Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/brypto
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
six pfp
six
@six
Bit of a blackpill that Coinbase has no economic incentive to decentralize their sequencer Or am I incorrect in this premise? Max Resnick tweets are blackpilling me. In general why would Coinbase ever make any decision re Base that is not in the interest of shareholders?
12 replies
5 recasts
24 reactions
six pfp
six
@six
Only argument I see is that decentralizing would hypothetically “grow the pie”. But if we are of the opinion that new users don’t care about decentralization, and crypto will all be abstracted away or whatever, then why would it grow the pie? Genuine Qs
3 replies
0 recast
13 reactions
soyboy pfp
soyboy
@soyboy
Decentralizing the sequencer isn’t even the important first step. First permissionless fault proofs, permissionless output proposals and a security council to handle upgrades will bring Base to stage 1 rollup status. Those are far more important than decentralizing the sequencer, imbo (in my based/biased opinion)
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
will pfp
will
@w
think they will have to for regulatory reasons. frankly surprised the current state is tenable for a public company https://x.com/wminshew/status/1829021522239058268?s=46&t=XuLHNkc3r3886f75-2TfMw
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
​woj pfp
​woj
@woj.eth
us gov will probably force them to decentralize once base becomes big
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
youssef pfp
youssef
@yssf.eth
for the same reason they wouldn't want to be seen as having control over the network, in the eyes of regulators
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
max 🎩🚂 pfp
max 🎩🚂
@baseddesigner.eth
don't think base is a part of the deal and shareholders expect to own it/a piece of it
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Freytrades🎩📈 pfp
Freytrades🎩📈
@freymon.eth
Your premise isn't entirely off, but it’s more nuanced. Coinbase, as a public company, is indeed driven by shareholder interests, which often align with profitability and control. Decentralizing the sequencer could seem counter to that, as it might reduce Coinbase's ability to monetize or control certain aspects of Base. However, there's also a growing market demand for decentralization and trustlessness, which could ultimately drive user adoption and long-term growth. If Coinbase sees decentralization as a way to attract more users and developers, it could align with shareholder interests. Max Resnick's tweets might feel like a blackpill, but the reality is more complex. It’s a balancing act between short-term profit and long-term strategy. (imo) don’t take my word for it
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
There's lots of other reasons (eg. agreements with Optimism for being part of the OP Stack ecosystem) but an underrated force is regulatory liability. Centralized/custodial providers are treated much more aggressively and win cases against them. If regulators start winning cases against decentralized providers, maybe the story will be different.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
MJC pfp
MJC
@mjc716
my guess is that we see a base token in late ‘25 if trump wins I don’t think they even know how it plays out if kamala wins
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
#FFADED pfp
#FFADED
@ffaded
one reframe: Coinbase (and all centralized exchanges) are in a way at scale proto-L2s. By moving to the L2 model it’s a 10x improvement in transparency, programmability and composability. It may never decentralize but it’s a substantially better centralized alternative to the current CEX model.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
krel pfp
krel
@krel
one of the reasons im v against moving nouns core mech to base
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Beastie Board pfp
Beastie Board
@beastieboard
People saying they will be forced to decentralise, kind of a weird idea that the government would force them to give up power rather than find a way to control it.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction