ethrd

Two questions that's been on my mind, would love people's thoughts here.

1. Does the moneiness of a derivative of ETH (eg LST) translates into the moneiness of ETH?
2. Does the moneiness of ETH translates into the moneiness of a derivative of ETH (eg LST)?

views are my own, protocol @ eigen labs; prev working on decentralization @ gitcoin, llama, stanford medicine.

Please expand ser. What is one example of the moneiness (moneyness?) of a derivative influencing the moneyness of ETH? What do you define as moneyness?

Robust Incentives Group @ Ethereum Foundation

https://rig.ethereum.org

would argue that an LST with sufficient liquidity and integrations (stETH) eliminates the opportunity cost of staking (locking) your ETH, thus increasing ETHs underlying utility (especially as a collateral money), which proliferates the use of ETH as money -- moneyness 🆙

If we wanted to eliminate the opportunity cost of staking and have more ETH around to use as collateral, why wouldn't we prefer to target some amount at stake?

i guess i agree that some target amount at stake is ok, just dont really know how you come up with that desired % ? Dont think there is anything inherently wrong with targeting, but deciding too quickly or targeting too low of a % seemingly will have negative externalities

To be clear the decision right now (and even then, not right now, in the months to come) is not about targeting, but about a more moderate issuance curve

yea i think my main concerns are:

-vertically integrated centralized providers could push the long-tail of stakers and protocols out: prob of CB having >50% of stake increases imo
-frequent adjustment of the issuance curve arguably degrades ETHs moneyness
-issuance doesnt necessarily have to be dilutive for holders

To be clear the decision right now (and even then, not right now, in the months to come) is not about targeting, but about a more moderate issuance curve https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/electra-issuance-curve-adjustment-proposal/18825?u=barnabe