Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ansgar
@ansgar.eth
There has been quite a bit of backlash against this recent issuance change proposal by @caspar and me (and maybe rightfully so). I tried to clarify our intention in a likely way too long tweet over on X. Hope that adds some context. https://x.com/adietrichs/status/1775554454923747758
5 replies
6 recasts
114 reactions
Samus
@orangesamus.eth
Really enjoyed listening to the podcast you joined with Hasu. I’m curious if you disagree with this framing I posted in a thread below? I’m not sure I understand any counterpoints to this: https://warpcast.com/orangesamus.eth/0x7668549c
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ansgar
@ansgar.eth
So basically the counterpoints would be: - yield will go down either way. if we do nothing, inflation adjusted yield from issuance will approach 0. at least with targeting we could retain some small yield above 0. - the competitive gap between solo staking and LSTs will keep widening either way
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Ansgar
@ansgar.eth
actually, the competitive gap widens even more if we have a high % staked. In that world, the LST liquidity will become more and more useful (to the point of replacing ETH as default base money). LSTs have economies of scale. And, worst of all, they might become "too big to fail", so their risk premium might go to 0.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ansgar
@ansgar.eth
Basically none of this is denying that solo stakers will have a harder time competing with LSTs in the future. I don't like that, and I think we need to keep working hard on improving that situation. But this is not caused by our proposal, this is the path we are on either way.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
