EIP-8363 is bad for DeFi, bad for Ethereum and mistimed. Grow DeFi, increase network volumes, burn more ETH as a result. That is how we achieve the trillions of onchain growth we expect, while making ETH more and more disinflationary over time. But we are still in the lets win phase. This EIP is more so suited for a future where the world is already all settling on Ethereum, prices (and economic security) are higher, and we can tighten our belts (maybe, I still have monetary theory questions). Positive nominal yields, managed but positive inflation (we are sub 1% already, basically on par with BTC) and positive real yields are how you create sound money. Reliable, slow moving monetary policy is how you create an asset worthy of reserve status, while incentivizing a network security model that institutions can look at today, to underwrite for the next decade. Now is not the time to scare away the institutions we have successfully courted over a long journey. Let them arrive, make our onchain economy thrive through classic monetary theories such as the reduced cost of borrow versus positive real yield assets, and then burn more ETH via the existing mechanisms on rising transaction volumes. We need a lot more ETH denominated high quality risk assets onchain, otherwise the flight of capital will not be from staking elsewhere onchain. It will leave the ecosystem, or take bad risks in pursuit of the yield offset, and regress us as an industry. It's one thing for more staking to be dilutive to issuance. If we think 50% of the network being staked is the point where value has diminished, then let the network share in rewards that stop rising at this point. I'm not specifically supporting that threshold, but the concept of an issuance curve that flattens as marginal value declines does works. We already have that on the ramp up of our issuance curve especially. But burning, and bringing these yields down 50% at current stake levels, and putting a risk of 0 yield in front of the world creates an uncertain, and unreliable future. Also, as an aside, the mint then burn mechanism will cause a lot of taxation questions. As a public company, we have resources to dedicate to taxation. Individuals might feel the pain of this approach. Back to monetary policy. Being sound money, and creating a strong economy on the back of it is a well tested problem. Negative real yields don't work. We learned that in the 70s in the US, Turkey learned that earlier this decade, and the Argentine Peso did as well. You flee the currency with negative real policy rates since purchasing power erodes. Running validators isn't free, add in liquidity risk/slashing and that needs to be factored into calculating a real-yield where you don't just buy bonds to get the yield, you are paid for the risk and the work of securing the network with your money. I love that our community has these conversations in the open. That anyone can submit EIPs, and think everyone involved had good intentions in their submission. I just think we're missing the forest for the trees here.