC signatures are 5x-265x ECDSA. SHRINCS are the most efficient at 5x, so they reduce Bitcoin's capacity by 80%. SHRINCS is also more complex to code than a pure SLH-DSA and complexity is the enemy of security

[Bobby Belev @bbelev]

Significant pivot! Congrats 🙌

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

There have recently been some discussions on the ongoing role of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem, especially in the face of two facts:

* L2s' progress to stage 2 (and, secondarily, on interop) has been far slower and more difficult than originally expected
* L1 itself is scaling, fees are very low, and gaslimits are projected to increase greatly in 2026

Both of these facts, for their own separate reasons, mean that the original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path.

First, let us recap the original vision. Ethereum needs to scale. The definition of "Ethereum scaling" is the existence of large quantities of block space that is backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum - that is, block space where, if you do things (including with ETH) inside that block space, your activities are guaranteed to be valid, uncensored, unreverted, untouched, as long as Ethereum itself functions. If you create a 10000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum.

This vision no longer makes sense. L1 does not need L2s to be "branded shards", because L1 is itself scaling. And L2s are not able or willing to satisfy the properties that a true "branded shard" would require. I've even seen at least one explicitly saying that they may never want to go beyond stage 1, not just for technical reasons around ZK-EVM safety, but also because their customers' regulatory needs require them to have ultimate control. This may be doing the right thing for your customers. But it should be obvious that if you are doing this, then you are not "scaling Ethereum" in the sense meant by the rollup-centric roadmap. But that's fine! it's fine because Ethereum itself is now scaling directly on L1, with large planned increases to its gas limit this year and the years ahead.

We should stop thinking about L2s as literally being "branded shards" of Ethereum, with the social status and responsibilities that this entails. Instead, we can think of L2s as being a full spectrum, which includes both chains backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum with various unique properties (eg. not just EVM), as well as a whole array of options at different levels of connection to Ethereum, that each person (or bot) is free to care about or not care about depending on their needs.

What would I do today if I were an L2?

* Identify a value add other than "scaling". Examples: (i) non-EVM specialized features/VMs around privacy, (ii) efficiency specialized around a particular application, (iii) truly extreme levels of scaling that even a greatly expanded L1 will not do, (iv) a totally different design for non-financial applications, eg. social, identity, AI, (v) ultra-low-latency and other sequencing properties, (vi) maybe built-in oracles or decentralized dispute resolution or other "non-computationally-verifiable" features
* Be stage 1 at the minimum (otherwise you really are just a separate L1 with a bridge, and you should just call yourself that) if you're doing things with ETH or other ethereum-issued assets
* Support maximum interoperability with Ethereum, though this will differ for each one (eg. what if you're not EVM, or even not financial?)

From Ethereum's side, over the past few months I've become more convinced of the value of the native rollup precompile, particuarly once we have enshrined ZK-EVM proofs that we need anyway to scale L1. This is a precompile that verifies a ZK-EVM proof, and it's "part of Ethereum", so (i) it auto-upgrades along with Ethereum, and (ii) if the precompile has a bug, Ethereum will hard-fork to fix the bug.

The native rollup precompile would make full, security-council-free, EVM verification accessible. We should spend much more time working out how to design it in such a way that if your L2 is "EVM plus other stuff", then the native rollup precompile would verify the EVM, and you only have to bring your own prover for the "other stuff" (eg. Stylus). This might involve a canonical way of exposing a lookup table between contract call inputs and outputs, and letting you provide your own values to the lookup table (that you would prove separately).

This would make it easy to have safe, strong, trustless interoperability with Ethereum. It also enables synchronous composability (see: https://t.co/9jy6v1X6Fw and https://t.co/gZmu3YjebM ). And from there, it's each L2's choice exactly what they want to build. Don't just "extend L1", figure out something new to add.

This of course means that some will add things that are trust-dependent, or backdoored, or otherwise insecure; this is unavoidable in a permissionless ecosystem where developers have freedom. Our job should make to make it clear to users what guarantees they have, and to build up the strongest Ethereum that we can.