Register and share your invite link to earn from video plays and referrals.

Pooja Ranjan | ranjan.eth
@poojaranjan19
Building Ethereum community! 📚EIP-5069, EIP-8133 | @ECHInstitute | @TeamAvarch | prev. @Accenture
Joined August 2016
445 Following    4.8K Followers
I think this is another reminder of why we need to do a better job explaining the EIP and Ethereum upgrade process to the broader community. Dear @MikeSilagadze, I understand the concerns, but there’s no need to panic just yet. A few notes that may help: - The proposal "Tapered Issuance Burn" is added as a new pull request 48 hours prior to the next ACDC call. - It doesn’t even have an EIP number yet (the number referenced is already assigned to another proposal). - Being proposed for inclusion (PFI) doesn’t mean it’s going to be on the mainnet. It simply means the authors are asking for the proposal to be discussed with Core Devs. - If authors get an opportunity to share, it will be a "PFI - Proposed For Inclusion" to Hegota, an upgrade which will be on Ethereum mainnet after Glamsterdam, (which is expected approximately in the next 3-4 months). - If the proposal moves forward, there will still be months of discussion, implementation, testing, and community feedback before anything could ever reach mainnet. - August 6th is the deadline to submit Hegota and thus this PR with a proposal: - Here is the Pull Request to Hegota PFI If anyone disagrees with the proposal, now is actually the best time to say so. Ethereum’s process is designed for exactly this kind of feedback. I’d encourage everyone to share their thoughts where the authors and core developers can see them: Join Discussion: The earlier the feedback comes in, core devs can make an informed decision. I hope this helps!
Show more
This is so disappointing on every level. EIP released with 48 hours notice for comments. Realistically 4 months before it goes live. For a major network economics change with far reaching implications for all of DeFi. Every builder on Ethereum opposes this. Why is this a focus? None of the reasoning makes any damn sense. This will self evidently push out solo stakers who aren't subsidized by the EF or others. It will essentially guarantee that the only ones staking are large centralized entities with zero cost of capital where users passively hold their ETH. Why? It will obviously kill a huge chunk of DeFi which is built around the staking ecosystem. Seven of the top 10 DeFi protocols with face a capital exodus. Why? Is the idea that a 0.8% reduction in issuance is somehow going to help ETH price? People who stake ETH don't sell it. This change will halt any new ETH getting staked and realistically will result in tens of billions of $ of ETH getting unstaked and entering into the market, not to mention the implosion of the core Ethereum use case. Why? Is the concern that liquid staking tokens, which intermediate about a quarter of staked ETH, displace ETH as money? This reasoning betrays a cash-accounting level of understanding of the economy, as if only M1 counts as real money. LSTs serve as valuable building blocks, and in fact implement a lot of user protections that would not be appropriate to do at the network level. At a near zero cost of 10-15 bps. I say this as a builder on Ethereum, not as someone who stands to benefit from staking issuance. I don't have much at risk here. Almost all of @ether_fi revenue is now coming from vaults and payments, staking is a small (and shrinking) part of our business. This is bad for decentralization, this is bad for Ethereum adoption, and this is bad for the credibility of the network to roll things out this way. This reinforces the Ethereum critics' position that the network is run by a small group of insiders with no regard for the actual users and builders on the chain. I can say that neither I nor any builder I know was asked for feedback on this before it went live. Any nation state or large institution looking at this will justifiably have a dramatic loss of confidence in the governance and stability of Ethereum.
Show more