Ladislaus

@ladislaus

146 Following

40 Followers

Ladislaus pfp

https://hackmd.io/@austonst-aestus/BJsvEoia6 (Sophisticated) validators play timing games to optimize for value extraction. Relays like Aestus offer them as a service to any validator. How does this level the playing field among validators? What are risks and tradeoffs? see more below 👇

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

𝚝𝟷 pfp

🚀 Thrilled to announce our pre-seed round with participation from an incredible group of funds and builders! We are excited to be part of the @a16zcrypto Crypto Startup School (CSX) 🎓 as they join in our round, alongside these amazing builders, founders and strategic partners 👇 Huge thanks to: @guy, @alive, @samkazemian, @jedbreed, @amir, @meltem, @etekis, @kartik, @sui414 Benedikt Buenz (@espressosys), Eric Chan (Injective), Zheng Leong Chua (Automata Network), Kubi Mensah (Titan Builder), Murat Akdeniz (Primev), Andrea Canidio (CoW Swap), Connor Howe (Enso Network) and others Let's build! 🔥

0 reply

3 recasts

4 reactions

Ladislaus pfp

I placed a bid in the @EFDevcon 7 Ticket Raffle-Auction! Join the raffle here: https://raffle.devcon.org/

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Ladislaus pfp

Summarised some notes I took during ZuBerlin regarding proposer collateralisation, mostly paraphrasing our discussions with a few annotations. (h/t @mteamisloading for further discussions). https://hackmd.io/@Ladislaus/rJfRYJoB0

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

I just donated to Web3 Infrastructure on @gitcoin's grantsstack. No more network/bridging/gas fee/passport hassle -> lessons learned💪 Bull market or not, open source projects still remain tricky to monetize from. -> sharing is caring

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

Quick notes on connecting a remote-signer w/ a validator client (mostly repetitive& well-documented elsewhere) But, w/ Secure-Signer running inside a TEE stakers greatly minimize common slashing risks while (re)staking protocols need to trust NoOps less https://hackmd.io/@Ladislaus/S1NX6tHeA

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

What if the "ET market", as you call it, would randomly select among "pre-purchasers" of ETs at a posted price? A protocol functionality to refund ET purchasers should be possible anyways, at least for ETs outside the look-ahead/redemption period, I believe.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

I have not come across a specific design proposal, yet. Intuitively I'd agree here. Do you refer to such a "mev auction" from a primary sale perspective on the protocol level or do you refer to the secondary market? (or both?)

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

Have to think about it more, but an overarching design question seems to be if we want the protocol to shield beacon proposers from the overhead of "selling" future blockspace (w/ ETs) or explicitly delegate this task to them (w/ APS-Burn)

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

Right, I needed to re-hash the bidding&attestation process in the original MEV-burn design, but see your tentative sympathy for APS-burn over ETs clearer now.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

Also, there's this neat memetic unfair advantage of permissionless lotteries. Even if one argued ET-pools were to be a thing, I could envision a 'solo-staker gambler guild' purchasing ETs to then only redistribute building rights to either locally build payloads or decentralised builders (suave?).

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

Great framing of the current APS landscape, thank you for that! When contrasting ETs vs APS-burn it appears to me that you value shielding validators from relays/mevboost completely (w/ ETs) *lower* compared to the abundance of added complexities due to ET (pricing) mechanisms (if APS-burn). Is this a fair assessment?

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

wrote down a few notes on SGX-capable staking hardware options (adapted for Puffer because of remote attestations allowing for just 1ETH bond requirements) but this is generalisable for anyone interested in staking from a TEE https://hackmd.io/@Ladislaus/Sy9m77ebA

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

github.com/ultrasoundmoney/docs/blob/main/bid_adjustment.md ultrasound is open & transparent about it relays(&builders) can screw up in many different ways; best-in-class relay performance serves the network in its current form, though Taking a cut from validators for offering a sustainable service appears reasonable

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

https://twitter.com/sui414/status/1778714390050767196 relay monetisation has been an ongoing issue for a long time (we've seen relays shut down operations bc of it) Not trying to justify the shortcomings of external PBS in general, but competing on performance/latency was always a possible way forward

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Mark pfp

🚨 CALLING ALL STAKING POOLS 🚨 We need your feedback! There are still a few outstanding design decisions to be made for EIP-7251. I've written a quick post to get you up to speed. Please provide feedback in the MaxEB Breakout Room next week!! https://hackmd.io/@wmoBhF17RAOH2NZ5bNXJVg/S1U86pzgR

0 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

Ladislaus pfp

Thanks to all of you for the extensive analyses and for raising awareness. First time I recall a proposal being cancelled (for now) for being a proposal. Burden of proof is on Xitter influencers to convince me that their resistance-to-change is not the only counter-argument.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

A highly contested update of Ethereum's economic policy. Some parallels with today are astounding https://supporteip1559.org/

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ladislaus pfp

Who here remembers?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Ladislaus pfp

We've seen a number of solo stakers in the past being harshly punished with a 1ETH initial hair cut, usually due to setup misconfigurations causing accidental double-signings.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction