Ethereum

sequencer profits as a good business model feel somewhat misaligned with interoperability. 

Would be better if value accrued to building contracts people actually use

time to reopen EIP-6968 as an RIP?

https://eip.tools/eip/6968

@base builder #001; onchain cities w/ OAK & city3

cc @jessepollak perhaps a good way to reward builders on base

Wrote on why that's not such a good idea before. 
Tl;dr is that it's easy to game and lacks context. Social consensus is preferable

Working on /impact ||


Abundance Economy book: book.abundance.id

i don't see why sharing the gas fee would be gamed tbh. users already pay a fee to use the contract whether it's garbage or not?

sure, some contracts could technically implement less efficient methods on purpose to make it more gas intensive to use but that would also put them at a competitive disadvantage

the main issue i see is that the amount of gas consumed by a contract is not necessarily proportional to the value it adds. still a good point of departure imo

could be supplemented by retro grants - doesn't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive

Wrote on why that's not such a good idea before. 
Tl;dr is that it's easy to game and lacks context. Social consensus is preferable
https://paragraph.xyz/@abundance/why-decentralized-networks-need-a-social-layer