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
Samus
@orangesamus.eth
Thanks for replying! I think the main thing I disagree with is the framing that “inflation adjusted yield” is the dominant factor for a solo staker. I think nominal yield/issuance is more important when deciding if you can earn enough to justify solo/home staking. I also think we can’t ignore exogenous yield.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
