Robert

Liquidity is just a fancy term for an order book.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

@trust__90 If the assumption is that each web3 user can read and understand calldata, the industry probably won't attract much user IMO.

[Justin Drake @drakefjustin]

Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash.

Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase).

Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets.

IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster).

Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot.

Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time?

Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.)

Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once.

Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case.

I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026).

Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS.

Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security.

The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.

[HuntingIsland — ΞTH 🐬 @IslandHunting]

I haven't seen any opponents of 8363 address the risks of staked ETH going to 70+%, which is where we are headed.

1) Too much stake hurts Ethereum's security, not helps it
2) Making ETH a second-class liquidity base pair on Ethereum in preference for many risky staked tokens and exchange receipts hurts Ethereum's network effects
3) Building Ethereum's financial system (DeFi) on risky tokens compounds risks
4) Issuance that is almost all dilution creates unneeded tax liabilities
5) When almost everyone stakes, stakers don't even get real returns

[HuntingIsland — ΞTH 🐬 @IslandHunting]

Both Lido and AAVE have strong vested financial interests in the current huge unstoppable increase in stake %, hour by hour, day by day.

Continued stake increase past 50% on the way to 70-80% is absolutely NOT in the interest of Ethereum, nor the interest of individual stakers.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

Stani lying again.

https://t.co/WF6EsB2wtt

[Stani @StaniKulechov]

Concerning

[Justin Drake @drakefjustin]

Goodbye, Poseidon!

An epic 8-year, 8-figure rabbit hole in post-quantum cryptography reaches its dream conclusion. The Ethereum Foundation is abandoning Poseidon for L1, pivoting to SHA or BLAKE. This milestone unlocks ultimate security for lean Ethereum and foreshadows a golden era of hash-based cryptography.

Since 2018, the Ethereum Foundation has invested in magic cryptographic bricks, so-called "SNARK-friendly hashes". In 2019, Poseidon was born. It held strong and became the dominant SNARK-friendly hash, securing billions via zkrollups and zkVMs.

In a stunning reversal, breakthrough SNARK designs show that SNARK-friendly hashes aren't necessary after all. Off-the-shelf traditional hash functions like SHA2 and BLAKE2s can now match Poseidon in a SNARK. In hindsight the key was not SNARK-friendly hashes, but hash-friendly SNARKs.

The secret is doing maths over the smallest prime number: 2. So-called "binary fields" natively speak the language of bits, aligning with the boolean operations inside traditional hashes. This is a stark departure from "prime fields", where awkward large-prime arithmetic makes bit manipulation painfully expensive.

We're talking sci-fi cryptography. 1M traditional hash calls proven per second, on a laptop. Just 100x overhead vs native CPU boolean compute. Nobody predicted such performance, not even the handful of binary-field visionaries. Hat tip to the research geniuses: Jim and Ben with Binius in 2023; Ron, Benedikt and William with Flock in June.

With SHA2, the lean aesthetic of minimal assumptions reaches its climax. The EF's principled stance on pure hash-based cryptography has aged like fine wine. We now enjoy foundations the world can trust for decades and centuries, foundations worthy of the dream of an internet of value.

Speed of deployment is a secondary win. There's no longer a need to wait years for Poseidon cryptanalysis to bake. Emile and Thomas from the EF post-quantum team are moving at breakneck speed with binary fields. The strawmap now points to a production-grade leanVM in 2027, with CL, DL, EL deployments in 2028.

As AI becomes exceptional at cryptanalysis, the contrarian bet to avoid riskier structures like lattices and isogenies is visibly paying off. The past weeks have been brutal. Lattice-based "HAWK" and isogeny-based "SQIsign", both signature schemes in NIST's Round 3, have suffered blows. Sources I trust say more blood is coming.

On AI, the open autoresearch trend kicked off by ECDSA[.]fail is spreading fast, with amazing outcomes from zk[.]golf and SNARK[.]fast. Days ago SNARK[.]fast crossed 1.8M BLAKE3/sec proven on an M3 Max. Stay tuned for fresh autoresearch challenges dropping tomorrow.

Also tomorrow: Ethproofs call #10, dedicated to binary fields. Possibly the most noteworthy Ethproofs call yet. Experts leading the charge will present the future of hash-based SNARKs at 2pm UTC. What an incredible time to be alive. To witness history, DM me for a calendar invite :)

Today I can confidently claim that hash-based cryptography has won out for blockchain post-quantum signatures. SNARK succinctness compresses arbitrarily many signatures into one small proof per block. SNARK flexibility yields k-of-n threshold signatures, complex multisigs, and more.

Ultimate security. Uncompromising performance. Full programmability.

Believe in something. Believe in hashes.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

This is basically why Stani is against it.

He stopped aave buyback after he took control of the protocol.

I find it funny that almost anything stani is against is probably the right thing to do.

[Marius Kjærstad (marius.eth) 🐬🦇🔊 @MKjrstad]

The loopers don't care about ETH as money.

They only care about what they can extract by borrowing ETH and buying LSTs.

What they care about is extracting the delta from this activity.

AAVE even protected loopers by suppressing rates for ETH when they had issues.

[smartprogrammer.gwei 🐌 @Smartprogrammer]

I am a solo home staker, and I support eip 8361. I speak more as an ethereum holder than a staker or as a core dev. Save Ethereum and taper the issuance. CROPS #ethereum

[tycoon.eth / 🦇🔊 @0xTycoon]

ETH emissions should only be just enough to pay for security.

Not for subsidizing lending platforms such as Aave through leverage loops, or making protocols Lido and Etherfi dependant on high emissions.

[Vadim @vadim_web3]

Loopers have been extracting ETH inflation for years while diluting everyone else.

Regular holders who don’t want wrapper pyramids and leveraged looping still pay for it through inflation.

If your product only works because inflation subsidizes loopers, that’s your problem - not the network’s.

If the yield came from actual fees, nobody would complain. It doesn’t.

[HuntingIsland — ΞTH 🐬 @IslandHunting]

This isn't about supply inflation.

It's about whether the majority of ETH should be staked and rehypothecated into staked ETH tokens (LSTs and exchange tokens).

This is a large, systemic risk for Ethereum.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

I support EIP-8361.

[Vadim @vadim_web3]

I support EIP-8361.

People keep saying, “It’s only 0.5-0.75% inflation.”

No. It’s $1.5-2B of ETH issuance every year.

That money subsidizes loopers, early stakers, LST/LRT protocols, and a huge part of DeFi whose business model depends on staking yield. Much of it is simply looping different wrappers of the same ETH against each other to amplify returns.

On top of that, many of these protocols launched their own tokens and extracted even more value through token incentives and emissions.

A large share of Ethereum’s TVL is tied to these recursive strategies. This should have ended a long time ago.

If you want higher staking yields, build products that generate real fees and distribute those fees to validators and stakers.

Stop funding the ecosystem through perpetual ETH inflation.

[Vadim @vadim_web3]

I support EIP-8361.

People keep saying, “It’s only 0.5-0.75% inflation.”

No. It’s $1.5-2B of ETH issuance every year.

That money subsidizes loopers, early stakers, LST/LRT protocols, and a huge part of DeFi whose business model depends on staking yield. Much of it is simply looping different wrappers of the same ETH against each other to amplify returns.

On top of that, many of these protocols launched their own tokens and extracted even more value through token incentives and emissions.

A large share of Ethereum’s TVL is tied to these recursive strategies. This should have ended a long time ago.

If you want higher staking yields, build products that generate real fees and distribute those fees to validators and stakers.

Stop funding the ecosystem through perpetual ETH inflation.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

Good read.

Staking has been the main source of yield for major defi protocols, which is just inflation over a certain percentage of eth staked.

If all defi is gonna die after the proposal goes live, there's nothing real about them in the first place.

[GEE-yohm LAMB-bear @guil_lambert]

I’m a solo staker, I’d probably unstake and make more productive use of my ETH if the yield is too low. That’d be LPing/selling options for me, but not everyone wants to do that.

That points to the broader problem with DeFi: staking is the only way to generate yield on ETH for most users.

On the one hand, ppl have the right to be pissed when you threaten to remove their only source of yield. On the other, Defi has to diversify and make ETH more productive. Looping and restaking and and relooping has been a crutch for too long.

As crazy as it sounds, decreasing staking yields would create more innovation and push capital towards other yield areas: vol selling, structured products, alternative credit.

I dunno, just trying to see the bright side here.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

@BaptisteCota stock how

Does one really get to decide how ethereum operates if he or she gets over 50% of eth?

Ethereum simply dies in that case.

[Dankrad Feist @dankrad]

@BP_Gamma @LefterisJP I know plenty of people who support it. But opponents are louder and have more to lose.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

@CoinMarketCap No it will not, the only thing that is most likely going to get killed is Aave by Stani.

[Lion ⟠ dapplion .eth @dapplion]

>80% ETH staked is bad for everyone (including you) except a few select parties

The current issuance curve will end there eventually, and then there’s no going back.

We need to fix it now before it’s too late, let the market decide what’s the right equilibrium yield for Ethereum

[thibauld @thibauld]

I see lots of hate directed at this EIP but I haven't read any real strong arguments so far...

In my view this EIP makes sense. Ethereum’s monetary policy should not subsidize unbounded stake growth forever.

This EIP introduces a mechanism that lets the market clear the staking ratio while keeping issuance low and predictable. I really think it is preferable to the status quo curve.

On top of that, I also appreciate the minimalist burn design and gradual rollout proposed to reduce the risk of unintended disruption.

I believe this would be a net positive for Ethereum. At the very least, it's clearly worth an honest debate!

[Lumberg @Lumberg]

I support EIP-8361.

Balance Security + ETH as money.

DeFi will be fine. Passing this EIP will simply drive more DeFi innovation for those who innovate.

[Robert @zhuboxuan2]

@0xcyp Why? Solo stakers are leaving, the dominant participants are LST protocols, which are just centralized entities.

The ones left are doing solo for the love of ethereum, how is 0% or 1.5% going to matter while the asset itself fluctuate over 3% on a daily basis.