consensuslemma

consensus dilemmas

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

very true but also the other side is emotionally charged. we all ought to improve our ability to productive discourse!

[remyroy @remy_roy]

A lot of people against changing issuance on Ethereum are using emotionally charged or fallacious arguments. If you want to be taken seriously, stick with the facts and appeal to everyone's reason. I'll be way more interested in what you want to convey.

Avoid these:

[Jorge @jmiehau]

Ethereum staking has a heater and no thermostat.

The heater is the reward curve, it pulls ETH in and it never lets up. Past 30 percent staked and rising, nothing in the protocol says when to ease off. 8363 is the thermostat.

As the staked share climbs toward half of all supply, the reward fades toward zero and stake stops growing where dilution no longer pays for it. Nobody gets kicked out, validators keep fees and MEV. The room just stops getting hotter.

The current curve will happily heat past 50 percent and keep going. There is no number where it shuts off, ask whoever defends it to name one.

[Lion ⟠ dapplion .eth @dapplion]

How to publicly admit that the network has been captured by a small group of interested parties

Is holding ETH still economically aligned with the upside of the network?

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@DCinvestor Stakers are service providers to Ethereum. Research & coredev serve Ethereum. To the extent this overlaps with stakers (which it does often!) this is aligned but definitely not all the time.

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@hasufl Should this be a subsidy ad infinitum in your opinion? Is this what the social contract was?

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

I think defi is the most important use case but they have vested interest here. Lots of activity is downstream of packaging issuance. we ought to double down on productive use cases aside from looping issuance at the expense of ETH holders! This is not the future of finance.

[Arjun @clipsofcrypto]

"I can't in good faith vote yes when every single DeFi builder is saying no"

Ryan's stance on the Ethereum Issuance Proposal

"Those people have skin in the game, and the people with skin in the game are saying no. The ETH researchers, you can argue maybe they love the ivory tower, the technical perfection, but they have less skin in the game than Stani from Aave or Mike from EtherFi, because they're researchers. They don't have businesses built on this ecosystem, on top of this foundation"

"DeFi is how ETH became monetized as a monetary asset and if they're not happy, then it's hard to in good conscience vote yes for this"

[Jorge @jmiehau]

Skin in the game got inverted here. A business that collects fees from staking yield isn't exposed to the game, it's exposed to the fee stream. Heads they keep collecting, tails the network concentrates and someone else eats that. Taleb's whole point was symmetry, you carry the downside of your own position. The holder who never stakes carries all of it, their asset takes the dilution and nobody pays them a fee. By this clip's definition the people with the least conflicted exposure have the least say. That's not skin in the game, that's the revenue side voting on its own revenue.

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@drjasper_eth @5dayoldburrito @lex_node What floor apr would you set? Do you think it would suffice to cap staking ratio below 50%?

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@drjasper_eth @5dayoldburrito @lex_node either the floor is necessary to ensure the staking ratio is actually capped,

or stakers will not stake to the point of actually reaching 0% yield levels.

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

At equilibrium the marginal staker will be indifferent between staking and not staking. The current yield considered “productive” is transitory by definition. Nominal yield protecting against dilution is clearly not productive.

[pintail @pintail_xyz]

It baffles me that people apparently think of ETH as a "productive asset" because it dilutes itself.

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@OisinKyne @thibauld in the long term the market will find a clearing yield for any curve. and it's trending down. there's no magic wand against this
status quo: real yield towards zero until people stop entering staking set
new curve: nominal yield towards zero until people stop entering staking set

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@IsdrsP @devanshmehta @DCinvestor @pintail_xyz going past 50% is certainly plausible for anything after Hegota.

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@d_gusakov @RhettShipp this is false, not even partially false but fully. why would you even make something like this up?

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@0xzak extracted MEV is more indicative of a functioning market

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@mysteryfigure @ittaia Left wins in GHOST, right wins in longest-chain protocol. LC is about most accumulated difficulty but disregards branched work within a subtree, which GHOST doesn’t do.

But I think we both know that and just have different mental models of what longest chain protocol means.

[Greg @gregthegreek]

@sniko_ Prompting a user to connect their wallet before accessing the website

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@mysteryfigure @ittaia how so? Isn’t the point of GHOST to allow for forking within a subtree with the subtree accumulating weight (despite all the forking)?

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@ittaia Gasper uses some variant of the GHOST protocol, not the longest chain protocol, no?

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@stonecoldpat0 @ittaia afaik attestations that are older than 1 epoch are only ignored as per p2p specs? in which case they could still end up propagating on p2p layer through exchange of IHAVE IWANT messages and therefore ultimately still end up onchain?

[consensuslemma @consensuslemma]

@AdiSeredinschi @stonecoldpat0 @ittaia the chain can still make progress if delay is >12s, you simply end up voting for blocks from older slots