Ethereum

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.

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

ethrd

My thoughts on issuance reduction:

To target < 100% staked ETH you assume:
- There is some yield “x%” where the market finds it irrational to take on the risks/opportunity costs of even delegating to someone else to stake
- Issuance curve is chosen such that we cross below x% before we get to 100% staked 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:

Ethereum protocol R&D. Admirer of emergent order.

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

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.

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