![lufagibb π pfp](https://imagedelivery.net/BXluQx4ige9GuW0Ia56BHw/569dabc3-43e9-43a3-37d5-a60d45cca600/rectcrop3)
lufagibb π
@lufagibb
438 Following
187 Followers
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
14 recasts
63 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
10 replies
5 recasts
27 reactions
69 replies
34 recasts
131 reactions
32 replies
12 recasts
40 reactions
18 replies
42 recasts
173 reactions
59 replies
26 recasts
85 reactions
![polynya pfp](https://i.imgur.com/7vUGwdo.png)
My post from 1.5 years about "assessing demand drivers for ETH" had the line "Needless to say, weβll need to wait for EIP-4844 to assess this."
Now that EIP-4844 is out for half a year, it's indeed time to do so. As such, I'd downgrade the significance of "L2 fee burns" from 2/10 to 1/10. While it's very likely demand for blobspace is gradually going up, supply is up even more with PeerDAS imminent, plus full sharding & Nielsen's Law making blob count up only. Cross-L2 interoperability has also been much less required than anticipated, as most users are happy to stick to their chosen L2, or bridge between only occasionally
So, why was I (mildly) wrong? I did not fully understand the concept of strict global consensus then, which I only wrote about in depth later in 2023. With a better grasp of the true demand landscape for blobspace, the 1/10 is obvious
Also, this is great for Ethereum/ETH in the same way as building public roads
https://polynya.mirror.xyz/GPC26Y_rlwCyPpj_N3HeW_izY1-pIVwKW5bjuPNrGeQ 20 replies
48 recasts
169 reactions
26 replies
25 recasts
173 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
31 replies
8 recasts
44 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
3 replies
1 recast
19 reactions
24 replies
34 recasts
84 reactions