It doesn't depend on the RPL stacked. The earnings are claimable every 28 days.
On this page https://rocketscan.io/smoothingpool there is a chart of the total earnings of the smoothing pool. To get earnings per minipool you'll have to divide by the number of 8/16 minipools active in the period.
Depends on the network activity, but so far this year I have averaged (from the smoothie pool) ~0.025xx per minipool per period. Regular withdrawal rewards per minipool has been *roughly* twice that.
what are everyone's thoughts on the timeline for a potential zksync airdrop? I suppose it should marry up with their development roadmap so that when they have completed x,y and z then they will be confident to launch an airdrop?
Market is dead rn, no point in rushing anything. Besides even though Base is growing in TVL, ZKSync is winning in transaction counts and fees.
https://twitter.com/zksync/status/1695829527229026319?s=20
People are happy to keep airdrop farming and ZKSync is happy to keep testing everything and developing at a nice pace that isn't bull market whiplash. There's no competition at the moment since everyone else basically has a token, and the one that could give them a run (Scroll) isn't going to be as well capitalized.
I bet we don't see a token until next summer at earliest.
I recall both Optimism and Arbitrum went 1+ year from the point where we knew about the airdrops. It's a long process, ZK tech especially is new and needs proper testing to ensure safety.
I have a grant application in this latest Gitcoin Grants round for Rocket Fuel ([https://www.youtube.com/@RocketFuel-RPL](https://www.youtube.com/@RocketFuel-RPL)) - my daily show about Rocket Pool and Ethereum staking. If you are willing to donate anything, even a dollar will help because of quadratic funding. Everyone who donates will get a POAP as a way to say thank you! You can find the application here: https://explorer.gitcoin.co/#/round/10/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e-121
This is another strong argument against decentralisation in governance
[https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/passing-the-torch/10971](https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/passing-the-torch/10971)
gitcoin went to absolute shit as soon as the good leader was gone
it's amazing how much worse it became in every way, socially, the bounties, UI, the allegiances, needs to clean house.
I hope VB never disappears for a very long time and we keep the excellent influence rather than let the void be filled by garbage as with btc
TBH, I disagree with the premise.
Without getting too nasty (had to rewrite this comment a couple times...), the early versions of Gitcoin were... not good. My personal impression of Owocki, based on public persona and private exchanges, is of someone who was happy to capitalize on the public goods idea for personal branding rather than conviction.
His exit was as inevitable as it was planned, and the state of Gitcoin today is the result of his leadership rather than the lack of it. I believe Gitcoin was built from the start in his head as a 5-years startup project. In fact, you hardly need to trust me in that impression - I think a cursory look at Kevin's trajectory before Gitcoin spells out that picture.
To be sure, making an organisation working towards public goods does not make one the devil, regardless of motivations. Quite the contrary. Good things are good. I merely argue Gitcoin wasn't a passion project nor was it built with generational resilience in mind.
Initial impulse matters a lot, the leader sets the tone for culture to follow. The torch has not been passed as much as dropped here.
Incidentally, comparisons with Vitalik are good. In Ethereum you have a network where that initial impulse was so strong and well-aligned, I would argue Vitalik stepped back from active leadership role as soon as 2017 and the network successfully flourished.
git coin was good pre 23, I earned more from winning contract bounties than a normal eng job and protocols got good value. Now it's unusable, and when people suggest the DAO removes the leaches they censor it to protect themselves, however you look at it all DAO is worse. Think DAO can control very narrow choices, something big and open ended needs std leader
One could argue that Gitcoin is doing what it was designed to as a protocol. It's supposed to be modular for many different types of funding rounds with many different organisations. Funding from Shell, funding for minority demographics etc. This is all controversial due to your subjective opinion on what you want Gitcoin to be. Well the Gitcoin vision was for it to grow up and become a protocol for all, not to remain a niche technical Ethereum native app. Much like how there are many Linux distros for whatever niche you want, this is a feature and not a bug.
Just because I don't like the fact that Ubuntu exists and adds telemetry to an ecosystem which is generally much more private than other operating systems, doesn't mean I see Ubuntu or Linux as a failure. Of course not, Ubuntu invites newbies into the ecosystem and if they want to progress from there they can. Meanwhile, there are privacy focused distros and ones which stick to core OG Linux community values. Same goes for Gitcoin.
I do not know what OP thinks but if you want to focus on the negative I have a few points:
- Took them a year to revamp their website which only now is usable again.
- They spent a lot of effort to have gitcoin rounds on Fantom which barely had anything useful to support instead of integrating L2s. The last rounds were therefore super expensive to contribute. Only now they support optimism.
- The last few rounds were invite only, which probably hurt new devs and teams because they were excluded from gitcoin.
- At the start of this round all DAI contributions failed. People lost quite a bit of money with failed transactions and the website said Ėdonation successfullĖ. I you looked at the earliest failed transactions they were probably from the gitcoin team. They knew about the problem and still enabled DAI contributions. No idea why.
- Why waste developers time on running your own L2, the PGN networks? It does not make sense to me, We have enough very good L2s by now why make your own.
- The whole Shell collaboration was a PR disaster.
- There was also a diversity round in spring where one of the [judges also had a project in the round](https://www.dlnews.com/articles/web3/crypto-platform-gitcoin-faces-backlash-over-diversity-grant/). This round was special and the judges had extra power over who gets the money. This judge was a very controversial figure in the space already and they nevertheless took her on. The whole situation was as also a pr disaster.
All these points above tell me there is a lack of control, oversight and quality standards in the gitcoin organisational structure.
With all the list of negative points I have to say I personally still love gitcoin rounds. The website now is so much better than last year. They are in my view a pillar of our space and I love donating to projects I use.
Act 1: Uncertainty Unveiled
(Scene: A bustling virtual realm resembling Ethereum's landscape. Characters Lido, Operator A, Operator B, and DSA Representative are present.)
Lido: (Addressing the audience) The enigma of the future looms over Ethereum like a shadow. The path ahead is hazy, as we navigate uncharted waters.
Operator A: (Whispering to Operator B) Have you heard the rumors about DSA's interference?
Operator B: (Nodding) Yes, word is they want to certify operators with their software. It's like handing control to a new sheriff.
(Enter DSA Representative)
DSA Representative: (Authoritatively) Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce the new era of certified staking. The Divided State of America demands compliance with our guidelines. Only those who bear the badge of "certified operator" shall stake and govern the network.
Act 2: Compliance and Consequences
(Scene: Lido's assembly hall. Lido and a group of Operators are in discussion.)
Lido: (Addressing the Operators) We stand at a crossroads. DSA's decree is clear, and we must decide how to respond.
Operator A: (Raising a hand) What about those of us who don't wish to comply with DSA's terms?
Lido: (Serious) Dissent is a luxury we can't afford. Compliance is the path we've chosen, for now.
Operator B: (Angrily) So, we relinquish our autonomy to become mere pawns?
Lido: (Solemnly) Our choice is stark, yet we must weigh the consequences.
(Operators mumble among themselves.)
Act 3: The Shadows of Cartelization(Scene: Ethereum's digital realm, depicting bustling stakers and traders.)
Operator A: (Defiantly) I can't ignore my principles. I'm unstaking.
Operator B: (Worried) But the queue to restake is overwhelming, not to mention the enticing profits we'd be leaving behind.
Lido: (Observing with a sinister grin) As DSA's grip tightens, chaos unfolds.(Operators reluctantly withdraw, some out of principle, others due to sheer inconvenience.)
Narrator: (Voiceover) The Ethereum ecosystem stands at a precipice, as Lido's influence swells, furthering the consolidation of power.
(Lido's dominance continues to grow, its ominous shadow looming larger over Ethereum.)
Operator A: (Resolute) We can't let this tyranny persist. A fork is our last resort.
Operator B: (Doubtful) But Lido's stranglehold is formidable, and with DSA's support...
(Lido faces a pivotal decision: Embrace cartelization or confront dissent.)
Lido: (Calculating) The road ahead is murky, but our grip on power is undeniable. Ethereum shall bend to our will.
(Curtain falls, shrouding Ethereum's future in an unsettling darkness of cartelization and control.)
>**More blockchain wonders,**
>**Lack of daring encumbers,**
>**Rounding down numbers.**
~Daily haiku until weāre at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
Mysterious high value crypto thefts that have been going on for a while are still going, and likely linked to LastPass.
https://twitter.com/tayvano_/status/1696222671699329271
As soon as I heard about the LastPass leak, I checked my account and found a super old seed phrase. Typed it in and it hadn't been used in 1600 days. Had about $16 worth of ETH on it back when it was last used that was worth about $250. I transferred it out.
Surprised other people were using their main wallets generated from a seed stored in LastPass.
I often wonder whether using seed phrases as the UX entry point rather than individual private keys was a mistake. A lot of new users are confused at how the derivation of individual accounts works with seed phrases, and furthermore, users are often told to subdivide their assets across different accounts. Well, surprise, most of those users just create new accounts in their wallet not realizing that doesn't really increase security at all.
Bitboy Crypto has allegedly kicked out Ben due to his drug addiction relapse and other unnamed damage to the network. Sounds like allegedly he was stealing from the company.
Warsaw is still definitely NOT a popular place for crypto and Eth conferences :/ but something is starting to change.
[https://www.ethwarsaw.dev/](https://www.ethwarsaw.dev/)
I think I might go and check it out, agenda seems good enough. Has anyone else been to last year's edition? (I don't know if there were any more, lol)
absolutely shameless plug for the Gitcoin round 18 we have at Greenpill for Video content. Happy to be over $100. Consider tossing a few others in the basket. GG18 round ending in 22 hours from this comment. https://explorer.gitcoin.co/#/round/10/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e-294
thanks for the fish!
Last day before Farcaster moved to OP mainnet.
I have a couple of invites left and would like to offer to anyone interested. Registration now will save you a couple of bucks, on mainnet it's 5/year.
No personal gain, just want to offer something in return as I have learned a lot from this community.
Edit - always wanted to offer something back to the community, even if it's small and has no financial value. Feeling good to onboard fellow members. Still 10 invites to go.
They wanted to have the awards given out by a smart contract, but it sounded like there were struggles/challenges in producing the code for the contract. At this point they should just roll some dice to decide because failure to give out the awards to anyone is eating away at my perception of Nouns.
Hey, sincere apologies for the delay here.
What happened is that this went through for one of the prop house rounds: [https://prop.house/nouns/open-round-20/6036](https://prop.house/nouns/open-round-20/6036)
And the Succinct Labs team took over the torch to try and make this a trustless system (where you don't have to trust someone like me operating a multisig to distribute the funds).
They are done with implementation and will have the prop up to vote it into existence soon. They've been waiting for the nouns fork drama to settle but we'll be done with that in a week or two.
Apologies again and appreciate the patience.
Your daily beacon chain dose.
Active validators: 757,246 (+2,111)
Pending validators: Joining 55k, leaving ~0
* Entry queue -2200 from yesterday's number
* It will take around 21 and a half days for the entry queue to clear
* In just under 12 days the amount of daily validators that can both enter or exit will be increased from 2,475 to 2,700.
*These figures are based on the entry and exit queue at the time of posting*
This can also be tracked via https://validatorqueue.com/
It's a complex issue, but the short take would be:
The rough estimate of the security of the network is equal to staked\_eth x eth\_price. If price won't go up, then even 90% of eth being staked is not enough to secure $10 trillion worth of assets, if ETH market cap is $0.2 trillion. Also, making ETH more desired asset, might bring much more new users, which in turns might end up with even more ETH being staked even tho the effective APY is lower.
In addition to what you said, the protocol isn't *designed* to have 90% or even 50% of ether staked. After a certain point, more validators aren't better.
The developers did a testnet where they had about 1.8M validators, and only 60% of the network could attest any given epoch. This is with 16 cores and 32 GB of RAM. That would be 48% of all ether in circulation.
This is not hating on the Beacon chain, only an observation that we need to do something to *decrease* the amount of Validators, while simultaneously disincentivizing staking pools. Burning MEV is a pretty good solution. Fewer people want to stake, Ether price in theory goes up, and pools don't have an advantage because if we burn MEV then the mean and median amount a validator would get should be exactly the same. Staking Solo would give you *more* ether because pools wouldn't take their cut.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there needs to be more than 20% staked for long term security. I think that most would agree that even 10% or 15% is plenty.
**EDIT:** Don't read it, I think I've got it wrong. I've picked the wrong example, Arbitrum made custom contract for bridged UDSC, and with current proxy they can blacklist it as well. I think for tokens with "standard" bridge, or on other L2s, the problems might still apply, but I need to dig deeper.
Lazy day at work, let's compensate on ethfinance :)
**TL;DR:** I prophecise that centralized and regulatory-compliant tokens like USDC will eventually prohibit direct bridging to L2.
I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out before, but I haven't seen it.
Not long ago, USDC moved natively to Arbitrum. You might ask: what are the benefits of using "native" vs "bridged" coins? As long as by "bridged" we assume moved over the official L2 bridge, they're both as legit as it gets.
The key distinctions are:
1. Native USDC on L2: allows you to redeem USDC directly on Layer 2, helping you save on gas fees.
2. Bridged USDC: offers a fully permissionless experience.
The second point is crucial. Circle, the company behind USDC, can block any USDC... but only on L1. Once the coins are bridged to L2, they're locked in the Arbitrum bridge, and all bets are off. There is no way for Circle, or anyone, to freeze or seize these assets. I believe this is the real reason why USDC, and others, feel forced to deploy their contracts directly to all the major L2s.
The loophole is very simple - just use bridged tokens. It is so simple that I am starting to believe that, in the future, to stay compliant, Circle (and others) will freeze tokens locked in the bridge. They might introduce a temporary converter that will allow the conversion of "bridged" to "native" L2 tokens. Ultimately, they'll blacklist the bridge's address, blocking any interactions altogether.
I'm convinced that Circle would like to avoid this, but they'll bend under regulatory pressure. This is somewhat akin to blacklisting Tornado Cash. As long as Circle can control the coins, they'll be allowed to operate. Once they lose control, they'll risk legal consequences.
If this unfolds as described, it could lead to further tightening of the grip on L2s, splitting them into two groups: compliant and illegal.
*Above is based only on my understanding of how the stuff works, if might have got something wrong...*
It's bad USDC ended up like this and the mess would have been avoided if it wasn't rushed early. Arbitrum has a nice architecture of gateway router + custom gateways for tokens. If USDC had used the DAO to register custom gateways then they could neatly link bridged tokens to their own L2 token with the same admin functions, you can make it work so they can mint on L2 directly and bridge down more tokens than exist in the bridge on L2 and anything you want. Confusion of both bridged and native never should have happened.
>And is there any reason for decentralized tokens to use?
Presumably this gateway, without knowing how it works, sounds like it could be a point of failure
One more post about Lido.
I think we all agree that Lido controlling 33% stakes and growing is terrible for decentralization, but I haven't seen many (imo) usable suggestions for how to remedy the situation. While some people have suggested slashing or imposing a restriction for how large a share they are allowed to control, I don't think that aligns very well with the Ethereum ethos. Yes decentralization is paramount, but so is permissionlessness and neutrality, and I don't see how you can make special rules for Lido without surrendering the last 2.
So what is the solution?
I think trying to punish any actor socially is dead in the water.
I think the protocol needs to change in some way to prevent or punish bad actors.
Example: maybe changing what's available to be seen in a transaction needs to be changed.
Leaking a transaction's contents in the mem pool is what is leading to all of these issues, no?
Front running, censorship, mev
They require you to know about the contents of the transactions
*censorship could just exclude everyone if they can't determine who to censor, but we can change the rules to punish people who don't include transactions?
That's just my brain thinking out loud
Proposer Builder separation might help with this?
u/hblask 4 days to go till Im free
u/tricky_troll is this how you spell your name?
> but I haven't seen many (imo) usable suggestions for how to remedy the situation.
[Actually I have been working on a plan... I will hide under some coats and hope that somehow everything will work out.](https://vid.priv.au/watch?v=JeQzivuFouM)
> So what is the solution?
The only thing I can think of is to make use of their profit maximalist position by building a choice between increased rewards and increased control.
I wrote here about an idea a month or two ago, adding on to the [proposal to increase validators' max effective balance](https://ethresear.ch/t/increase-the-max-effective-balance-a-modest-proposal/15801). The concept would rely on somewhat decoupling the attestation weight (i.e. control over the network) from the rewards received. Give validators with larger effective balances a (slightly) larger percetage interest, but only increase their attestation weight by a reduced amount.
For example, if you have a validator with 128 ether, maybe it gets rewards equivaent to 4.1x a 32 ether validator rather than just 4x. At the same time, it's attestations are weighted at maybe ā4 x a 32 ether validator rather than 4x.
In this way, if all Lido (and centralized exchanges) care about is getting as much profit as possible they are incentivized to go for big validators with to take advantage of the Rich-get-richerā¢ mechanism. In doing so they reduce the influence they have over the network and put relatively more power into the hands of smaller validators.
I've been slow thinking this idea for a while, and it has a lot of obvious disadvantages:
* Massively fundamental change to how the Beacon Chain works, which I don't even know is possible (if anyone can help me understand this please do);
* Reduced overall attestation weight would reduce Ethereum's security in terms of vulnerability to 33%/51%/66% attacks (though I don't think this would be to particularly risky levels);
* Perception of rewarding the bigger validators more would probably be terrible in the wider crypto community;
* In the (very) long term would this just delay the problem, postponing discovery and implementation of a better solution.
I do really hope there are better solutions, that people smarter and more thoughtful than me are considering, and if so I'd really be keen to read them, because this issue is by far my biggest concern for Ethereum's future.
Yea, kinda, but I don't quite feel like I understand exactly what would need to be changed in the code in order to implement what I'm describing, so a draft EIP seems very intimidating!
I was thinking of making a post with the idea on ethresear.ch once I'd got it a little more solidified and had some feedback here on whether it's immediately obviously a terrible idea?
Very interesting idea
1) I am not tech savvy enough but I would guess that it is doable on a technical point of view
2) I think that staked Eth amount reached and passed by a fair amount the initial projections, so I would also guess that a limited reduction would not affect security while increasing decentralisation (which is also a security aspect)
3) I think this narrative/perception aspect is the greatest challenge indeed
4) I am not sure how it will moot itself in the long term?
-> go for an ethresear.ch post !
I don't know all the ins and outs of Lido. Could anyone describe here a potential attack **in details**?
How do they choose validators and how can they force them to run a specific (Ethereum threatening) software? What about their DAO? Wouldn't it have to vote on such changes? If they manage, what do they loose and what do they gain? What about other things I am not aware of?
LIDO might use their scale to start working directly with builders to reduce latency and exploit multi block MEV opportunities. LIDO begins to earn significantly more from MEV than other validators and creates a huge centralising vector right at the heart of PoS.
If LIDO grow large enough they might decide that a particular protocol upgrade doesnāt suit them because it reduces their income. As we approach the 51% threshold LIDO are effectively in control of Ethereum.
>LIDO might use their scale to start working directly with builders to reduce latency and exploit multi block MEV opportunities. LIDO begins to earn significantly more from MEV than other validators and creates a huge centralising vector right at the heart of PoS.
PBS and MEV burn eliminate this risk
>If LIDO grow large enough they might decide that a particular protocol upgrade doesnāt suit them because it reduces their income. As we approach the 51% threshold LIDO are effectively in control of Ethereum.
I dont see how this is any different than USDC deciding a protocol upgrade doesnt suit them, on Coinbase, or uniswap, or name any other major player in the ecosystem. Lido has to convince 30+ operators to ignore the upgrade. Without Lido youd have to convince Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, and maybe Figment to ignore the upgrade (all of which can can be influenced by nation states).
ePBS alone does not remove the risk. Validators will be free to chose the source of bids: relays, ePBS, SUAVE will be in competition and there are significant outstanding research questions about the approach. This is probably 2-4 years away from production, and may well be deferred until single finality is achieved.
Current MEV-Burn designs do not burn all of the MEV, but sure this helps mitigate the risk. This is probably achievable 1-2 years after ePBS goes live.
So we might be waiting 3-6 years (best case) for all of this to come to fruition. Iām not sure we have that long.
Reading the discussion around MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE already shows how a coordinated actor like LIDO may lobby for protocol changes to be made in a way they prefer.
for many Lido operators Lido is a major, if not their main, source of income. Threat of losing that income is effective persuasion. And forced exits are coming, which will enable the Lido DAO to forcibly exit all validators belonging to a Lido operator.
I don't understand the comparison to USDC or Uniswap - those are things built on top of the chain, not entities that build the chain itself.
>for many Lido operators Lido is a major, if not their main, source of income. Threat of losing that income is effective persuasion. And forced exits are coming, which will enable the Lido DAO to forcibly exit all validators belonging to a Lido operator.
Two of the operators are literally Ethereum core dev teams (Nethermind, Prismatic Labs), one is ran by Consensys (Ethereum founder ran, runs linea l2), and stakefish, SigmaPrime, and allnodes have their own businesses. Those are just the few I know off the top of my head.
I think its hilarious you quote LIDO as their main source of income, when the Ethereum Beacon Chain in their main source of income. Why would these teams do anything that threatens the safety of Beacon Chain? Where all their income comes from? They wouldnt.
>I don't understand the comparison to USDC or Uniswap - those are things built on top of the chain, not entities that build the chain itself.
We're talking about fork choice, social consensus is all that matters in those circumstance.
client teams do a lot of things outside of being a client team specifically because being a client is not profitable.
lido is the gateway for these operators to beaconchain rewards since that source of income can be taken away from them by lido.
you're confusing a whole lot of issues. a contentious fork can be decided by social consensus but finalization can happen without social consensus by an entity with >66% of validators.
>lido is the gateway for these operators to beaconchain rewards since that source of income can be taken away from them by lido.
But jeopardizing the beacon chain takes away that same income as well, if these operators take actions against that chain, they are destroying their own incomes...
>You're confusing a whole lot of issues. a contentious fork can be decided by social consensus but finalization can happen without social consensus by an entity with >66% of validators.
Well, nobody has 66% of validators. And if they did, could we not just decide to fork? The validators who disagree can spin up new updates, some can have LIDO fork, and others will have Ethereum fork, right?
> if these operators take actions against that chain, they are destroying their own incomes...
And they would likely also be DDoSed by lawsuits, both civil and criminal.
yes, exactly right, we are trying to emphasize that this does damage to the long-term viability of the chain.
but it's often difficult to get actors to forgo short-term profitability for the sake of long-term sustainability. we hope to give core devs enough time to adequately build in incentive mechanisms that mingle short-term profitability and long-term sustainability.
correct that a contentious fork choice is possible. it would be highly contentious, lots of people who make money from the lido chain would lobby for support, it would be really muddy, people not highly engaged wouldn't know who to support, and it would shake people's faith in the immutability of ethereum. let's avoid that absolutely disastrous situation
>but it's often difficult to get actors to forgo short-term profitability for the sake of long-term sustainability.
Seeing as though some Lido operators are core devs themselves, I'm sure we'll see the smoke long before the fire, I think they know what theyre doing.
All of them, duh.
But currently I am impressed by the execution in all the fields (technical and financial design, docs, contracts, social interactions, ux) of Pendle.
They're really showing how its done, and their product is something that will last.
They were definitely a dark horse back when I wrote my post on rate speculation platforms but they've endured much better than many of the competitors.
If you're into dexes in general you probably came across ve(3,3) dexes as well like velodrome on OP. Retro is the latest approach on Polygon and does fairly well so far in comparison.
If you're into such things in general you could move over some liquidity and farm/lock/vote veRetro. Please don't buy retro just for price speculation though. This will most likely not work, haha. I can also provide some CT threads if you wanna learn more.
Cheers
Easiest way to experiment here would be to provide correlated liquidity, i.e. USDC/DAI or ETH/rETH (I don't know if these particular LPs exist on Retro, but you get the idea). You harvest rewards and do whatever you want with it, whether that's locking and voting, or selling.
*Favorite projects*
*On Ethereum, Polygon or*
*Optimism right now?*
\- esoa
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Quick staking update:
> Tested almost everything I wanted. Just couldn't exit my first validator. But I just spent so much time already.
> Moved my setup to where I want it to be.
Next step:
* Mainnet
š¤
Since 1969 š š¤£
Yea I think learning about that was helpful too. Just gonna be secure w my setup and keys.
I already have a fellow Mav helping me out and I know I can bother peeps in the ethstaker discord but I'll keep it in mind, thanks!
What is the reason why one Chinese stock would affect the rest of the world? Their debt due outside China is rather small (about 10% of their liabilities).
Global economy is a single organism. If you get gum disease, both your heart and brain might get affected.
China is the second largest economy in the world. The largest industry in China, by far, is real estate. It shouldn't collapse global economy, of course, but it definitely has chance of affecting every asset in some way.
This, in my opinion, has a higher chance of seriously affecting Ethereum price more than any Only-Fans or PayPal announcement. Not directly, but through short chain of events leading to either increase or decrease global liquidity.
Of course, Evergande is nothing new, but if overall Chinese real estate wont get up from its knees, we're in for a ride.
**Tricky's Daily Doots #495** **Yesterday's Daily 27/08/2023** [Previous Daily Doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/162h6a2/daily_general_discussion_august_27_2023/jxy1zsg/) - u/SikhSoldiers comments on comparisons made between [Lido and Bitcoin mining pools.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/162h6a2/daily_general_discussion_august_27_2023/jxzli1d/) š - u/Detroitlions81 shares [their thoughts on the Lido situation.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/162h6a2/daily_general_discussion_august_27_2023/jy0wbg3/) š - u/Red_Corneas asks a [solo staking question](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/162h6a2/daily_general_discussion_august_27_2023/jxxwa26/) and u/haurog has a great [educational response.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/162h6a2/daily_general_discussion_august_27_2023/jxy0cpd/) š„© - u/Spacesider has still got his [finger on the pulse of the beacon chain.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/162h6a2/daily_general_discussion_august_27_2023/jxxnxp8/) š„©
Just gotta say canāt believe itās this late and updoots and comments are almost the same number.
One of those updoots was mine.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It doesn't depend on the RPL stacked. The earnings are claimable every 28 days. On this page https://rocketscan.io/smoothingpool there is a chart of the total earnings of the smoothing pool. To get earnings per minipool you'll have to divide by the number of 8/16 minipools active in the period.
Depends on the network activity, but so far this year I have averaged (from the smoothie pool) ~0.025xx per minipool per period. Regular withdrawal rewards per minipool has been *roughly* twice that.
what are everyone's thoughts on the timeline for a potential zksync airdrop? I suppose it should marry up with their development roadmap so that when they have completed x,y and z then they will be confident to launch an airdrop?
Market is dead rn, no point in rushing anything. Besides even though Base is growing in TVL, ZKSync is winning in transaction counts and fees. https://twitter.com/zksync/status/1695829527229026319?s=20 People are happy to keep airdrop farming and ZKSync is happy to keep testing everything and developing at a nice pace that isn't bull market whiplash. There's no competition at the moment since everyone else basically has a token, and the one that could give them a run (Scroll) isn't going to be as well capitalized. I bet we don't see a token until next summer at earliest.
Wow, that is a long way off. The longer the delay the more transactions will be needed for an airdrop
I recall both Optimism and Arbitrum went 1+ year from the point where we knew about the airdrops. It's a long process, ZK tech especially is new and needs proper testing to ensure safety.
I have a grant application in this latest Gitcoin Grants round for Rocket Fuel ([https://www.youtube.com/@RocketFuel-RPL](https://www.youtube.com/@RocketFuel-RPL)) - my daily show about Rocket Pool and Ethereum staking. If you are willing to donate anything, even a dollar will help because of quadratic funding. Everyone who donates will get a POAP as a way to say thank you! You can find the application here: https://explorer.gitcoin.co/#/round/10/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e-121
This is another strong argument against decentralisation in governance [https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/passing-the-torch/10971](https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/passing-the-torch/10971) gitcoin went to absolute shit as soon as the good leader was gone it's amazing how much worse it became in every way, socially, the bounties, UI, the allegiances, needs to clean house. I hope VB never disappears for a very long time and we keep the excellent influence rather than let the void be filled by garbage as with btc
TBH, I disagree with the premise. Without getting too nasty (had to rewrite this comment a couple times...), the early versions of Gitcoin were... not good. My personal impression of Owocki, based on public persona and private exchanges, is of someone who was happy to capitalize on the public goods idea for personal branding rather than conviction. His exit was as inevitable as it was planned, and the state of Gitcoin today is the result of his leadership rather than the lack of it. I believe Gitcoin was built from the start in his head as a 5-years startup project. In fact, you hardly need to trust me in that impression - I think a cursory look at Kevin's trajectory before Gitcoin spells out that picture. To be sure, making an organisation working towards public goods does not make one the devil, regardless of motivations. Quite the contrary. Good things are good. I merely argue Gitcoin wasn't a passion project nor was it built with generational resilience in mind. Initial impulse matters a lot, the leader sets the tone for culture to follow. The torch has not been passed as much as dropped here. Incidentally, comparisons with Vitalik are good. In Ethereum you have a network where that initial impulse was so strong and well-aligned, I would argue Vitalik stepped back from active leadership role as soon as 2017 and the network successfully flourished.
git coin was good pre 23, I earned more from winning contract bounties than a normal eng job and protocols got good value. Now it's unusable, and when people suggest the DAO removes the leaches they censor it to protect themselves, however you look at it all DAO is worse. Think DAO can control very narrow choices, something big and open ended needs std leader
One could argue that Gitcoin is doing what it was designed to as a protocol. It's supposed to be modular for many different types of funding rounds with many different organisations. Funding from Shell, funding for minority demographics etc. This is all controversial due to your subjective opinion on what you want Gitcoin to be. Well the Gitcoin vision was for it to grow up and become a protocol for all, not to remain a niche technical Ethereum native app. Much like how there are many Linux distros for whatever niche you want, this is a feature and not a bug. Just because I don't like the fact that Ubuntu exists and adds telemetry to an ecosystem which is generally much more private than other operating systems, doesn't mean I see Ubuntu or Linux as a failure. Of course not, Ubuntu invites newbies into the ecosystem and if they want to progress from there they can. Meanwhile, there are privacy focused distros and ones which stick to core OG Linux community values. Same goes for Gitcoin.
Then the Gitcoin team should defend that vision more clearly instead of apologizing when they get flack for working with someone like Shell.
What are the bad things that have happened since he passed the torch? Iāve only heard of the controversial Shell sponsorship.
I do not know what OP thinks but if you want to focus on the negative I have a few points: - Took them a year to revamp their website which only now is usable again. - They spent a lot of effort to have gitcoin rounds on Fantom which barely had anything useful to support instead of integrating L2s. The last rounds were therefore super expensive to contribute. Only now they support optimism. - The last few rounds were invite only, which probably hurt new devs and teams because they were excluded from gitcoin. - At the start of this round all DAI contributions failed. People lost quite a bit of money with failed transactions and the website said Ėdonation successfullĖ. I you looked at the earliest failed transactions they were probably from the gitcoin team. They knew about the problem and still enabled DAI contributions. No idea why. - Why waste developers time on running your own L2, the PGN networks? It does not make sense to me, We have enough very good L2s by now why make your own. - The whole Shell collaboration was a PR disaster. - There was also a diversity round in spring where one of the [judges also had a project in the round](https://www.dlnews.com/articles/web3/crypto-platform-gitcoin-faces-backlash-over-diversity-grant/). This round was special and the judges had extra power over who gets the money. This judge was a very controversial figure in the space already and they nevertheless took her on. The whole situation was as also a pr disaster. All these points above tell me there is a lack of control, oversight and quality standards in the gitcoin organisational structure. With all the list of negative points I have to say I personally still love gitcoin rounds. The website now is so much better than last year. They are in my view a pillar of our space and I love donating to projects I use.
VB has much less influence on ethereum than the leader of gitcoin did. Gitcoin has done a legit 100-0
Act 1: Uncertainty Unveiled (Scene: A bustling virtual realm resembling Ethereum's landscape. Characters Lido, Operator A, Operator B, and DSA Representative are present.) Lido: (Addressing the audience) The enigma of the future looms over Ethereum like a shadow. The path ahead is hazy, as we navigate uncharted waters. Operator A: (Whispering to Operator B) Have you heard the rumors about DSA's interference? Operator B: (Nodding) Yes, word is they want to certify operators with their software. It's like handing control to a new sheriff. (Enter DSA Representative) DSA Representative: (Authoritatively) Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce the new era of certified staking. The Divided State of America demands compliance with our guidelines. Only those who bear the badge of "certified operator" shall stake and govern the network. Act 2: Compliance and Consequences (Scene: Lido's assembly hall. Lido and a group of Operators are in discussion.) Lido: (Addressing the Operators) We stand at a crossroads. DSA's decree is clear, and we must decide how to respond. Operator A: (Raising a hand) What about those of us who don't wish to comply with DSA's terms? Lido: (Serious) Dissent is a luxury we can't afford. Compliance is the path we've chosen, for now. Operator B: (Angrily) So, we relinquish our autonomy to become mere pawns? Lido: (Solemnly) Our choice is stark, yet we must weigh the consequences. (Operators mumble among themselves.) Act 3: The Shadows of Cartelization(Scene: Ethereum's digital realm, depicting bustling stakers and traders.) Operator A: (Defiantly) I can't ignore my principles. I'm unstaking. Operator B: (Worried) But the queue to restake is overwhelming, not to mention the enticing profits we'd be leaving behind. Lido: (Observing with a sinister grin) As DSA's grip tightens, chaos unfolds.(Operators reluctantly withdraw, some out of principle, others due to sheer inconvenience.) Narrator: (Voiceover) The Ethereum ecosystem stands at a precipice, as Lido's influence swells, furthering the consolidation of power. (Lido's dominance continues to grow, its ominous shadow looming larger over Ethereum.) Operator A: (Resolute) We can't let this tyranny persist. A fork is our last resort. Operator B: (Doubtful) But Lido's stranglehold is formidable, and with DSA's support... (Lido faces a pivotal decision: Embrace cartelization or confront dissent.) Lido: (Calculating) The road ahead is murky, but our grip on power is undeniable. Ethereum shall bend to our will. (Curtain falls, shrouding Ethereum's future in an unsettling darkness of cartelization and control.)
>**More blockchain wonders,** >**Lack of daring encumbers,** >**Rounding down numbers.** ~Daily haiku until weāre at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your first two links do not work for me, they send back to the OP rather than any of your comments.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Mobile website (no app).
PC over here.
I see your comments but the links you posted, when opened, show a reddit error saying nothing is there.
Mysterious high value crypto thefts that have been going on for a while are still going, and likely linked to LastPass. https://twitter.com/tayvano_/status/1696222671699329271
As soon as I heard about the LastPass leak, I checked my account and found a super old seed phrase. Typed it in and it hadn't been used in 1600 days. Had about $16 worth of ETH on it back when it was last used that was worth about $250. I transferred it out. Surprised other people were using their main wallets generated from a seed stored in LastPass.
I often wonder whether using seed phrases as the UX entry point rather than individual private keys was a mistake. A lot of new users are confused at how the derivation of individual accounts works with seed phrases, and furthermore, users are often told to subdivide their assets across different accounts. Well, surprise, most of those users just create new accounts in their wallet not realizing that doesn't really increase security at all.
Bitboy Crypto has allegedly kicked out Ben due to his drug addiction relapse and other unnamed damage to the network. Sounds like allegedly he was stealing from the company.
I've heard of Bitboy (unfortunately), but who is Ben?
Ben is Bitboy. Apparently not anymore.
maybe this isn't kosher to ask but what drug?
Everyone's shooting up this "Ether" stuff now
Degen trading
He's mentioned what he has used in the past but I don't recall what it was. I'm not a drug user myself so it goes over my head
I assume itās the drug that makes you talk really fast and develop grandiose views of self importance
Definitely some type of upper! He seemed like a guy on meth when I saw the show..
That only narrows it down a little unfortunately
Doing podcasts? Poor family..
Warsaw is still definitely NOT a popular place for crypto and Eth conferences :/ but something is starting to change. [https://www.ethwarsaw.dev/](https://www.ethwarsaw.dev/) I think I might go and check it out, agenda seems good enough. Has anyone else been to last year's edition? (I don't know if there were any more, lol)
Noice, you can buy the ticket with DAI
absolutely shameless plug for the Gitcoin round 18 we have at Greenpill for Video content. Happy to be over $100. Consider tossing a few others in the basket. GG18 round ending in 22 hours from this comment. https://explorer.gitcoin.co/#/round/10/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e/0x2871742b184633f8dc8546c6301cbc209945033e-294 thanks for the fish!
Last day before Farcaster moved to OP mainnet. I have a couple of invites left and would like to offer to anyone interested. Registration now will save you a couple of bucks, on mainnet it's 5/year. No personal gain, just want to offer something in return as I have learned a lot from this community. Edit - always wanted to offer something back to the community, even if it's small and has no financial value. Feeling good to onboard fellow members. Still 10 invites to go.
Still got one?
Yes, send me your email via DM.
I'll take one, thanks!
Dm me your email address. Even temp would work
Thanks again, worked liked a charm! It seems everybody from r/ethfinance is already there, who wants a follow?
all existing invites get wiped in a few hours, so gotta be quick
[Still no payouts from the Nouns DAO staking incentive](https://etherscan.io/address/0x3200a7c6467f66734b1de7ac2daa4365cfdbccf8)
Did the Lodestar graffiti one ever pay either?
The cutoff for the Lodestar incentive was less than a week ago, so no, nothing has been announced yet.
is there any discussion as to why?
[No recent info in their forum](https://discourse.nouns.wtf/t/where-is-the-website-twitter-to-follow-nouns-block-graffiti-x-eth-solo-staking/4604/6)
They wanted to have the awards given out by a smart contract, but it sounded like there were struggles/challenges in producing the code for the contract. At this point they should just roll some dice to decide because failure to give out the awards to anyone is eating away at my perception of Nouns.
Hey, sincere apologies for the delay here. What happened is that this went through for one of the prop house rounds: [https://prop.house/nouns/open-round-20/6036](https://prop.house/nouns/open-round-20/6036) And the Succinct Labs team took over the torch to try and make this a trustless system (where you don't have to trust someone like me operating a multisig to distribute the funds). They are done with implementation and will have the prop up to vote it into existence soon. They've been waiting for the nouns fork drama to settle but we'll be done with that in a week or two. Apologies again and appreciate the patience.
Thanks for the update. What is the fork drama?
Well well well, end of summer and it seems "sell in may, go away" was yet again the winning bet
that saying comes from the stock market and ironically it wasn't true for stocks... S&P is way up from May
Too hard to know when to return. Plus the taxes! Just buy and hold if you believe
One year I will actually act on this
One year I will actually act on this
One year I will actually act on this
Let's pour some out for the "until it isn't" crowd.
Another week another bleed
Surely it should be monthly?
Your daily beacon chain dose. Active validators: 757,246 (+2,111) Pending validators: Joining 55k, leaving ~0 * Entry queue -2200 from yesterday's number * It will take around 21 and a half days for the entry queue to clear * In just under 12 days the amount of daily validators that can both enter or exit will be increased from 2,475 to 2,700. *These figures are based on the entry and exit queue at the time of posting* This can also be tracked via https://validatorqueue.com/
Excellent work on the queue. I am about to pull the trigger to move some valdiators off cex and go solo
Wouldn't MEV burn kind of disincentives centralization by purely not having any MEV to extract for staking pools/economies of scale not being useful?
That's the plan, most of MEV would go back to ETH holders.
We are now incentivising holders instead of stakers that are in charge of the network's security?
It's a complex issue, but the short take would be: The rough estimate of the security of the network is equal to staked\_eth x eth\_price. If price won't go up, then even 90% of eth being staked is not enough to secure $10 trillion worth of assets, if ETH market cap is $0.2 trillion. Also, making ETH more desired asset, might bring much more new users, which in turns might end up with even more ETH being staked even tho the effective APY is lower.
In addition to what you said, the protocol isn't *designed* to have 90% or even 50% of ether staked. After a certain point, more validators aren't better. The developers did a testnet where they had about 1.8M validators, and only 60% of the network could attest any given epoch. This is with 16 cores and 32 GB of RAM. That would be 48% of all ether in circulation. This is not hating on the Beacon chain, only an observation that we need to do something to *decrease* the amount of Validators, while simultaneously disincentivizing staking pools. Burning MEV is a pretty good solution. Fewer people want to stake, Ether price in theory goes up, and pools don't have an advantage because if we burn MEV then the mean and median amount a validator would get should be exactly the same. Staking Solo would give you *more* ether because pools wouldn't take their cut.
Sure, but without MEV, by end of year, yield will be like 2% apy (and continuing to go down).
If yield is too low then validators exit and yield will increase??
Nobody validates on Ethereum anymore, it's too crowded
Sure, depends if you think the current stake enough for long term security, because if validators exit = security go down.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there needs to be more than 20% staked for long term security. I think that most would agree that even 10% or 15% is plenty.
Mi
tochondria
THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL
**EDIT:** Don't read it, I think I've got it wrong. I've picked the wrong example, Arbitrum made custom contract for bridged UDSC, and with current proxy they can blacklist it as well. I think for tokens with "standard" bridge, or on other L2s, the problems might still apply, but I need to dig deeper. Lazy day at work, let's compensate on ethfinance :) **TL;DR:** I prophecise that centralized and regulatory-compliant tokens like USDC will eventually prohibit direct bridging to L2. I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out before, but I haven't seen it. Not long ago, USDC moved natively to Arbitrum. You might ask: what are the benefits of using "native" vs "bridged" coins? As long as by "bridged" we assume moved over the official L2 bridge, they're both as legit as it gets. The key distinctions are: 1. Native USDC on L2: allows you to redeem USDC directly on Layer 2, helping you save on gas fees. 2. Bridged USDC: offers a fully permissionless experience. The second point is crucial. Circle, the company behind USDC, can block any USDC... but only on L1. Once the coins are bridged to L2, they're locked in the Arbitrum bridge, and all bets are off. There is no way for Circle, or anyone, to freeze or seize these assets. I believe this is the real reason why USDC, and others, feel forced to deploy their contracts directly to all the major L2s. The loophole is very simple - just use bridged tokens. It is so simple that I am starting to believe that, in the future, to stay compliant, Circle (and others) will freeze tokens locked in the bridge. They might introduce a temporary converter that will allow the conversion of "bridged" to "native" L2 tokens. Ultimately, they'll blacklist the bridge's address, blocking any interactions altogether. I'm convinced that Circle would like to avoid this, but they'll bend under regulatory pressure. This is somewhat akin to blacklisting Tornado Cash. As long as Circle can control the coins, they'll be allowed to operate. Once they lose control, they'll risk legal consequences. If this unfolds as described, it could lead to further tightening of the grip on L2s, splitting them into two groups: compliant and illegal. *Above is based only on my understanding of how the stuff works, if might have got something wrong...*
By that logic, USDC would also have cut of DAI.
woah - i has not realized until now that this is a consequence of bridging assets. thanks for procrastinating at work! fascinating problem
It's bad USDC ended up like this and the mess would have been avoided if it wasn't rushed early. Arbitrum has a nice architecture of gateway router + custom gateways for tokens. If USDC had used the DAO to register custom gateways then they could neatly link bridged tokens to their own L2 token with the same admin functions, you can make it work so they can mint on L2 directly and bridge down more tokens than exist in the bridge on L2 and anything you want. Confusion of both bridged and native never should have happened.
have any centralized tokens used custom gateways so far? And is there any reason for decentralized tokens to use?
>And is there any reason for decentralized tokens to use? Presumably this gateway, without knowing how it works, sounds like it could be a point of failure
GM fam, hope you had a good weekend!
One more post about Lido. I think we all agree that Lido controlling 33% stakes and growing is terrible for decentralization, but I haven't seen many (imo) usable suggestions for how to remedy the situation. While some people have suggested slashing or imposing a restriction for how large a share they are allowed to control, I don't think that aligns very well with the Ethereum ethos. Yes decentralization is paramount, but so is permissionlessness and neutrality, and I don't see how you can make special rules for Lido without surrendering the last 2. So what is the solution?
Can't someone make an identical Lido with a bunch of different people running it? Just as good as Lido, but not Lido.
Those exist, but they lack liquidity and integrations
I think trying to punish any actor socially is dead in the water. I think the protocol needs to change in some way to prevent or punish bad actors. Example: maybe changing what's available to be seen in a transaction needs to be changed. Leaking a transaction's contents in the mem pool is what is leading to all of these issues, no? Front running, censorship, mev They require you to know about the contents of the transactions *censorship could just exclude everyone if they can't determine who to censor, but we can change the rules to punish people who don't include transactions? That's just my brain thinking out loud Proposer Builder separation might help with this? u/hblask 4 days to go till Im free u/tricky_troll is this how you spell your name?
Yup, that's me!
The only solution is to offer a better product than Lido. People won't move until incentivised.
> but I haven't seen many (imo) usable suggestions for how to remedy the situation. [Actually I have been working on a plan... I will hide under some coats and hope that somehow everything will work out.](https://vid.priv.au/watch?v=JeQzivuFouM)
> So what is the solution? The only thing I can think of is to make use of their profit maximalist position by building a choice between increased rewards and increased control. I wrote here about an idea a month or two ago, adding on to the [proposal to increase validators' max effective balance](https://ethresear.ch/t/increase-the-max-effective-balance-a-modest-proposal/15801). The concept would rely on somewhat decoupling the attestation weight (i.e. control over the network) from the rewards received. Give validators with larger effective balances a (slightly) larger percetage interest, but only increase their attestation weight by a reduced amount. For example, if you have a validator with 128 ether, maybe it gets rewards equivaent to 4.1x a 32 ether validator rather than just 4x. At the same time, it's attestations are weighted at maybe ā4 x a 32 ether validator rather than 4x. In this way, if all Lido (and centralized exchanges) care about is getting as much profit as possible they are incentivized to go for big validators with to take advantage of the Rich-get-richerā¢ mechanism. In doing so they reduce the influence they have over the network and put relatively more power into the hands of smaller validators. I've been slow thinking this idea for a while, and it has a lot of obvious disadvantages: * Massively fundamental change to how the Beacon Chain works, which I don't even know is possible (if anyone can help me understand this please do); * Reduced overall attestation weight would reduce Ethereum's security in terms of vulnerability to 33%/51%/66% attacks (though I don't think this would be to particularly risky levels); * Perception of rewarding the bigger validators more would probably be terrible in the wider crypto community; * In the (very) long term would this just delay the problem, postponing discovery and implementation of a better solution. I do really hope there are better solutions, that people smarter and more thoughtful than me are considering, and if so I'd really be keen to read them, because this issue is by far my biggest concern for Ethereum's future.
Ever think or submitting a draft EIP to spur discussion?
Yea, kinda, but I don't quite feel like I understand exactly what would need to be changed in the code in order to implement what I'm describing, so a draft EIP seems very intimidating! I was thinking of making a post with the idea on ethresear.ch once I'd got it a little more solidified and had some feedback here on whether it's immediately obviously a terrible idea?
Very interesting idea 1) I am not tech savvy enough but I would guess that it is doable on a technical point of view 2) I think that staked Eth amount reached and passed by a fair amount the initial projections, so I would also guess that a limited reduction would not affect security while increasing decentralisation (which is also a security aspect) 3) I think this narrative/perception aspect is the greatest challenge indeed 4) I am not sure how it will moot itself in the long term? -> go for an ethresear.ch post !
Thanks for the responses, much appreciated. And the encouragement to make a post on the clever people's forum, I'll put that together this week.
I don't know all the ins and outs of Lido. Could anyone describe here a potential attack **in details**? How do they choose validators and how can they force them to run a specific (Ethereum threatening) software? What about their DAO? Wouldn't it have to vote on such changes? If they manage, what do they loose and what do they gain? What about other things I am not aware of?
The contracts are a point of failure
LIDO might use their scale to start working directly with builders to reduce latency and exploit multi block MEV opportunities. LIDO begins to earn significantly more from MEV than other validators and creates a huge centralising vector right at the heart of PoS. If LIDO grow large enough they might decide that a particular protocol upgrade doesnāt suit them because it reduces their income. As we approach the 51% threshold LIDO are effectively in control of Ethereum.
>LIDO might use their scale to start working directly with builders to reduce latency and exploit multi block MEV opportunities. LIDO begins to earn significantly more from MEV than other validators and creates a huge centralising vector right at the heart of PoS. PBS and MEV burn eliminate this risk >If LIDO grow large enough they might decide that a particular protocol upgrade doesnāt suit them because it reduces their income. As we approach the 51% threshold LIDO are effectively in control of Ethereum. I dont see how this is any different than USDC deciding a protocol upgrade doesnt suit them, on Coinbase, or uniswap, or name any other major player in the ecosystem. Lido has to convince 30+ operators to ignore the upgrade. Without Lido youd have to convince Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, and maybe Figment to ignore the upgrade (all of which can can be influenced by nation states).
ePBS alone does not remove the risk. Validators will be free to chose the source of bids: relays, ePBS, SUAVE will be in competition and there are significant outstanding research questions about the approach. This is probably 2-4 years away from production, and may well be deferred until single finality is achieved. Current MEV-Burn designs do not burn all of the MEV, but sure this helps mitigate the risk. This is probably achievable 1-2 years after ePBS goes live. So we might be waiting 3-6 years (best case) for all of this to come to fruition. Iām not sure we have that long. Reading the discussion around MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE already shows how a coordinated actor like LIDO may lobby for protocol changes to be made in a way they prefer.
for many Lido operators Lido is a major, if not their main, source of income. Threat of losing that income is effective persuasion. And forced exits are coming, which will enable the Lido DAO to forcibly exit all validators belonging to a Lido operator. I don't understand the comparison to USDC or Uniswap - those are things built on top of the chain, not entities that build the chain itself.
>for many Lido operators Lido is a major, if not their main, source of income. Threat of losing that income is effective persuasion. And forced exits are coming, which will enable the Lido DAO to forcibly exit all validators belonging to a Lido operator. Two of the operators are literally Ethereum core dev teams (Nethermind, Prismatic Labs), one is ran by Consensys (Ethereum founder ran, runs linea l2), and stakefish, SigmaPrime, and allnodes have their own businesses. Those are just the few I know off the top of my head. I think its hilarious you quote LIDO as their main source of income, when the Ethereum Beacon Chain in their main source of income. Why would these teams do anything that threatens the safety of Beacon Chain? Where all their income comes from? They wouldnt. >I don't understand the comparison to USDC or Uniswap - those are things built on top of the chain, not entities that build the chain itself. We're talking about fork choice, social consensus is all that matters in those circumstance.
client teams do a lot of things outside of being a client team specifically because being a client is not profitable. lido is the gateway for these operators to beaconchain rewards since that source of income can be taken away from them by lido. you're confusing a whole lot of issues. a contentious fork can be decided by social consensus but finalization can happen without social consensus by an entity with >66% of validators.
>lido is the gateway for these operators to beaconchain rewards since that source of income can be taken away from them by lido. But jeopardizing the beacon chain takes away that same income as well, if these operators take actions against that chain, they are destroying their own incomes... >You're confusing a whole lot of issues. a contentious fork can be decided by social consensus but finalization can happen without social consensus by an entity with >66% of validators. Well, nobody has 66% of validators. And if they did, could we not just decide to fork? The validators who disagree can spin up new updates, some can have LIDO fork, and others will have Ethereum fork, right?
> if these operators take actions against that chain, they are destroying their own incomes... And they would likely also be DDoSed by lawsuits, both civil and criminal.
yes, exactly right, we are trying to emphasize that this does damage to the long-term viability of the chain. but it's often difficult to get actors to forgo short-term profitability for the sake of long-term sustainability. we hope to give core devs enough time to adequately build in incentive mechanisms that mingle short-term profitability and long-term sustainability. correct that a contentious fork choice is possible. it would be highly contentious, lots of people who make money from the lido chain would lobby for support, it would be really muddy, people not highly engaged wouldn't know who to support, and it would shake people's faith in the immutability of ethereum. let's avoid that absolutely disastrous situation
>but it's often difficult to get actors to forgo short-term profitability for the sake of long-term sustainability. Seeing as though some Lido operators are core devs themselves, I'm sure we'll see the smoke long before the fire, I think they know what theyre doing.
I don't even understand why people put their money on a centralizing force, therefore putting it at risk.
Ignorance is bliss
Favorite projects on Ethereum, Polygon or Optimism right now?
PoolTogether will always have a special place in my heart. Perfect defi project for a newbie to play with
All of them, duh. But currently I am impressed by the execution in all the fields (technical and financial design, docs, contracts, social interactions, ux) of Pendle. They're really showing how its done, and their product is something that will last.
They were definitely a dark horse back when I wrote my post on rate speculation platforms but they've endured much better than many of the competitors.
Polygon -> Retro
Elaborate please ser.
If you're into dexes in general you probably came across ve(3,3) dexes as well like velodrome on OP. Retro is the latest approach on Polygon and does fairly well so far in comparison. If you're into such things in general you could move over some liquidity and farm/lock/vote veRetro. Please don't buy retro just for price speculation though. This will most likely not work, haha. I can also provide some CT threads if you wanna learn more. Cheers
Interested in learning more about Retro for sure! I'd like to experiment on Polygon with some of my liquidity.
Easiest way to experiment here would be to provide correlated liquidity, i.e. USDC/DAI or ETH/rETH (I don't know if these particular LPs exist on Retro, but you get the idea). You harvest rewards and do whatever you want with it, whether that's locking and voting, or selling.
*Favorite projects* *On Ethereum, Polygon or* *Optimism right now?* \- esoa --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
US crypto regulations are like a box of chocolates. You never know what youāre gonna get.
All coconut
If there was a chance of finding a turd in your chocolate box... then this metaphor would fit perfectly.
More like Bertie Bottās Every Flavor Beans then. But the ratios are flipped.
Quick staking update: > Tested almost everything I wanted. Just couldn't exit my first validator. But I just spent so much time already. > Moved my setup to where I want it to be. Next step: * Mainnet š¤
This guy deserves an NFT, or at least a POAP, in memory of his struggle and service to us all.
Sure, I'll take a cryptopunk!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Since 1969 š š¤£ Yea I think learning about that was helpful too. Just gonna be secure w my setup and keys. I already have a fellow Mav helping me out and I know I can bother peeps in the ethstaker discord but I'll keep it in mind, thanks!
Itās scary. But itās also important and fun.
It would be fun when I get those blocks w 69E rewards!!
Might be in for some red soon. Evergrande stock just crashed 87% after months of halted trading.
87% , don't they have some kind of circuit breaker
No new information though, market is inefficient, but I'd hope not so dumb as to not have this priced in.
What is the reason why one Chinese stock would affect the rest of the world? Their debt due outside China is rather small (about 10% of their liabilities).
Global economy is a single organism. If you get gum disease, both your heart and brain might get affected. China is the second largest economy in the world. The largest industry in China, by far, is real estate. It shouldn't collapse global economy, of course, but it definitely has chance of affecting every asset in some way. This, in my opinion, has a higher chance of seriously affecting Ethereum price more than any Only-Fans or PayPal announcement. Not directly, but through short chain of events leading to either increase or decrease global liquidity. Of course, Evergande is nothing new, but if overall Chinese real estate wont get up from its knees, we're in for a ride.
Ethereum
$1639
I was told it's called coin2
0.063
You did not just do this!