Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sassal.eth 🎩⛽
@sassal.eth
People complaining about Ethereum fee revenue being down are missing the forest for the trees. If Ethereum didn't scale - if blobs weren't introduced - then lots of activity that was on Ethereum would've moved to other layer 1's instead of layer 2's. This would've been a *much* worse outcome for Ethereum than losing fee revenue. Yes, there is currently an imbalance between how much money rollups sequencers make and how much revenue Ethereum L1 collects from rollups, but this is imo a temporary phenomenon. Ethereum is in its hyper-scaling phase and now has excess blockspace with not enough demand to fill it (yet). If you believe in the decentralised future enabled by Ethereum like I do, then you believe that Ethereum is going to grow 1000x and more from here - this is what the focus should be on; not on how much rent Ethereum can extract from the small existing pool of users.
12 replies
4 recasts
57 reactions
Apex777
@apex777.eth
Question…. Seeing the growth of SOL and the easier on boarding as it’s just one chain if you could roll back time would you prefer Ethereum to focus on scaling L1? 
3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Sassal.eth 🎩⛽
@sassal.eth
No because then Ethereum isn't decentralised anymore which defeats the entire point.
1 reply
0 recast
9 reactions
Nico🦊
@nicom
No. Because you can't without centralisation.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Fran
@0x99fran
Ethereum and solana optimizing for different things. But even so, it is not true that solana doesn’t have to deal with bridging. Thats a self centered view that only solana exists in the universe and users would never want to move funds to any other ecosystem. Any user that wants to do something on a different chain would have to bridge. Assuming bridging is required in the future, l2s have better bridges than those between l1s.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
