Etc.
@ec265
ethereum enthusiast, staking savant, 50% insight and 50% shitposting and 50% complex mathematical comedy
Joined June 2010
1.5K Following 4.7K Followers
This isn’t a great take to be honest
Unilateral decision making is what we want to get away from, not changes full stop
Changes going through a vigorous governance process are not bad - that’s exactly what you want
You want the whole community engaged and discussing it, you want every stakeholder to have a voice
What you don’t want is a small group of individuals making the rules, like a monetary policy committee
Yes, too many changes are bad as there needs to be stability
But the wanting or needing to change shouldn’t be the issue here, it should be that the proposed change isn’t fit for purpose
(And it’s also ironic because Bitcoin *needs* to change in order to provide security to BTC)
Show more
"This creates a zero chance that they choose Ethereum"
Mike Silagadze from EtherFi emphasising no nation states will choose Ethereum if Ethereum's rules can be changed by a vote
"There's a reason El Salvador chose Bitcoin as their national reserve asset, and that reason was largely because it's ossified, we know what it's going to do whether you like it or not. It's very predictable, we can trust it. There's not going to be some rug through some governance process that's going to suddenly dramatically change Bitcoin's properties. The founder is long gone and dead, this is a system we can rely on"
"The way this process was run with Ethereum is the opposite of that. Imagine you're a nation state considering, should we go all in on Bitcoin or all in on Ethereum. Ethereum already has the credibility that among smart contract platforms it is the most secure, the most stable, the most credibly neutral, but this is a way to undermine that"
Show more
