ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

Some friends that trade that I've spoken with seem to think we're going to tickle 2k and then get one more violent leg down before we bottom for real in October. Not a trader myself so who knows. I feel good buying ETH under 2k

> The current curve eventually results in negative real yield for solo stakers, that's unacceptable.
I keep seeing this claim but nobody will tell me why they think the issue here is the *real* yield. When I'm deciding whether to keep staking, my ETH is getting diluted or accreted whether I stake or not.
Also, if what you're saying is true and solo-staking is always less profitable pooled staking [*], I think it's also true of the other proposed curve? If my competitor is getting higher yield than me, and they keep adding funds until their yield is zero, and at that point my yield is necessarily negative. You can't fix this by futzing with the curve: If we're playing a zero-sum game and I'm worse at it than average, I'm going to make a loss.
The way to fix it is to get more usage, so we have lots of revenue from fees and/or MEV and we're playing a positive-sum game, but if you do that your "negative real yield" claim is false: You could have 100% staked and I could be worse than average than the competition and I'd still be making money in real terms.
[*] I think it's in fact false because you have to account for the amount that will be embezzled by custodians or DAO governance exploiters

- At 0% yield many will sell it rather than just hold vanilla ETH
- Defi will be killed and you'll see a huge slowdown in activity
- ETH as the dominate collateral and dex pair will diminish and likely be replaced by stables
- As stani pointed out, 0% yield would lead to a yen-like situation where ETH is shorted and suppressed
Do not pass go. Do not collect $10k ETH. Congratulations, you played yourself.

Joseph Chalom (Sharplink) [comes out against EIP 8363](https://x.com/joechalom/status/2085696058185666682).
Ethereum's native yield:
> is a critical reason why tens of billions of dollars of investor sentiment has flowed into ETH through ETPs, DATs, and private funds
vs Bitcon:
>EIP-8363 erases that distinction. We would be voluntarily undermining one of ETH’s competitive advantages at a moment when it is outperforming Bitcoin and other major crypto assets.
What Sharplink does with the yield:
>It will fund the next generation of Ethereum projects and spinouts.
Don't spook the process of mainstream adoption:
>We have spent years making the case that Ethereum is where serious capital belongs. That case is finally being won, in public, by the largest allocators and custodians in the world. This is not the moment to make fundamental changes to the economic underpinnings of the protocol.
What most people are saying on X:
>The base fee burn makes ETH deflationary whenever the network reaches a threshold of usage.
I haven't seen any answers the last few days on Reddit addressing these issues.

>**Discussion labored,**
>**Commentaries were tapered,**
>**Issuance tapered.**
~Daily haiku until we’re at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap

ETH’s price action is a pure reflection of investor conviction. Fact is, ETH shouldn't even be down at these levels. Real HODLers who see the big picture keep getting jeeted on by short-term traders who panic at every dip. It’s exhausting. The tech is solid, but Ethereum’s current weakness is 100% due to investors who lack any real backbone.

I really really don't know
I also don't know if its good or bad for Ethereum and/or ETH :-/

That would be very nice. But why do you expect 30k in 2030? If you look at Ethereum right now, that would be almost a 15x. Where would that market capitalization come from, and why? And when will it begin to start? Because atm its hard to believe.
I’m an Ethereum maxi. I hold more ETH than Bitcoin because I see more utility in it. But I don’t see THIS upside. I’d be really interested to hear your thoughts! Then the champagne would be on me.

When ETH finally decides to pump, LINK will go parabolic

I don't think Lido is bad actor for having a stake in the outcome. The truth is all ETH holders, users, and businesses around staking all of a stake in the outcome, and some level of bias.
I think two things can be true at once if this EIP were to pass: short term, this makes Lido's product less attractive by lowering yield, and reduces a lot of TVL; long term, margins for staking compress and they are able to survive that better than solo stakers, and thus LSTs gain marketshare over time.
So to me, it's clearly in their best interest either way for this proposal to not go through. That doesn't make them evil. If you don't use DeFi at all, or stake, and are just a vanilla ETH holder, you're probably biased to want a reduced inflation. If you're a staker earning yield, you're probably somewhere in the middle depending on how you think it effects security, your ETH bags, and your revenue. I'm sure there exist *some* unbiased actors that look at things with no bias in any direction, but that is certainly a fringe minority group, and there's no way to effectively poll or differentiate those people, and not even a great argument as to why their opinions should matter more.

Same here. Have my sell orders set around previous ATH’s for both BTC and ETH. Can’t wait to wipe my hands fully clean and transition to 100% VOO/VGT

> The fact that the EF is losing influence to a federated set of interest groups (quick slots is ETH Labs) is gonna Increase contentious hard fork risk moving forward. I'm sad this is bearish.
If this happens who is more likely to win the majority of market share? The EF supporters or the Federated Set supporters (including their backers the DATs and Defi)?

Same here, I requested a payment in ETH from LuckyCircus and Travel Rule was applied, so my money blocked. Did you solved?

Ok SPY is at all time highs so if it wants to have a pullback even though we have dovish fed news that's fine, but cmon ETH should be going to like $2500 here rates aren't going to get hiked, dollar is devaluing, eth adoption is strong. Why shouldn't ETH go up here.

ETH will go so much higher when it's the hardest money in crypto. Staking risk is not 0 so yield will never be 0 on the new curve.

I think we are going to be keeping it. On a zkEVM scenario:
(1) consensus gets cheaper and hence crowded hence we need to cut the share of compensation
(2) Execution gets more expensive and hence incentives must be kept or displaced here
It's one of the main reasons J.Drake supports snail/croissant issuance. And likely one of the reasons they want to rush it. The most difficult thing of zkEVM is to enact incentive change, the more you wait the more complicated it is.
There's a lot of nuance and shadow governance in Ethereum. This is one of the contentious points.
The other one is quick slots. Quicker slots make zkEVM more complicated to achieve and more prohibitive/centralized.
I fully expect quick slots and issuance curve to indirectly for headliner status on H*. The fact that the EF is losing influence to a federated set of interest groups (quick slots is ETH Labs) is gonna Increase contentious hard fork risk moving forward. I'm sad this is bearish.

I mean, I thought this was obvious? Just take a look at the charts around and after his meme coins came out. BTC was at an ATH, ETH was hovering around $3,500, then about a week or two after $TRUMP launches crypto starts receding and has yet to recover? What a weird coincidence.

What is ETH gas and how does one make money on it?

It’s easy to become jaded during a bear market while we all wait for the world to catch up and for ETH to move, but it’s always important to stay clued into what’s happening on chain.
I continue to be encouraged by more on innovation in on-chain experiments and the emerging trends. More and more I’m becoming convinced that it may be indicate a shift into the beginning of a new bull market.
Here’s what I’ve been noticing the past couple weeks: (from most obvious to least obvious imo)
\* Perps platforms continue print revenue. Everyone knows Hyperliquid and Lighter as the leaders. More exist, some pre-token. Competition seems tough and I am not knowledgable or interested enough in this sector to comment
\* A meme token on Robinhood (I know, memes suck, back keep reading) listing on Robinhood was aggressively front run. Trading meme tokens is more and more a losing game without an incredible edge. Not just insider-info, but the ability to monitor the chain well. Here is an interesting article outlining the situation: [https://x.com/clickl3ss/status/2085441738551025967](https://x.com/clickl3ss/status/2085441738551025967?s=46&t=lMdE_-3paoBRNiejJkAjzQ)
\* At the same time meme token launch pads are telling incredible revenue stories: Pump, Pons, Fomo app, and now Uniswap all doing well, but I hate this sector and the competition is everywhere. I can’t help but think the last point will create more losers and stunt this at some point, but who knows.
\* Trading card collection platforms are don’t incredible revenue. The biggest names are Collector Crypt on Solana, and Monster on (I think) MegaETH. I am not particular interested in trading cards, but I think this is worth watching.
NFT infra, and new models around tokenization is a new sector that I am absolutely paying attention to, and for the first time in the best has caused me to take positions and speculate. And I’ll talk about these next, because it interesting to me.
Two big names to watch in the NFT infra game:
\* (1) Fake World Assets, which I’ve talked about here [https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/s/P3W7T6glH9](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/s/P3W7T6glH9) is seeing steady daily volume, and burns the token for revenue. NFT users can put their ETH and NFTs at risk to each from gamblers. Currently the highest reserve backed NFT is a 300 ETH reward or a crypto punk. The liquidity is raking in nearly 1.5-2 ETH a day for providing the liquidity. On the token, market cap is very low on this so there is both big upside, and big bust potential.
\* (2) Stonkbrokers: pairs a reserve of NFTs against their token using a new Anvil AMM they created, which prices NFTs at static quantity next to an ERC20 token. They paired Stonkbroker NFTs in reserve with an ERC20 StonkBroker token, to create a liquid floor on the NFT. Others can provide liquidity too. Trades of the token purchase a war chest of stocks, and NFT holders burn StonkBroker tokens to activate higher shares of this and other revenue streams. Each StonkBroker NFT has an attached wallet embedded, which travels with it. The other revenue stream is a cut of trading from projects that issue NFTs/tokens using the Anvil AMM. So far there’s been one project to do this, which literally launched yesterday. StonkBroker NFTs recently passed Pudgy Penguins and are selling on Opensea at a market price of 7ish ETH, with a floor of 6ish through the token
That’s it for my update on current on chain games and trends. No investment advice of course, but the advice I will give is to start paying attention if you haven’t been. New things are happening on chain, and that has always predated bull markets in the past.

In the past 3 days I've seen a bunch of people quote Jerome or make reference to Elowsson's research, as proof that solo staking will be fine, and even could benefit from the proposed curve change. The most quoted research is Elowsson's analysis [here](https://ethresear.ch/t/faq-ethereum-issuance-reduction/19675). Jerome claims Elowsson reaches the same conclusion (as Jerome, that solo stakers aren't hurt by the curve change). But Jerome is handpicking a quote to support his case, while Elowsson takes a much more nuanced and neutral stance, and also argues that the changed curve could hurt solo stakers. In fact, he seems to be of the opinion that a curve change probably shouldn't be considered before MEV-burn. I think everyone should read Elowsson's research for themselves.
Jerome also highlights 3 other pieces of research in the thread on Ethereum-Magicians, that pretty much state curve change is probably bad for solo stakers.
One of the main arguments for why we should change the issuance curve, is to ensure that home staking remains viable. But it's really not clear that the changed curve will ensure that. It also seems quite irresponsible to introduce a new potential attack vector, without fully researching and investigating this angle. Even if this is mentioned in Elowsson's research, I dont see this getting any attention.
Some observations Elowsson makes about the potential negative effects of the changed curve:
>A fixed target participation level may incite stakers to attack Ethereum: ...With a fixed target participation level that adapts relatively quickly, the “pi-elasticity” becomes infinite. The incentives for discouragement attacks are then maximized; less stake must leave to drive up the yield. A related concept is cartelization attacks, consisting of SSPs working together to try to reduce quantity staked, potentially also among themselves.
>Variability for solo stakers: If issuance is moderated, a larger part of rewards will stem from REV, and the relative variability in staking rewards will therefore increase. This affects solo stakers negatively since they cannot effortlessly rely on pooling for smoothing out variability ... Relative variability is one of the reasons for pursuing the more moderate reward curves discussed in a previous answer before MEV burn is in place. This does not mean that a low economic cap will be enforced afterward, merely that it is much more feasible once MEV burn is in place.
>Equilibrium yield and the proportion of solo stakers: Ethereum wants to retain solo stakers, at least when measured as a proportion of all stakers. The anticipated outcome of a reduction in issuance level is that less ETH will be staked by both delegating and solo stakers, relative to the outcome when issuance is not reduced (1, 2). A concern is if there might be a staking yield below which solo stakers in particular would drop off due to, e.g., the relatively higher fixed costs associated with solo staking.
>What is the endgame issuance policy?: ...Ethereum should pursue MEV burn. As explained in the previous answers (1, 2), this will reduce relative variability and is a prerequisite for being able to reduce the staking yield substantially without causing too much concern for non-pooled stakers. As the answer soon turns to reduced issuance, it must be remembered that there is no direct financial motive for staking if the endogenous staking yield (MEV + issuance + airdrops) is negative
The other research Jerome refers to, which state in much clearer terms that solo staking would be negatively impacted:
https://ethresear.ch/t/impact-of-consensus-issuance-yield-curve-changes-on-competitive-dynamics-in-the-ethereum-validator-ecosystem/21617
[Towards a Formal Framework of the Ethereum Staking Market](https://arxiv.org/html/2503.14385v2)
https://ethresear.ch/t/eth-issuance-discovery-research-issuance-debate-case-studies-by-staking-cohort/21664