Enter: EthCoordinate. tl;dr: EthCoordinate is a crypto-native organization born inside the EthStaker community, bringing together separate efforts under one umbrella to help with Ethereum governance coordination, support Forkcast, increase stakeholder engagement on proposed or upcoming EIPs and, of course, continue providing software, tooling, and technical support for home stakers. EthStaker started in 2020 when a loosely connected group of Ethereum enthusiasts joined efforts to speed up the development of the beacon chain. The organization steadily evolved, incorporating as a 501(c)4 nonprofit and taking up initiatives around independent participants of Ethereum's consensus mechanism, aka home stakers. Throughout the years, it has played a decisive role in coordinating the launch and operation of devnets, testnets, and mainnet hard fork upgrades; facilitating information flows and generally connecting dots that needed connecting. This year's tectonic organizational changes in the ecosystem have opened up functional gaps in Ethereum coordination. To close these gaps and continue supporting the network, EthStaker's core members are joined by mission-aligned fresh blood to aggregate efforts under one name to produce greater results than operating independently. EthCoordinate is a natural evolution of EthStaker; as Ethereum mainnet heads to its third radical consensus protocol change at a steady pace, it’s time for EthStaker to recalibrate around what Ethereum’s evolving community needs. Our mission is to facilitate interaction between stakeholders of the ecosystem to accelerate the adoption of the Ethereum network and to provide continuity for governance operations. We believe that the Ethereum mainnet is an unparalleled bedrock for the augmentation of humanity's productivity output and that ETH, the asset, is the token that aligns the incentives of all actors involved. We stand up for our values, combining technical rigor with pragmatism for Ethereum to continue being the most accessible and credibly neutral global blockchain. The team is 10 long-tenured Ethereum professionals and currently our main work streams are: ⇥ Maintain a high-quality venue for independent stakers to remain engaged and informed ⇥ Facilitate coordination around core protocol development and adjacencies ⇥ Develop and steward Forkcast, the most popular platform to track the research and engineering initiatives around Ethereum's core protocol ⇥ Facilitate research, discussion, and coordination around protocol economics in support of Ethereum's long-term economic health ⇥ Maintain open source tools and documentation used by participants of the consensus set We're energized for this chapter in Ethereum coordination & our role in it.

I updated my 2023 roadmap diagram to overlay where the items that were there sit in the current Strawmap ( ). In general, a lot of overlap, but: * Some things got reshuffled in order (eg. quantum safety up-prioritized) * Some things deprioritized (eg. VDFs; many EVM improvements) * Some things replaced with superior constructions (eg. Verkle -> unified BT -> PBT; state expiry -> new state types) What's most striking, however, is that some completely new things are in the strawmap that are NOT in this diagram, because they were not in the 2023 roadmap at all. These reflect changing priorities. Notably: * First-class attention to strong privacy. This covers: keyed nonces and recent roots, aspects of FOCIL, lean privacy pool & wormholes * Aggressive scaling in the context of post-quantum. This covers: leanSPHINCS signatures and aggregation, zkzk frames (see ) * Lean-ification of the spec, to assist in formal verification (full FV of everything is only possible because of modern AI) * Blob and gas futures (this idea just didn't exist back in 2023) * Native rollups (SNARKs were nowhere near mature enough to even consider this back in 2023) * A more open design space for the "future of the EVM". zkzk frames already implies that the protocol will expose to users some ISA that's not the EVM - current leading candidates are leanISA and RISC-V. These ISAs are more simple, modern and efficient than the EVM. Once they're there, why not expose them to developers everywhere? (And then, why not turn the EVM into being an IR on top of that ISA, instead of an enshrined feature massively complicating the base protocol?) Though much of the deeper exploration here is too early even for the strawmap. * New state types are not just a replacement for expiry, they're a fundamentally different paradigm to how Ethereum does scaling A common theme in scaling, found in both state types and zkzk frames (both new ideas), is that instead of trying to maximally scale ALL ethereum activity, we try to create specialized mechanisms that have more restrictive properties that make them more scaling-friendly, while supporting the heaviest loads incurred by users and applications today (eg. token transfers, swaps) and tomorrow (eg. privacy protocols). The other common theme is treating STARKs and AI-accelerated FV as first-class objects, that we are okay betting the technical future of Ethereum on. There are recursive STARKs in many layers of the protocol, one particular primitive (the "aggregate to union verified dependencies" primitive) is expected to be used in *three* places in the protocol: EL, CL and DL. This can only be safe with formal verification, which is itself only feasible with modern AI tools. In general, many steps forward in maturity. And a huge amount of hard work by many dozens of Ethereum researchers and developers on all of these features. Ethereum will be quantum-safe. Ethereum will put users' privacy first. Ethereum will be secure. Ethereum will be censorship-resistant. Ethereum will be highly performant and scalable while satisfying the above. And Ethereum will be Lean.

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.

In the past two days, ethereum has de facto moved much closer to ossification of monetary policy. The eip authors wanted issuance reduction, but by pursuing it in a politically ineffective way, they've made any future issuance reduction significantly less likely.

imo GENIUS is bigger than clarity for ETH. GENIUS is just 1 year old. The whole world is starting to come onchain now. We are hitting the ramp of the S curve. Eth needs to win this near term growth. We are winning. Yet it's still early. If too much of the world's accumulated state and integrations were to end up elsewhere, then eth's impact and value would be severely limited, regardless of how beautiful or optimal the protocol is. The goal of issuance reduction shouldn't be inflation reduction. The inflation rate is already <1%. Fiddling with small supply numbers is a low leverage way to make ETH win. Our huge opportunity for ETH is on the demand side. Issuance reduction comes at an extremely high political cost that isn't remotely offset by the benefit of gross inflation reduction. I may support an issuance reduction change to help reduce the staking ratio, as that maximizes vanilla ETH for use in the app layer. This is a much more important and worthy of goal than inflation reduction. But it needs to protect home stakers with a reasonable minimum yield, and it needs to meaningfully reduce the expected steady state staking ratio... I'd guess we're currently headed to ~66%. This eip draft is way too contentious imo. Its target staking ratio of 50% isn't that much lower than the 66% that I think we're headed towards today. If the eip authors are committed to 0% yield, then it's DOA and better to drop it quickly and focus energy on our many growth programs.

Opposition to this eip seems to be pretty broad, including from: 1. ppl worried about who'll run validators when yields tend to 0% 2. ppl who don't want staking yield to go down 3. ppl who don't want ETH's monetary policy to change ever again, and worry that changing it at all invites future changes 4. ppl who want stability and growth in general, and are against contentious eips I'm in groups 1/3/4. In theory, I'm pro-issuance reduction if the yield doesn't drop all the way to 0%. In practice, this eip is way too contentious. I'd rather us focus on growth.

Yesterday, the 1st and 2nd top buyers of L1 blobs were Base and Robinhood... unsurprising ofc 3rd top buyer? X Layer by OKX Exchange, an eth L2 rollup built on OP Stack. OKX was recently valued at $25B. The list of $10B+ corps investing big in rollups keeps growing. Ethereum

New paper on eth's fast confirmation rule > We prove that the rule satisfies both safety, confirmed blocks remain canonical, and monotonicity, a confirmed block remains confirmed at all future times. 🔥

1/ We’re excited to announce the close of @ethereuminsti's initial ecosystem funding round and supporter coalition, with broad participation and support from individuals and entities focused on driving institutional adoption of @ethereum. Our ecosystem funding round is anchored by @BitMNR, @Sharplink, Ethereum co‑founders @ethereumJoseph , and @MihaiAlisie, alongside a larger group of individuals and crypto‑native institutions.

One way to view PropAMMs is as a next step to all the different ways we have signed a swap and sourced swap liquidity over the years. Ordinary AMM: When you sign an ordinary AMM tx, eg. uniswap app in 2021, you are agreeing to use that specific AMM pool at whatever the market price is when the block is built, but no worse price than the min you sign into the tx. The pool you're using you picked manually from the swap UI. Aggregator: When you sign an aggregator tx, like on matcha, you're agreeing to use a specific series of AMM pools and other onchain venues to achieve your swap. The specific path is quoted to you every ~10 seconds, that's why aggregators are always updating quotes-- because the specific path of onchain composability that your funds will take is snapshot into the signed tx, so it needs to be continuously refreshed. If a better funds path becomes available after you sign, too bad, you already signed. Solver: When you sign a solver tx, like cowswap, you're agreeing to exchange at whatever best rate a 3rd party marketplace of solvers finds, but no worse swap rate than your signed min rate. The main difference here vs. an ordinary AMM is that the solver marketplace is empowered to use any and all sources of liquidity that are synchronously composable. Solvers might use protocols that you've never heard of to fill your order, and indeed do all the time. Solvers do not bring any of their own money. They are fully focused on using their offchain compute/data to find you a swap solution purely from existing onchain liquidity sources, in a single synchronous tx. This competitive solver search process happens asynchronously in a batch with other cowswap txs, which is why you wait after you sign a cow order and then it moos as you when it's filled. Onchain solver: Something novel that has been attempted, but isn't very popular afaik, is do the solving synchronously onchain such that the best swap strategy is discovered during the swap's execution itself. This is only possible when onchain execution is cheap (it takes a lot more gas to to find the best swap than to execute it). It's also inherently limiting because you just can't check the entire chain for the best exotic liquidity during the swap itself, even cheap gas is too expensive and limited. PropAMMs: A PropAMM is a market maker that plugs into the MEV pipeline to fulfill your swap using the latest price as of the millisecond when the block is built. The 12 seconds between eth L1 blocks is an eternity for micro price discovery, but PropAMMs sidestep the 12 seconds entirely by quoting the very latest price as of the exact moment the block is built. This is only possible when the market maker is directly plugged into the block building process. The "prop" in PropAMM stands for "proprietary", meaning that the PropAMM is not neutral infra, it's a team risking their own money to try and make a profit fulfilling your swap. PropAMMs are a standalone liquidity source and need to be integrated into a swap workflow, such as solvers or aggregators, to become accessible to end users. What makes PropAMMs so promising for Ethereum is that they allow our capital to remain on L1 where it's safest and most productive, while sidestepping the massive downside of 12-second block time due to always quoting the freshest price at the instant the block is built in our mev pipeline. Eat your cake (better fresher prices) and have it too (stay on L1).

Have always been a huge fan of Base and their growth culture. Jesse's vision for broad spectrum onchain economy has been inspiring for years. More importantly, it's the most correct framing for how Eth is eating the economic world. Our best L2s bring something unique to the table. Base has that, massively. Positive sum bright futures