𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

wrt Ethereum schisms, I don't think propriety was ever an option, markets are indicators of popularity, and it is difficult to remain unpopular and tapped into the zeitgeist simultaneously.

so I am fundamentally opposed to subjective narratives of propriety within the pluralism of such a colossal ecosystem. 

personally, I think we're dancing around what is low-tech and not venture scale, but still critical to growth. a lot of the strategy is formally forced, but I would propose that the social layer is missing the one atomic role that can "eat the mess".

PvP is boring in comparison to Team vs Team, just a simple fact, and team leads make messes, shout into the void, and eat glass.

we need leaders like @zachxbt to not burn out as they informally fill such roles. there is a common, pragmatic balance (just like R/R curve can be less jagged) we just have to ballpark it.

yes, many like @consensys can do better, onchain.
I think Stani is right about focusing EF, but there is a dual mandate shared with the EC.

here's some tweets:
https://x.com/scupytrooples/status/1881689424851071153
https://x.com/StaniKulechov/status/1881683418376708323

"show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome"
what if it's not incentives, but stressors?

the EC (Ethereum Community) consists of all institutions, question remains how each "compiler" runs on that level. the EF (Ethereum Foundation) consists of @vitalik.eth, a RISC-like discovery of the foremost, technological research.

EC should acclimate to stressors, so the EF is not distressed.

role progression is a stressor sink, tech progression is a predictable dilemma sink.

nice to have:

an on chain ethereum r&amp;d dao

governance would have two main branches: client teams + research groups making up an expert assembly, and the commons stakeholders assembly. both can make and vote on(and veto) proposals for future upgrades. the commons can vote to add…