dataalways ⚡️🤖(@dataalways):This echoes my opinion of the current issuance EIP. I'm not against reducing rewards, but I think we should be more ambitious than simply changing changing the curve. Let's target the stakers that provide outsized value to the network (minority client, geographically decentralized, solo stakers, etc.) and find sybil resistant ways to pay them outsized shares of issuance. The strongest version we have ready today is correlation penalties (EIP-7716, let's increase the parameters massively), but we should envision a world with proofs of client usage, rewards that taper off when many validators are run on the same machine, and some form of proof-of-location. These are non-trivial, but I think it's what we should build towards. Also, we if we're worried about the staking ratio climbing in the short-term, then we should set the churn limit to dynamically decrease and slow the climb. Cut it in half for now and it buys us twice the time (in the projected worst case).

2026.08.07 17:17

This echoes my opinion of the current issuance EIP. I'm not against reducing rewards, but I think we should be more ambitious than simply changing changing the curve. Let's target the stakers that provide outsized value to the network (minority client, geographically decentralized, solo stakers, etc.) and find sybil resistant ways to pay them outsized shares of issuance. The strongest version we have ready today is correlation penalties (EIP-7716, let's increase the parameters massively), but we should envision a world with proofs of client usage, rewards that taper off when many validators are run on the same machine, and some form of proof-of-location. These are non-trivial, but I think it's what we should build towards. Also, we if we're worried about the staking ratio climbing in the short-term, then we should set the churn limit to dynamically decrease and slow the climb. Cut it in half for now and it buys us twice the time (in the projected worst case).

显示更多

Vasiliy Shapovalov@_vshapovalov

2026.08.05 09:28

The thing I don't like most about cutting issuance discource is lack of positive vision for Ethereum validator set. Original design was not prescient enough, but has clear design goals: hundreds of thousands of individual stakers, running Ethereum all across the world. Status quo proponents also have a version of positive vision - e.g. Lido has built community staking, is decentralizing and geographically distributing validator set. We're successfully making a staking protocol that can bring Ethereum closer to original goals via opinionated, non-neutral decisions that base protocol can't adopt. Cutting is just "do it or it's going to get worse", no clear vision of good validator set we're solving for. They're given up on original vision, but don't want to clearly admit it and offer a new one.

显示更多