Building onchain is similar to building in a jurisdiction without clear regulations. You don't have clarity or confidence to make long-term decisions that won't be impacted by external factors outside of your control. It's like building on quicksand.
Building a product is tough enough but when the foundation of what you are building on shifts your ability to adjust is critical, and if you can't you die. It's why regulations shouldn't change often or quickly.
Switzerland has built a MOAT on this (clear, never changing), the USA historically has as well (pro-builder).
Ethereum should not make decisions lightly that could have a catastrophic impact on its #
1# user base (DeFi), it erodes confidence at best and implodes users at worst.
Decisions like this should (if at all) be rolled out over much longer time horizons and with users as the first stakeholders to engage.
Right now besides stablecoins and prediction markets the industry is reeling. We need stability and support not foundational shifts that change the rules of the game.
EIP-8361 changes the rules of the game. We're securing a multi-billion economy that is high-risk, not playing world cup football, the rules don't need to be changed right now.
It looks to me that not only the majority, but almost everyone with a bit of common sense is against EIP-8361. It may go down as one of the most resisted Ethereum proposals ever, perhaps second only to ProgPoW.
What people genuinely want is for Ethereum to focus on solving problems that drive real demand and make the network more competitive.
The EF's ivory tower academic approach will not solve those challenges. It's disconnected from the builders in the trenches who choose to build on Ethereum every day. We should not take them for granted.
Show more