Ethereum

1-2 gwei gas on mainnet in the middle of a weekday is crazy. Feels like the bear market again.

I like pleasure spiked with blockchain and music is my aeroplane. It's my aeroplane. @pizzadao underboss & /politics contributor. Featured in "Number Go Up"

block gas limit is increasing via validator voting as of a week ago, that'll push gas prices down (up to above 35M already)

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

Oh yea, I forgot about that. Why is it that this wasn't done a long time ago again?

I guess the ultra sound money narrative truly is dead now

lol I'd still bet on rollup demand long-term, plus upcoming changes to blob economics

think of it this way: the value stage 0 rollups get from ethereum blobs is very small (since they're not *actually* inheriting ethereum's full properties) so it's not surprising that they're not willing to pay much, whereas stage 2 rollups get a lot more value (thus should be willing to pay proportionally)

ultimately ethereum is making the gambit that we'd rather take a smaller percentage of x100000 activity than to capture more of today's activity.

Lemme stew on how to rephrase better, something I've been thinking about for a while.

As @0xstark.eth likes to say: "A blockchain's transaction capacity is equal to the capacity of its L1 plus the capacity of all L2s under its security."

I do think it's instructive to imagine a comparison of two scenarios as a whole "systems", 

Chain A (only-L1 scaled like Solana): 5000 TPS * $0.05 each = $7.9B/year in fees paid (some goes to validators, some burned, whatever)

Chain B (Ecosystem of rollups like Ethereum): 1000000 TPS * $0.01 each = $315B/year (mainly flowing via sequencers, who pay the L1), how much of that $315B would get burned by the L1 via blob purchases and calldata traffic? (Could solve for this, but requires a bit more research/math. Might do it later!)

The gambit is whether there's more transaction volume to capture if you offer a lower TPS and higher security? Or does it not matter and we're at maxed out demand anyway? (Unlikely IMO)

You kinda lost me at the end and I reread the statement multiple times. Kinda thought you were going for a "increasing the tax base but lower the tax rate can still increase tax revenue" sorta argument.