ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

I have ETH that I want to move over to Solana. But I’ve never bridged from Ethereum before. Every guide I find is either two years old or mentions a less popular bridge.
From my initial research, there are two routes: bridge it directly, or send it to a centralized exchange and convert. The latter feels safer to me since I don't have to pick a third-party bridge.
There are a few things I need more clarity on:
I will get wrapped ETH on Solana. So does that change what I can actually do with it in different DeFi apps?
How much SOL or ETH do I need to pay in bridging fees?
Are third-party bridges genuinely cheaper than the exchange route once I calculate the fees?

Outside of BTC I still grab ETH for stacking

ETH and BTC are fine, my alt coins are essentially down 95%

What do you mean by “AI slop”? Are you referring to the comment I reposted from that thread?
I reposted it because I think ETH issuance is worth discussing, especially if reducing issuance could improve ETH’s value accrual. My main points were simple: Ethereum may already be overpaying for security, as others have argued; a lower staking yield may be acceptable to me personally if ETH appreciates more; and matching Bitcoin’s declining issuance would remove an easy criticism of ETH.
Those are my views, not “AI slop.” AI doesn’t decide whether I stake or not. If the yield gets too low while ETH’s price continues to stagnate, I’ll stop staking. If the yield is low but ETH increases substantially in value, I’ll continue staking.

Yeah, it's not an easy problem to solve and also agreed that "ETH has won" is not 1/0, but neither is the tax issue and centralization. I also believe that's why they picked the 18 months of slow issuance change from one curve to the other.
But I would still advocate for "don't fix it if it's not clearly broken" simply because we know the effects of the current curve, but don't really for the new curve.

Nah I have a pretty good system and it keeps up
I buy ETH at 2100, 1800, and 1500. And sell at 2800, 3100, and 3500. I have orders set in and I never have to watch it

I stopped paying much attention to ETH years ago because I moved to Solana. It was already giving me far cheaper transactions, growing usage and, for me, substantially better value growth.
So yes, my ETH gas price reference was outdated. Congratulations, you corrected it. None of that required the condescending “how are you so far behind reality?” bullshit. You could’ve just provided the updated numbers like a normal person.

Ofc it will be harder if / when there is more ETH staked. But if Ethereum has established itself as the one and only ecosystem, that might make it easier because it's been chosen as the rails for all of finance.
If we never get a shot at being those rails because we lower issuance... that would be way worse?

Appreciate the thoughts!
I do worry that attempting it later with more ETH staked will be even harder.
It's a bit of a frog in boiling water situation due to the rising amount of ETH staked but also due to the natural ossification of the protocol. Even today people are saying that some parts should ossify, monetary policy being first in line.
IMO, if this **needs** to happen as you alluded to, it might not be a good idea to wait.

Alchemix are doing simple fixed-yield for 6 months on USDC and ETH. Yield is derived from the discount between alAsset market price and par value at maturity.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Alchemix/s/sDb4JIK8cm](https://www.reddit.com/r/Alchemix/s/sDb4JIK8cm)

After my announcement in true 2018 TRX style, here are my thoughts regarding issuance and EIP 8363.

As I already said I believe the reasons for the EIP are valid and after reading it, I still believe that's the case. The calculations made last time (2024?) were convincing me that basically uncapped issuance would lead to tax disadvantages for solo stakers which would lead to at least some solo stakers dropping off. At the same time lower APYs would like do the same. Beneficiaries would be LSTs that would then be "too big to fail" or generally speaking centralization forces would be hard to manage. I am not so sure about the whole derivatives discussion, since L2 ETH is basically a derivative as well, but that has never been a blocker for L2s...

My biggest issue with the EIP is the timing. I think this is basically one of the last EIPs we should push, and we should push it "when Ethereum has won". Why?
Let's just assume that the "productive asset" meme and APY plays a role for tradfi. What if they don't care about nominal and real yield, because they just want to sell a yielding asset? And what if ETHs competition doesn't care about being right, but cares about catering to the tradfi audience? Maybe a 5-7% APY on Solana sounds better than a 0% ETH despite not being lindy, despite being more centralized, despite being diluting to non-holders?
Also the "defi is going to explode" argument makes sense to me and it doesn't seem to be addressed in the EIP. That's already the second issue people broad up with regards to changing the issuance which makes me believe that the EIP is a niche solution for a very specific problem that likely didn't take into consideration some stakeholders of the ecosystem and that could lead to unwanted consequences that could seriously harm Ethereum.
It feels like L2s 2.0 - right idea, wrong timing, hence not a good solution for the current circumstances. I still believe we can't scale L1s endlessly and will need L2s for some use cases. But we focussed too much on L2s when scaling the L1 would have been a better solution or at least shouldn't have been completely abandoned for some years. And we potentially lost a whole cycle because of the "L2s eating mainnet's lunch" argument. We lost because we developed a solution that might have worked if there was just one ecosystem, but ETH had competition and new L1s popped up on top of that.
This feels similar. If there was no other L1 and no other APY and no competition, this might be the right choice. But if we did this right now, we would indeed push people into other ecosystems where they do get some reward "for free"/ "risk-free yield". I don't know about you, but that's not what I want. We can do that, when there's basically only ETH left and the whole (financial) world is already onboarded and living in the ETH ecosystem. But that's not the case yet. And changing the issuance might even open the door for competition that is basically dead now.
Path dependency is a bitch and we should learn from the past. The same change can make sense and not make sense depending on timing and circumstances.
I understand that centralization is a (multi-dimensional) problem and likely also has a "deadline", but I don't think it is as close as people / the authors think. Lido was the number 1 enemy some years ago and is still a threat to centralization, but ETFs, restaking and obviously CEXs etc. are constantly changing the environment and playing field.

No, not for $50 gas... because Ethereum has scaled massively over the 2+ years since that was true... how are you so far behind reality?
Current gas prices for sending ETH are less than a cent, swapping tokens is about $0.06, the most expensive regular thing you can do is minting NFTs, which currently costs about $0.10: https://etherscan.io/gastracker
And before you embarrass yourself by claiming that this is because the chain is not being used much, you should probably know that the amount of gas being used is almost at an all-time high:
https://etherscan.io/chart/gasused
Cool huh?
Why do you think you were so far behind in your knowledge?

It may “feel” that way, but to be clear LSTs do add security.  Someone is staking ETH (e.g. Lido).  It’s just that they are using someone else’s capital to do so and in exchange retaining a portion of the yield.  See it as “staking-as-a-service” - I give ETH (or a form of capital for you to buy ETH) which you then stake and earn yield that gets passed back to me with you retaining a cut as a fee.  The issue is the centralization vector this creates if everyone uses the LST.
If we want more solo stakers, then the answer is making it easier for solo stakers to do so. I’ve been staking since genesis and have ZERO tech background so it ain’t difficult.  Some constraints that could potentially help increase the share of solo stakers:  reducing the 32 ETH requirement (Rocketpool?); mitigating the risk of a long exit queue; hardware requirements.  I’d tackle that instead of the issuance curve, tbh.

Minting increases supply and makes the price harder to move, while burning reduces supply and makes it easier to move the price. Buying and selling cause a spot market’s price to increase or decrease. Multiple spot markets can have price differences, which create arbitrage opportunities between them.
Stablecoins mint and burn 1:1 against a backing asset to help maintain a stable price. Non stable coins use various supply, issuance, and burn mechanisms that can make them more or less volatile, but they are not designed to maintain a fixed price. Coins can burn transaction fees to reduce supply and create upward pressure on price. Coins can also be minted to increase supply, either with corresponding backing to help stabilize the price or to be sold into the market, potentially at the expense of existing holders through dilution and additional sell pressure.
Order size affects slippage, and the amount a trade moves the price depends on the available liquidity in that particular market. Larger orders consume more of the available bids or asks and therefore tend to produce greater price movement.
Only the portion of Bitcoin’s total supply that is actively available to the market directly contributes to its immediate liquidity and price discovery. Coins that are lost, inaccessible, or held without being offered for sale reduce the effective liquid supply, although the entire outstanding supply still matters for valuation and expectations.
Ethereum also supports tokens and applications built using its blockchain and development standards. ETH acts as the native asset used to pay gas fees for activity on the network, so demand for blockspace, applications, transactions, and Ethereum based infrastructure can contribute to demand for ETH. Ethereum also burns a portion of transaction fees, while new ETH is issued through its proof of stake system, meaning its net supply changes according to the balance between issuance and burning.
CRO’s burn rate is variable and is influenced by transaction fee burns alongside its quarterly burn mechanism.

I've been BTC-only since last year. Most of my alts were sold at pretty heavy losses, except ETH

I have a fair amount of ETH dating back to late 2017 with a basis of about $600 per. Certainly not a whale. More like a baby porpoise. I’ve never understood why it goes up or why it goes down. I’ve set sell limits for myself and, when met, got greedy and held. I agree there’s no evidence that I’ve seen which relates price to usage. If that’s the case, why is it worth anything?

Shameless repost from that thread.
If a lower staking yield is necessary to help ETH appreciate in value, I’m all for it. A lot of people are already arguing that Ethereum is overpaying for security anyway.
The interesting question is: how many people would still stake if the yield were reduced enough to bring ETH inflation down to around 0.4%, putting it roughly in line with Bitcoin after its next halving?
I actually think that could be a smart strategic chess move. It would take away one of the easiest talking points from BTC maxis and other Ethereum critics, who will absolutely jump on ETH inflation if it becomes materially higher than Bitcoin’s.
In the meantime, I’m happy to enjoy the higher staking yield. And if ETH’s price starts appreciating meaningfully, a lower yield certainly wouldn’t discourage me from staking.
But there is a tradeoff. If ETH continues to deliver the kind of brutal price volatility and mediocre long-term performance we’ve seen from 2021–2026, then cutting staking yields substantially would be a pretty bitter pill for ETH investors to swallow.
>*UPDATE;📊📈 Ethereum, Solana Could Turn Scarcer Than Gold By 2031:*

*Here's the Math to Prove It*

*Both Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) and Solana (CRYPTO: SOL) are considering tokenomics changes that would make them scarcer than gold by 2031, according to a new Grayscale research note.*

*What Would the Proposed Tokenomics Changes Actually Do?*
*Grayscale Head of Research Zach Pandl wrote that both networks are considering code changes that would cut annual token inflation significantly.*

*If implemented, ETH and Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) would both sit at roughly 0.4% annual inflation by the end of 2031, while SOL would land at around 1.1%.*

*Both figures sit below gold’s 1.8% annual supply growth and well below U.S. CPI inflation at 3.3%.*

*The mechanism is straightforward. Both networks currently issue new tokens as staking rewards.*

*Reducing that issuance means fewer tokens enter circulation each year, and lower supply growth pushes scarcity higher, all else being equal.*

I think you're forgetting that a lot of companies are doing this already through RWA tokenisation + liquidity companies that back them up like Steakhouse, Sentora, RockawayX, etc.
Most of which is done on the SOL and ETH chain because there is absolutely no use case for XRP when it has been done a 1000x successfully.

Swapped everything for BTC and ETH a while back.

To those pointing the finger at revenues, that’s only a fraction of how ETH is to be valued.  
Doesn’t the Internet allow all companies using it to create more value for them than it captures for itself? Yet, the Internet is worth trillions. 
Same for Ethereum. An infrastructure doesn’t optimize to capture all the value to itself.