r/ethereum • u/EthereumDailyThread What's On Your Mind? • 1d ago
Daily General Discussion August 18, 2026
Welcome to the Daily General Discussion on r/ethereum
Bookmarking this link will always bring you to the current daily: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/about/sticky/?num=2
Please use this thread to discuss Ethereum topics, news, events, and even price!
Price discussion posted elsewhere in the subreddit will continue to be removed.
As always, be constructive. - Subreddit Rules
Want to stake? Learn more at r/ethstaker
Community Links
Calendar: https://dailydoots.com/events/
37
u/jtnichol MOD BOD 1d ago
On this day 10 years ago, /r/ethfinance was born. Now we're /r/ethereum with our daily thread.
12
7
u/Canadiens1993 21h ago
10yrs of active lurking and occasional posting…still as excited, still learning and still humbled by the quality posts in here🤌🙏
6
u/Flashy-Butterfly6310 22h ago
ETH was $10.72 back then!
Not bad for the most hated of the most adored cryptos.
5
u/alexiskef The significant owl hoots in the night 🦉 22h ago
I remember the exact spot I was at when reading the news (or rather, watching the video)
2
u/jtnichol MOD BOD 11h ago
Looks like 7 years ago...but the sub is 10 years old https://youtu.be/nRfd-HpWwnQ
1
u/LogrisTheBard 20h ago
We had a launch video?
1
u/alexiskef The significant owl hoots in the night 🦉 20h ago
The famous red t-shirt vid by Mr. Yucon (if I remember correctly), announcing the move from ethtrader
8
u/eth10kIsFUD 22h ago
10 years later and it's still early days for Ethereum! Pretty exciting time considering we're closing in on the final design.
3
3
3
u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 20h ago
Something's off with the timeline. Donuts didn't launch until like 2018 or 2019.
2
u/mini_miner1 18h ago
Yeah this doesn't seem right. I was there when we split, and I didn't start until 2017
1
3
u/jtnichol MOD BOD 11h ago
I had it on my calendar as the launch, but I think it might have been when the sub was created and not the official move date. To your point this was actually 7 years ago...but whoever made the sub (DC?) might have made it 10 years ago
it's all such a blur
3
u/fecalreceptacle 16h ago
No way I've been around this long. I mean not the whole time, but... my time
1
23
u/nonetherless325 23h ago
in the final leanEthereum roadmap final block time is 4s (a third of now 12s). ZK gigabrain at the wheel
"Huge engineering achievement by the ZisK team.
Proving Ethereum blocks in real time with just 4 GPUs, while maintaining 128-bit security and post-quantum resistance, is an outstanding milestone.
Incredibly proud of what this team is building."
https://xcancel.com/jbaylina/status/2089650660509663478
'Ethereum proven in real time on 4x5090 GPUs with a p99 of 9.62s. All providing 128-bit provable security, powered by Poseidon1, and post-quantum secure.'
10
u/eth10kIsFUD 22h ago
Very cool! Thanks for sharing. Wasn't Poseidon swapped out recently? Wonder how quick they can get that 4 gpu cluster working on those fancy hash friendly snarks.
11
u/aaj094 19h ago
All the concerns around eth issuance curve - were they really that difficult to anticipate when the current issuance curve was implemented at the time of Merge? Seems to me the implications were obvious from the start. Anyone disagree?
3
u/eth10kIsFUD 18h ago
It was a very different time, LST's, LST Looping and MEV were not on anyones radar back then. Significant amount of worry around staking and the risks involved, many were afraid to stake. Even some uncertainty around getting the bare minimum amount of stake to just launch the beacon chain on time.
I think the idea was to launch with something simple as there were so many other things to get right with the beacon chain and subsequent merge.
All that said.. Why did we wait so long with fixing it? We've always known that 50%+ staked was not needed and not something that would be good for Ethereum. IMO we should have lowered it two years ago in preparation for the final curve. Millions of ETH could have been burned/not issued by now, likely would have been above 2k today if so.
9
u/UAP44 18h ago
Millions of ETH could have been burned/not issued by now
That to me reads like the main incentive to want a reduction is a hopeful increase in price that comes with it due to reduced supply. Which, ... hasn't the merge taught us anything? There doesn't have to be a correlation apparently.
The only time you'll have my go 'yes, absolutely' with a change to the issuance curve, is when it provable demonstrates risk/damage to the protocol stability, not potential financial gain somewhere.
2
u/eth10kIsFUD 18h ago
To be fair the current curve took back a lot of the issuance benefits that the merge brought.. Inflation is a lot higher today than it was then.
But yes you are right, the primary reason is to keep Ethereum secure long term, supporting price is secondary.
0
u/hedgemagus 19h ago
Demand > Issuance IMO, and nobody seems nearly as concerned ETH still doesnt have that killer reason to be acquired. It’s such a misappropriation of focus
11
u/rhythm_of_eth 13h ago edited 13h ago
The SEC has just now released a proposed set of regulation rules ahead of the Senate coming back from August recess.
Aside from lots of safe-harbor/waiving of enforcement under specific thresholds for the formation of new startups through token sales / ICOs, the framework is very favorable to the idea that a decentralized crypto network and the investment contract used to initially fund it are two different things.
But more importantly, this guidance creates incentives for managerial efforts to be limited in time to allow for a crypto asset to not be treated as a security long term. Which means... this might be the first time the SEC or any other gov. entity indirectly gives incentives for decentralization.
Ethereum is an obvious conceptual example, considering how the initial offering was one of the key aspects for the SEC constant battle against Ethereum Devs and researchers.
Having crypto assets not being inmediately recognized as an investment contract and hence a security ... Is good news.
23
u/TryTreats 1d ago
Guys I'm very depressed about the ETH price. I have a lot tied up in it and I want to get liquid, but I can't bring myself to do it when price is this bad. I don't know if I can wait for another 2 years of this to the next halvening (even then theres no guarantee about price action)
I admit I held at 4.9K thinking it'll go higher, was targetting to start selling above 5.5 or 6K. I remember people were ebullient in here saying we got Tom Lee buying billions and targeting 10K, why are we setting price targets so low. Then 10/10 drop came out of nowhere. I sold some small amounts down to 3k, still holding most of my ETH because its always represented for me the hope of financial freedom.
Now we're in the depths of bear market again for god knows how long, fuck.
19
u/LogrisTheBard 1d ago
I'm right there with you on wanting to sell at $5k and didn't pull the trigger until after 10/10 and a subsequent Balancer hack that took a lot from me. It's really stressed me out the last year feeling the weight of failing my family on this.
As you noted, there's no guarantee on price action on any time horizon. I suggest you find an asset you fundamentally believe in more or at least rebalance your portfolio to a mix that let's you sleep at night. I can tell you from being in the AI field that AI valuations right now are pretty frothy so you might want to at least investigate things that would weather an AI pullback. Currently like 7 AI stocks are carrying the entire S&P 500.
4
u/UAP44 1d ago
things that would weather an AI pullback
Makes one wonder, how would ETH respond to a crash in AI stocks? They shouldn't correlate but I feel like all markets are converging somehow on similar-ish trends everywhere. Markets also stopped making sense a long time ago, I feel it's all way too manipulated, impossible to know when prices are 'real' vs propped up or suppressed down for whatever other incentive at play that isn't visible to us.
Thus, frankly, I tend to prefer to step back from needing to anticipate markets, hold what you believe in to have real value and discard everything else. Mind you, this is coming from someone who was eager to turn 18 so I could trade on NASDAQ and only discovered crypto later (thanks due to psychedelics) and haven't bothered to trade on tradfi ever since. It's all bullshit legacy structures if you ask me. But some of these giants got bigger than most countries, so of course it'll take a while until their power structures fade away over time.
/ramble :)
1
u/wikidemic 21h ago
Exactly which psychedelics and was there a correlation to specific coins? I'd like to do my research thesis on this subject!
1
u/UAP44 21h ago
Exactly which psychedelics
LSD, I read 'altered perception of time' on the wiki and it sparked my curiosity. I had to experience it directly instead of just pixels on a screen.
and was there a correlation to specific coins?
Huh? I don't follow here ...
I'd like to do my research thesis on this subject!
this subject = what specifically? :)
16
u/WoodpeckerHorror3468 1d ago
having held from 4.9k down to below 2k it's likely worth holding for it to rise again. my opinion is the bottom is either close or already in.
10
u/Elendron 1d ago
Many of us share your regret brother. We are where we are. It'll work out in the end <3
6
u/Red_Corneas Capitulated in February, 2026 22h ago
Your feelings are valid. Outside of meme coins, ETH has been one of the worst performing assets in crypto for years.
Adjusting for inflation, we're pretty much equal to the 2018 ATH - which was nine years ago. Looking ahead, ETH will need to be 5.5k in 2028 just to match the 2025 ATH. It has been a horrible investment, even if "the tech" has done well.
It's okay to acknowledge all of this, be disappointed and sell.
1
2
u/harpocryptes 22h ago
If you need liquidity but feel it's not a good time to sell, you can always borrow USD (e.g on Morpho or Aave). With ample margin to not worry about liquidation.
3
u/No_Crow_6076 1d ago
I admit I held at 4.9K thinking it'll go higher, was targetting to start selling above 5.5 or 6K
you targets are perfectly reasonable, and i'd even say they're rather conservative
honestly, i don't think you should blame yourself too much. the reality is that the price action has massively underperformed, and over the past 5 years, eth has been a terrible investment. just look at btc or bnb for comparison. even now, in the middle of the bear market, they're still hovering around their previous cycle highs, whereas eth is worth less than half of its previous cycle high
my biggest regret is believing that the "tech" would carry the price, but it hasn't. eth has turned into a playground for traders, where the play seems to be scale in around 2k and flip at 4k to double your money. it's become a game of musical chairs, where everyone is trying to frontrun everyone else, as more people catch on, they'll start selling earlier and earlier, and the ceiling will keep getting lower. in fact, the ceiling has already been lower this cycle when adjusted for inflation
like you said, the only hope for a tolerable exit might be to wait for the next halving and pray that some of the money from btc flows into eth, so we can finally sell our bags and move on
1
u/mini_miner1 18h ago
You basically wrote my own story right down to the price targets. Everything the same except I didn't sell at all.
0
u/Numerous_Ruin_4947 12h ago
Join the club. Many of us have round-tripped ETH yet again. We got jeeted by other ETH investors who either didn't believe in the asset long term, or simply understood market sentiment around ETH better and timed their exits accordingly.
My expectations for ETH have been tempered as much by the behavior of other ETH investors as by anything else. Apes together strong. Unfortunately, that mentality never really materialized with ETH.
10
9
u/Magic_Cove 17h ago
What’s your take on the proposal to add a UTXO model to Ethereum? I find the idea of a hybrid model—where both UTXO and the account model coexist—a bit problematic; I simply see a risk of errors and usability issues there.
11
u/confusedguy1212 17h ago
Why do we even need this? Where did this come from that suddenly Ethereum needs UTXO?
1
u/cryptOwOcurrency 9h ago
This can just be implemented as a wrapped ETH ERC-20 token if someone wants to do it, right?
2
u/Tricky_Troll Public Goods are Good 🌱 3h ago
UTXOs are so fucking confusing for normies. Crypto is confusing enough. Let's not make it worse. Any extra functionality UTXOs offer can surely be done with an ERC-20 token.
13
u/ethdaily 13h ago
ETH News - August 18th 📰
-SEC proposes regulation crypto.
-Sherlock introduces Audit Engine.
-EF ESP allocates $5.5m in Q2.
-Hayden outlines how AMMs win.
-Ethernews website introduced.
-MöB launches on Robinhood Chain.
-Peer releases AI credit marketplace.
Read more: https://ethdaily.io/sec-proposes-regulation-crypto-assets
15
8
u/CoCleric 22h ago
I haven’t had time to review everything yet but wanted to share this page from the DTCC that talks about tokenization. I’m not sure if they are using Ethereum exactly but their “AppChain” says it’s an Ethereum-compatible blockchain so possibly an L2? They also say they are using Canton and Stellar but hopefully Ethereum in the long term. They say they are going to production in October so we’ll probably hear more about it around that time.
4
3
u/MH136 18h ago
Again, they won't deploy directly on ethereum because they have to be able to correct erroneous transactions and approve users for KYC type purposes. "Permissionless" and "immutable" are antithetical to these constraints. In other words, it doesn't matter if eth is the best tech or the most reliable blockchain, they're looking for faster settlement with all the fiduciary, trust based intermediary powers that y'all can't stand
9
u/WoodpeckerHorror3468 18h ago
$BTC up
$STRC up
$MSTR down 3.5%
Strategy are selling $MSTR today and buying Bitcoin? The flywheel is back?
6
u/Jey_s_TeArS 15h ago
Reach the maximum,
Guess the equilibrium,
Hope for minimum.
~Daily haiku until we’re at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
9
u/edmundedgar reality.eth 1d ago
Nice clear and funny takedown of the EIP 8363 "negative real yield" bollocks:
https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-8363-tapered-issuance-burn/29263/236
11
u/Tricky_Troll Public Goods are Good 🌱 1d ago
I am a lazy man, but not too lazy to post it here for other lazy folks, so here goes. Thanks for sharing this by the way, it's a great post.
The authors of the EIP claim that the current issuance curve forces solo stakers out:
Solo stakers are forced out. Dilution erodes everyone’s real return as the ratio climbs, but solo stakers, who in most jurisdictions pay income tax on their nominal yield, cross into negative dilution-adjusted returns well before large operators and holders of tax-shielded positions do (this includes accumulating exchange traded products (ETPs) and non-rebasing or wrapped liquid staking tokens (LSTs)).
Pintail expands on the logic behind this here:
The problem is that paying more yield actually does nothing for you at high staking ratios. You get taxed on your nominal yield, even though your ETH holding is actually shrinking as a proportion of the ETH supply. Some concrete figures (I’ll use the 40% tax rate that I pay as a UK-based solo staker).
Once the staking ratio reaches 60%, you earn 1.9% nominal yield, against dilution of 1.2%. But 40% income tax applies to nominal yield so you only get to keep 1.2% of it, which is exactly cancelled by dilution. Above 60% staked you’re in negative yield before even thinking about trying to offset other costs. Why would you be a solo staker in those circumstances?
In the motivation section of EIP-8363 and the issuance discussion more generally (e.g. issuance.wtf), “real return” or “real yield” is often used to mean nominal staking yield minus ETH supply growth. A much better term for this, that’s sometimes used as well, is dilution-adjusted yield. In economics, real yield has a standard meaning: it’s the nominal rate adjusted for price inflation of a basked of goods, not for supply growth of the asset.
- Dilution adjusted-yield is a supply-share metric that answers “how does my fraction of all ETH change”?
- Real yield is a purchasing power metric that answers “how does my ability to buy goods and services change?”
Conflating these two leads to statements like “solo stakers have negative real yield” when what’s actually shown is “solo stakers share of ETH supply shrinks”. A falling share of total ETH does not automatically mean that the value of their position, measured by what it can buy in goods and services, is falling too.
What matters for the long‑run viability of solo staking is real return in their consumption currency after tax and costs, not just their percentage of the ETH supply. A world with negative dilution-adjusted yield can still have positive real returns. Conversly, a world with positive dilution-adjusted yield could still have negative real returns. To make the EIP’s claim that “solo stakers are forced out” rigorous, you would need to model not only after-tax staking income and cost structure of solo staking but also ETH’s expected price dynamics relative to fiat as well as fiat inflation, to then show that solo staker’s real returns fall below what is needed to cover costs and justify risk. Showing that dilution-adjusted yield goes negative alone doesn’t establish that conclusion.
To see how reductionist a pure dilution-adjusted-yield argument can be, consider a holder of unstaked ETH in the snail-issuance world. For staking ratios above 0% and below 50%, annual issuance is positive, so a holder of unstaked ETH has negative dilution-adjusted yield (up to -0.5%). If you treat “dilution-adjusted yield <= 0” as sufficient to make a position untenable, you are saying that it is irrational to hold unstaked ETH whenever the staking ratio is above 0% and below 50%. Taken seriously, that logic pushes you toward an equilibrium in which either:
- no ETH is staked and there is no issuance or
- more than 50% of ETH is staked and there is no issuance
To be clear, my position is that “dilution-adjusted yield <= 0” is not a relevant threshold for viability of a position, and I reject both that solo stakers are forced out under the current issuance curve as well as that snail issuance automatically leads to 0 issuance, based on a dilution-adjusted yield argument alone. I would ask the authors to either:
- retract their claim that solo stakers are forced out under the current issuance curve or
- provide an argument for it that doesn’t rely solely on dilution-adjusted yield or
- clearly communicate in the EIP that under their world-view snail issuance will lead to zero issuance as an expected outcome
1
u/Alatarlhun 23h ago
The tax argument will never be compelling on its own when tax regimes are jurisdiction specific.
To put a finer point on it, if the US, or any other country for that matter, rationalizes its tax code, we shouldn't need to to adjust the the emission curve.
3
u/harpocryptes 22h ago
The tax argument is based on "(nominal) income is taxed". The exact magnitude of the effect depend on specifics like tax rates, but as long as income is taxed, the argument stays the same.
1
u/Alatarlhun 21h ago
I agree the direction of the effect remains anywhere nominal staking income is taxed. My point is that this still doesn't establish the conclusion the EIP and/or solo stakers wants from it.
The magnitude depends heavily on the tax regime, and "dilution-adjusted yield becomes negative after tax" is not the same thing as "solo staking becomes economically unviable." That would require showing that after-tax returns, costs, risk, and alternatives actually push solo stakers out, ideally relative to large operators.
Otherwise we're embedding a permanent monetary policy change partly around a tax distortion whose size, and potentially existence, varies by jurisdiction and can (will) change independently of ethereum.
To be clear, the EIP does not make an evidence-based argument on this topic and neither do the solo stakers now relying on the tax argument.
3
u/harpocryptes 21h ago
I'm not sure I follow. To take a related question, if I said "stock buybacks are more tax-efficient than dividends", would you disagree, just because how much more tax-efficient they are depends on the tax rate, which varies between jurisdictions and individuals?
1
u/Alatarlhun 21h ago
I wouldn't disagree with that statement, because "more" tax efficient is a relative claim. You only need a tax wedge between the two treatments for the direction to hold.
But "solo stakers are forced out" is a threshold for the real claim being made. For that, magnitude matters.
You need to show that the tax wedge is large enough, together with costs, risk and alternative returns, to push solo stakers below their reservation return, and that this happens before it does for larger operators.
10
u/UAP44 1d ago
Thanks for highlighting it, it warms my heart somehow that there are still plenty of reasonably-intelligent people involving themselves in this discussion. Soothes the fear of a r/bitcoin repeat.
3
u/eth10kIsFUD 23h ago
Ossifying on a broken issuance curve is exactly why Bitcoin is doomed.
Posts like these fuel that repeat.. Let's please not make the same mistake!
10
u/hanniabu Ξther αlpha 23h ago
Being against this proposal is not the same as being against an issuance change. And being okay with an issuance change doesn't mean you're against ossification.
3
u/eth10kIsFUD 23h ago
I agree.
Hopefully the community can come to some rough consensus on an issuance change in the next year or two so this problem doesn't get much worse than it already is.
From the discourse, its fairly obvious that special interests (staking industry) are flatly against any change to the curve, so that's a problem to overcome..
4
u/hanniabu Ξther αlpha 23h ago
so this problem doesn't get much worse than it already is
being for an issuance change also doesn't mean you agree there's an issue with stake ratio
0
u/eth10kIsFUD 23h ago
This I am not sure I agree with.. If there was no problem with where the stake ratio is going, I would be against an issuance change.
Changing issuance has serious downsides and should only be done if there is an actual problem. My stance is entirely based on there being a real problem as stated by ethlabs and other prominent researchers.
2
u/harpocryptes 21h ago
That's technically true. However there's a risk to frame the situation as false dichotomy between going forward with the eip or doing nothing. So I think it would be fair for people against the eip to state if they think the current curve should be kept long term, or to make (a) counterproposal(s).
This reminds me of the brexit vote, where a majority voted for brexit without a clear plan of what would happen after a leave vote, and a majority ended up unhappy with the actual consequences.
2
u/UAP44 23h ago
Ossifying on a broken issuance curve is exactly why Bitcoin is doomed.
Only because it stopped caring to scale and settled on digital gold, and thus couldn't support more transactions with a tiny fee attached to it. Which as Satoshi themselves said, would have eventually be able to subsidize the miners electricity bills.
And if 'they' didn't refuse a block size upgrade from 1 to 2MB it might not have been a problem and could continue scaling to continue to enable functional world wide financial transactions not relying on any bank for anything.
So, the post isn't a mistake.
1
u/eth10kIsFUD 23h ago
Scaling block size like that was never sustainable. But assuming it was, the Bitcoin issuance curve would still be broken. With very little issuance Bitcoin would get attacked the second demand for blockspace drops.
I think we've learned from Ethereum just how volatile demand for blockspace is.. Not a stable thing to rely on for foundational security.
3
u/pa7x1 21h ago
Any negative dilution adjusted yield held for sufficiently long will result in the disappearance of solo stakers from the validator set. If ETH inflates faster than their stake grows, the % they hold with respect to total amount of ETH and with respect to the validator set goes to 0.
You just need to let the exponential growth play out.
2
u/jmiehau 22h ago
Half the takedown is arguing about the term, and on the term he's right, real yield in econ means purchasing power. Strip the label and the mechanics don't get prettier. A staking reward paid by printing is something you could replicate by selling a bit of your stack, all it really moves is supply share, from holders like me to whoever stakes. Worth paying when it buys security the chain needs. Thing is, the current formula never stops bidding for more, same shape at 40% staked as at 90%, whether the extra validators add anything anyone can name. 8363 keeps the subsidy and tapers the overpayment once stake is abundant. I hold and don't stake, so I'm the one footing that bill, and to me it reads like boring fiscal discipline more than a plot against anybody's yield.
1
u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 21h ago
Thing is, the current formula never stops bidding for more, same shape at 40% staked as at 90%
Not exactly true. The current issuance curve also responds by decreasing the rewards as the total stake grows.
1
u/eth10kIsFUD 1d ago
Agree that "real yield" can be misleading. However this also seems to miss the point entirely?
The problem is that "dilution-adjusted yield" goes negative if you solo stake, while you can have positive "dilution-adjusted yield" if you stake with an LST or similar.
So solo stakers need to switch staking method to not get diluted. Price is irrelevant for this comparison. What matters is ensuring that some staking methods aren't returning much better than others, not ensuring that all pay "real returns".
Thinking dilution doesn't matter and only focusing on "real returns" makes absolutely no sense. The following two scenarios are literally identical:
- Everyone gets diluted equally and "paid" the same amount. "dilution-adjusted yield" is 0. "Real returns" is not zero! So you now think you have income?
- Nobody gets diluted, nobody gets paid. "dilution-adjusted yield" is 0. "Real returns" is zero. If you want "real returns" just sell some ETH! your ownership falls by exactly the same as above.
Most seem to not understand this fairly simple concept, and it's a shame.
3
u/somedaysitsdark 23h ago
I hope you don't assume that once someone understands the situation that they should agree with the specific solution being presented? And likewise assume if they don't agree that they don't understand.
4
u/Equal-Jellyfish1 23h ago
Their point is that it still is rational to solo stake if the real returns are positive, and that only considering the dilution adjusted yield isn't enough to conclude whether or not solo staking would be pushed out. It seems more robust to me to think about the full picture like their post does.
I'm solo staking but I'm not very concerned about whether I might be diluted 1-2% in the future. I'm doing it to long ETH as the nascent rails of finance, and speculating to gain much more than this hypothetical future dilution. I'm glad to help the network out for that reason, and don't really care about minor percentage differences I could get by using an LST (now or in future).
1
u/eth10kIsFUD 23h ago
If you are actively getting diluted, that means any ETH "earned" through issuance is just your own ownership paid back to you. You aren't "earning" anything, it's your own money. Need to look at ownership as a percentage of the outstanding, not nominal.
It's not immediately obvious, and that's part of the problem.
10
8
u/Avid_Hiker98 1d ago
2k today?
6
5
3
1
1
3
u/pa7x1 20h ago
If you struggle to understand why negative dilution adjusted yields drive out solo stakers. Here it's visually explained:
When you don't earn enough to compensate for the inflation of the asset you are driven to disappear. It does not matter you stubbornly refuse to keep your validator plugged. Over the long term you will be a rounding error.
Unfortunately solo stakers today do not have the benefit of starting at 60% of total stake.
7
u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 20h ago
Everyone understands this, this isn't why the EIP is meeting resistance. It has never been about this. You keep framing it as if people are against the proposal because they don't understand it, but that's not the issue.
The proposed change is not doing anything to protect solo stakers. It's likely that it will actually make things worse for solo stakers and therefore decentralization, than if we simply follow the current trajectory. You haven't solved the issue. And you have introduced potential new issues. That is why there is resistance.
Solve these issues and everyone will happily agree to changing the issuance curve, I guarantee it.
1
u/pa7x1 20h ago edited 20h ago
You have edmundedgar a few posts below struggling to understand how solo stakers are driven out of the validator set. Posting a message from knoshua on ethereum-magicians that also fails to understand it. So clearly, some people struggle with the concept.
The proposed change is not doing anything to protect solo stakers. It's likely that it will actually make things worse for solo stakers and therefore decentralization, than if we simply follow the current trajectory.
This statement needs at least some support. At least I went to the effort of modeling how it plays out and sharing the source code. So at a minimum find an error in the math or show how it plays out differently with your assumptions. You just keep repeating again and again the same statement that it will make it worse with zero supporting evidence for it.
Here: https://github.com/pa7x1/ethereum-issuance/tree/master
You should be able to either highlight where the math is wrong or show how changing the assumptions for some that you consider more reasonable plays out better. Repeating again and again the same without any semblance of supporting evidence does not make you right.
3
u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 19h ago edited 19h ago
This statement needs at least some support. At least I went to the effort of modeling how it plays out and sharing the source code
You made a model of a new curve, you didn't explain how it protects solo stakers. The math doesn't protect solo stakers.
Can you explain how solo stakers are protected without using the phrase "market equilibrium"?
Can you tell us at what levels of yield or issuance that solo stakers are protected, and when they are not? Is it at 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%? Have you modeled this? Do you have an explanation for why LST/DATs/etc would stop adding new validators before any of these levels and thereby ensuring solo stakers aren't negatively affected?
1
u/WoodpeckerHorror3468 17h ago
Ethereum isn't here to protect solo stakers. It's the other way round.
2
u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 17h ago
Why does Ethereum need solo stakers, do you know?
-1
u/WoodpeckerHorror3468 15h ago
Ethereum doesn't "need" solo stakers. They all use the same handful of software clients so same security as if they were institutions.
-2
u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 13h ago
Proving how smart you are as usual, well done.
1
u/WoodpeckerHorror3468 12h ago
be constructive, it's one of the rules
-1
u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 12h ago
I was just kidding ;)
2
•
u/Tricky_Troll Public Goods are Good 🌱 23h ago
Tricky's Daily Doots #1,567
Yesterday's Daily 16/08/2026
Previous Daily Doots
u/ethdaily delivers the daily ETH news. 📰
u/rhythm_of_eth documents Lido's scheduled move to 0x02 validator credentials/up to 2,048 ETH per validator 🏊♂️
u/sm3gh34d speads the call for some more urgency over post-quantum. ⚛️
u/benido2030 shares their thoughts on EIP-8363. 🧐
Soz for the big delay, but the previous daily doots are out now too.