Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ansgar
@ansgar.eth
There has been quite a bit of backlash against this recent issuance change proposal by @caspar and me (and maybe rightfully so). I tried to clarify our intention in a likely way too long tweet over on X. Hope that adds some context. https://x.com/adietrichs/status/1775554454923747758
5 replies
6 recasts
67 reactions
Samus
@orangesamus.eth
Really enjoyed listening to the podcast you joined with Hasu. I’m curious if you disagree with this framing I posted in a thread below? I’m not sure I understand any counterpoints to this: https://warpcast.com/orangesamus.eth/0x7668549c
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ansgar
@ansgar.eth
So basically the counterpoints would be: - yield will go down either way. if we do nothing, inflation adjusted yield from issuance will approach 0. at least with targeting we could retain some small yield above 0. - the competitive gap between solo staking and LSTs will keep widening either way
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Samus
@orangesamus.eth
Thanks for replying! I think the main thing I disagree with is the framing that “inflation adjusted yield” is the dominant factor for a solo staker. I think nominal yield/issuance is more important when deciding if you can earn enough to justify solo/home staking. I also think we can’t ignore exogenous yield.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Samus
@orangesamus.eth
With the proposed issuance changes, real yield might be positive, but so small that it isn’t worth solo/home staking, but is worth it to more centralized/profitable actors. Issuance also might go negative, and the “real yield” comes from exogenous sources like EiL, or places that solo/home stakers can’t compete
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
