pa7x1 pfp

pa7x1

@pa7x1

97 Following
113 Followers
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
How are the DA properties of Bitcoin greater than those of Ethereum? It can only provide probabilistic finality with much longer times for reasonable finality assurance. Also, as issuance keeps dropping if fees eventually surpass issuance a new can of worms opens up in the form of reorgs to steal fees.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
When is Base maturing to Stage 1 in l2beat maturity scale? Optimism is already there, given Base shares Optimism stack it should be possible for Base to reach it too soon, no?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
i think i'm the most plagiarized person in the industry
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Undoubtedly. Always give greater credibility to hard to fake metrics. -Hard to fake metrics: TVL Burnt fees -Moderately hard to fake metrics: Non-burnt fees (think Bitcoin, or Solana soon) -Very easy to fake metrics: Transaction count
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/rnsk2r/fundamental_valuation_models_of_ethereum/ Have a look at the Monetary Model Basically, it argues long-term ETH net issuance must be flat or slightly inflationary. Deflationary regime can be shown to be unsustainable long-term. Net inflation since the Merge has been -0.066%. So the model has been wrong by 0.066%.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Don't know about 51. But 57 sure is a prime.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Wrong mindset. Bluesky has grown significantly lately out of X debacle. Those users could have been captured by Farcaster, but it hasn't. Think about why that didn't happen and how it could be made to happen.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Might be of interest of @ansgar.eth, @caspar, @anderselowsson ...
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
https://ethresear.ch/t/the-shape-of-issuance-curves-to-come/20405 In this post I delve into why and how we should consider tweaking the issuance curve. To prevent ever-growing stake rates that would cause centralization issues to the validator set. In summary, the proposal is to introduce: - A tweak to the issuance curve so that issuance can go negative at high stake rates. - Uncorrelation incentives like those proposed by @vitalik.eth and nerolation. Hope it peaks your interest, feel free to chime in and discuss.
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
EIP-1559 pricing mechanism has a quirk where the regime of demand below supply is priced essentially at 0 (1 Wei in fact). This is quite extreme. It should be cheap to entice demand but not necessarily 0.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Did you expect for demand to magically appear and fill instantly 30x the blockspace capacity of the L1? 6 months after blobs are filled 85% of the target capacity and calling it a failure. By the end of the year we are likely saturating blobs and a fee marker starts to develop.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Twitter is shit and shouldn't be representative of anything.
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Thanks for this. Transparency is important. Reports should be scheduled and timely published. For instance, the last report I could find is Q4 2022. Selling schedule should be algorithmic, based on target allocations and short term funding needs. Given its size the EF shouldn't be seen as playing market timing. Nor the market should infer any market timing from the EF. Make the schedule and target allocations clear and transparent and any selling will be seen as a non-event. Just my 2 cents. But what I'm missing from the EF regarding its finances.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
If you enshrine it at protocol level you make the protocol more complex. Hope you are aware of the self-contradiction here. Something that has seen so much discussion and back n forth is likely not best enshrined in the protocol, once there becomes very hard to change.Let the market of ideas figure it out.Then shrine.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
What would you suggest to do with account abstraction? This type of posts that do not propose any other alternative or make a case for a different design are empty of value.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Yes, it's possible. It requires for blobspace to be over-supplied and therefore no blobspace fee market to ever form. But I guess if that were to happen we could always cut down the number of blobs until a fee market develops. Or tweak the EIP-1559 like mechanism so that it doesn't drop blob fees to 0.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
HW expenses (c3.large or equivalent): 400-500 USD/month Data egress (100 TB @ aws rates): 8000 USD/month That's 100K/year in expenses. I don't know who would spend that much in gas fees.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
We tend to use all the available compute resources available. Because developers and users will always trade additional convenience for performance. Do not assume the blockspace size for a specific exchange is fixed in size. For instance, do not assume a basic ETH transaction will cost 100K Gas for ever. If blockspace is oversupplied, we will use all extra capacity to add all the convenience belts and whistles. Layers and layers of abstraction would chew the extra capacity so that it becomes easier to develop, and the user gets additional convenience.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
Ain't this a Carcass album?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pa7x1 pfp
pa7x1
@pa7x1
A market will invariably develop when demand exceeds supply. Ethereum has not given up on sharding. We have effectively execution sharding today, and we will get data sharding with PeerDAS in Pectra. Ethereum averaged yesterday 300 tps. 20x the L1 throughput and 6x what we had before Dencun.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction