Base

Regarding Base transaction fees: they are high because the chain is at its target capacity (2x the throughput of the L1), but demand has increased dramatically. Data fees remain insignificant thanks to EIP-4844 blobs which are still far from capacity!  So while "it could be worse..." what can make it better? (cont)

this is a good thread from @bayardo on the current state of @base fees and path forward. he's nuanced and measured, as i'd expect our core protocol leader to be. 

i want to share a less nuanced perspective:

1. we need to scale the @base EVM >1000x
2. we need to do this with urgency
3. the time to start is right now

Eng @ Coinbase, working on Base
https://bayardo.org

this is a good thread from @bayardo.eth on the current state of @base fees and path forward. he's nuanced and measured, as i'd expect our core protocol leader to be. 

i want to share a less nuanced perspective:

1. we need to scale the @base EVM >1000x
2. we need to do this with urgency
3. the time to start is right now

@base builder #001; onchain cities w/ OAK & city3

what do you think about @vitalik.eth's push for plasma before validiums? maybe the EVM itself is being stretched to usecases that are better served by state channels. 
as it stands, app developers w/ PMF can just spin up L3s, right?

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

I think we'll see massive experimentation at L3 with non-EVM execution environments and we're excited to support all of that!

my mistake, thanks for clarifying.

do you think similiar armor can be applied to other bridge-like constructs with abstracted execution, for example, asynchronous ERC-4626 vaults?

I don't really think of plasma as an alternative to validiums, I think of it as "extra armor" that you can add on to validiums (or more specifically, their deposit/withdraw bridges) to increase the amount of assets/apps that are safe if the validium stops working.