confirmation times used by top interop bridges when bridging off from ethereum that could greatly benefit from FCR (~12s): - Circle's CCTP v2: ~7min - Circle's CCTP v1: ~19 min - LayerZero: ~8 min - Base canonical bridge: ~1 min - Chainlink CCIP: ~17 min - Polygon PoS canonical bridge: ~19 min - OP canonical bridge: ~1 min - Arbitrum canonical bridge: ~9 min - Stargate: ~8 min - Robinhood canonical bridge: ~9 min - Gnosis Bridge: ~15min - Wormhole: ~19min - Hyperlane: ~3min - Axelar: ~16 min

Opening L2BEAT will look different as of today because we have a new Home page! 💗 We cover a lot more than L2s now - interop, privacy, ZK, and the new page pulls the most important parts of all of it into one screen. Here's what you'll find 👇

currently merging and testing v0.0.2 of the kohaku-cli big upgrade: - import existing tornado notes into wallet - railgun unshield supports "tail-calls" (parity w tornado) - mgmt of ethereum names (ENS/GNS/WNS) and records - embed stealth address protocol into wallet - MORE

My thoughts on issuance: 1. the problem is real 2. the direction of the EIP is valid 3. but: changing issuance also has major downsides 4. most importantly: the decision must be with the community I said a few words on the ACD call on Thursday, and wanted to expand on my thinking - both as Ethlabs co-founder and ACD moderator. In general, being able to have difficult conversations in public has always been a core strength of Ethereum. 1. The problem is real - Slashing is core to Ethereum’s security. Not all attacks are automatically slashable. E.g. a majority of validators could censor the chain through malicious attesting. It needs to always be credible to slash such attackers. The larger portion of ETH is staked, and the tighter staked ETH is integrated into DeFi, the more credibility of slashing is at risk. - Worse dilution for stakers: at low stake %, most rewards are real income. At high stake %, most rewards just offset dilution. - Economies of scale: The competitiveness gap between centralized staking providers and both solo stakers and more decentralized staking providers widens at higher stake rates. - Narrative confusion around ETH: ETH is a “productive asset” due to protocol revenue (fees & MEV), not staking yield. The staking yield also risks crowding out the emergence of other (productive) yield opportunities for raw ETH. - Worse dilution for raw ETH holders: In general, harder assets are more attractive. BTC as the only $1T+ digital store-of-value explicitly centers zero long-term supply growth as its value proposition. Counter point: Gold with 1-2% yearly supply growth has a $30T store-of-value market cap. 2. The direction of the EIP is valid - If one wants to limit the stake rate, the issuance curve needs to bend downwards for high stake %. The EIP is a specific instance of such a curve. - The EIP also includes a further issuance reduction as a second phase. This introduces minimum viable issuance (MVI) as a secondary, monetary objective of the EIP. I personally think that is reasonable, but these two aspects should be discussed and reasoned about separately. 3. Changing issuance also has major downsides - The decentralization of the staking set is crucial for Ethereum’s health. Many solo stakers are less economically competitive than large operators. A change that results in a significant drop in staking yield risks having these solo stakers disproportionately leave the staking set. - Staked ETH is tightly integrated into DeFi today, both directly though LSTs, and through raw ETH lent out for the purpose of staking. Any major reduction in staking yield thus risks disrupting a core part of DeFi. This effect is worse the more rapid and more significant the yield drop is. - Any change to Ethereum’s monetary policy resets the “monetary policy ossification clock”. Predictability of supply matters for ETH’s attractiveness as store-of-value. So far, changes are only ever towards issuance reduction, but will investors trust that that will hold true forever? - Ethereum is overall at a pivotal moment. Given the large social cost of any months-long debate on issuance, it is reasonable to argue that this should wait until Ethereum overall is in calm waters, even if it makes a decision at a later time more painful. 4. The decision must be with community - Most hard fork decisions are made by the allcoredevs (ACD) governance process. Conceptually, this is “delegated authority” by the community to the core devs. This delegation is very effective on most technical topics. For the occasional hard fork decision that is not primarily technical, this setup is however less well suited. - Issuance in particular is not a technical decision. The decision still needs to be anchored to the ACD process - core devs need to coordinate on what to implement - but the actual decision forming needs to happen on the community level. - This is easier said than done. The ACD process is flawed but well defined. A “community decision” is much fuzzier and harder to operationalize. Discussion venues like X are important, but also limited. How to have high quality community-wide discussions remains an important challenge to solve. As we are getting off the ground at Ethlabs, we are trying to find the right path for how to contribute to both Ethereum and ETH. Issuance is a tricky topic for us: Caspar and I have argued for issuance changes in the past, and for now continue to have conviction in that path. The Ethlabs team as a whole has a wider spectrum of opinions, which has been healthy for internal discourse. And of course, we also see the broad community skepticism on this topic. The ability to have difficult conversations has always been a core strength of Ethereum. Our role in that should be to productively contribute to and engage with such conversations, not to blindly run in one direction. We will iterate to get that balance right, and genuinely appreciate feedback as we do.

Stop sir, stop it. I can’t keep up with the pace of development, I just can’t. It’s too much. Yesterday they were arguing about monetary policy in the open and showing off their decentralized community, and now they’re doing some scaling magic. I really can’t take it anymore.

Tbf, it was not proposed late in the process at all. We have the PFI -> CFI -> SFI -> mainnet pipeline for 2 forks now, and the issuance eip, without judging its merits, has been proposed (alongside ~40 other EIPs) in time to be considered for next year's fork. PFI'ing is simple. The hard part is getting it CFI'd. EIPs have never been proposed so early before they can actually ship.

guys, ethereum wasn't created to fit into the existing system. it was created to _route around it_. somewhere along the way, we stopped trying to make the old world obsolete and started asking for its approval. fuck approval. wtf are we building today that makes the old world obsolete? not 10% cheaper. not 20% faster. _obsolete_.

Dark Forest Aztec is live! A fully onchain strategy game by @dfarchon built on hidden information: explore a universe, claim planets, and move on other players without the chain revealing information. Play here: and read more about the game below 👇

just opened a proposal to enable native rollups via STARK-carrying frame transactions (8141 + 8288) with this registry native rollups can enforce proofs that follow L1 semantics and automatically upgrade with it or pin a specific fork

🚨 New EIP: Tapered Issuance Burn We just submitted an EIP to ethereum/EIPs: a minimal, market-driven fix to Ethereum's issuance policy removing the incentive for stake growth beyond 50% of ETH supply. EIP-8361 by @pintail_xyz, @jdetychey, @dapplion, @pa7x1, @ladislaus0x & @drakefjustin 🧵

It's pretty amazing that Tornadocash continues to exist, be used, and even have things built on top of it by top-tier devs like @kassandraETH while the orginal devs are literally on criminal trial. And that the most powerful government in the world tried to censor it, and couldn't. The criminal trial part sucks but this is what crypto was built for and Ethereum is literally the only blockchain with 'proof of government censorship attack resistance' so to speak.

I got a few people in X DMs and TG asking me what I think about the revised proposal of ENS Labs for their new foundation. You can find my last forum post in ENS forums about it below. I am tired of this and won't comment on it anymore. ENS DAO is dead. ENS Labs managed to kill the community that brought them where they are. If you are delegating ENS tokens to me you'd better sell them or at least undelegate from me and delegate to one of Nick's sock puppets.