ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

> I wonder if people realize that after Glamsterdam, the gas limit can be raised to 300Mgas which means ETH turns deflationary at 2.66 Gwei base gas. This is... deflationary ETH while a simple transaction costs barely 10 cents (because obv ETH will be 10K hah).
What does this mean in terms of data? For a while I've wanted to put the did:plc directory on there.

ETH Daily - 6th August 2026 📰
\-Quick Slots proposed for Hegotá.
\-EtherFi reduces restaking exposure.
\-Peer introduces Groups.
\-Issuance discussions.
\-Morpho hits $5b in deposits on Base.
\-Greenfield Capital insights on block priority.
\-Wintermute registers with the SEC.
Read more: [https://ethdaily.io/quick-slots-proposed-for-hegota-and-etherfi-reduces-restaking-exposure](https://ethdaily.io/quick-slots-proposed-for-hegota-and-etherfi-reduces-restaking-exposure)

Passing clarity allows massive amounts of institutional inflow into crypto, aside from ETP and pension flows. The analysis below doesn’t even account for the potential that tokenization will bring for real world asset and securities markets generally.
For starters, putting asset custody, segregation, risk metrics, capital requirements, etc on exchange platforms eliminates a large percentage of the perceived risk around the industry which was garnered from the FTX/Celsius gambit years ago.
Moreover, most banks currently will not use digital assets for defined banking activities in part because the law is ambiguous or doesn’t allow it, and capital metrics and accounting make doing so more or less impossible.
Additionally large market makers, brokers, dealers, etc. will start to process trading in crypto assets in a similar way that they do now for other assets. This will rely in part on value generation from real world use. But we’re already seeing stablecoins, BTC and ETH be used for collateral and margining positions by CFTC regulated intermediaries. Remember crypto is 24/7 unlike tradfi. If traditional whales can make money between 5pm-9am using crypto, you bet they’ll play around.
Lastly, Bitcoin has historically served as the primary gateway and liquidity anchor for the crypto market. Expanding legitimate use cases and institutional participation across the ecosystem could create additional demand across digital assets generally. A rising tide does not lift every boat equally, but greater adoption of the asset class as a whole is likely positive for the strongest networks.
If regulatory clarity increases demand from institutions while available liquid supply remains relatively constrained, even incremental institutional allocation can have an outsized impact on price. This is the same basic dynamic that contributed to strong market reactions around the approval of spot Bitcoin ETPs: a new pool of demand entered a market with limited readily available supply.
Obviously the caveat is that regulation alone does not guarantee price appreciation. It creates the conditions for broader participation; actual price impact depends on whether institutions allocate capital, how much they allocate, and broader macro conditions. But Clarity at least creates the market environment to drive allocation.

You are on the right track.
Its actually not Etheralize. That is a private company that sells their services to companies moving onto Ethereum. The new non-profits are Ethlabs, and Ethereum Institutional. There is also a new for-profit launched called EthSystems. All three of these are backed by BMNR and SBET, the two largest Ethereum DATs.
Yes, Ethereum L1 is taking over when it comes to the global public settlement layer. The adoption is actually slower in the USA because we don't have the Clarity Act passed yet. We do have the Genius Act from last year which has led to the explosion in US based stablecoins.
If you want to get a good idea of what is going on look into what Robinhood is doing with their Robinhood chain, launched for markets outside the US. In the EU they already have a comprehensive law passed called MiCA and a lot of laws are getting passed in Asia as well. Until the Clarity Act gets passed Europe and Asia will be where the most action is at.
The US will eventually sign the Clarity act or something like it into law because the rest of the world is modernizing their finance on EVM (the Ethereum Virtual Machine infrastructure).
The real story is about the adoption of EVM which does not necessarily mean that something runs directly on Ethereum, but it does mean that it runs on the native environment of Ethereum which the Ethereum ecosystem also controls in terms of the functionality and adding new capabilities to the EVM.
Some huge news that most people are ignoring is that both the DTCC and the Bank of International Settlement are adopting EVM systems (i.e. Besu). This is the foundational layer of the global financial system. By them adopting EVM systems it means all of the central banks around the world will also be adopting EVM systems and that in turn means global finance will run on EVM.
That doesn't mean that some financial companies won't be running on Canton or Solana or an Ethereum L2, etc. but it does mean that it will all be EVM compatible. The end result is that Ethereum L1 will become the public global financial layer. In that world ETH the token will probably become a monetary asset and will no longer be valued on gas fees. This will in turn mean that ETH will go up in value a lot.... it just may take a while. It could take another 10+ years but I think it will happen.
In my opinion EVM has already hit critical mass. Global finance has made its decision and it will only become more locked in every year. EVM is going to be to global finance what TCP/IP was to the internet. Everything will be built on that standard.

As a paper exercise in a theoretical framework (much like the EIP), I agree there is little difference, although this ignores the very serious issue of security degradation due to expedited loss of a solo stakers, which is probably my main point and concern.
*However*, in the real world, with a price chart that routinely varies on the order of 3-5 X (and could be a lot more), in an ever-changing regulatory and investment environment, 2-3% inflation is nothing more than (useful) noise.
Consider then two scenarios that we seem to be facing:
1) I stake and receive ~3% (or whatever), which I spend every year to support myself in some way. On a nominal 1 ETH, after ~3.3 years I have, 1 ETH. The price then "moons" to 5 X and I sell 1 ETH.
2) I no longer stake (the network lost an independent participant and is degraded) and I sell 0.03 ETH per year to support myself. After ~3.3 years, ETH "moons" to 5 X and I sell my remaining ~0.9 ETH.
Pretty clear that inflation isn't relevant, being completely overwhelmed by externalities, fomo, etc, and I know which scenario I prefer. How about you?
Further, tax is also person and jurisdiction dependent and cannot be assumed to be preferential. (Ultimately, large capital sales are dominated by CG anyway).

have to disagree with this:
\>It is very clear that this is true if you answer this simple question: In what state of the world would ETH holders come out relatively unscathed but stakers somehow suffer massive systemic losses? There really isn’t any.
There is the risk of failing to do your duties as a validator correctly. That could be a client bug. Or a power or internet outage. Or a failed HA setup that causes a slashable vote. There is risk - \`ivanz\` is highlighting that they just don't understand it.

Objectively, ethereum has made remarkable strides technically that have not been matched by ETH price increases. Each unmatched stride has disappointed investors and the sum of all the missed strides has made a lot of people skeptical that this phenomenon will never change. Yet ethereum is emerging as a (or the) primary platform for blockchain-based financial transformation of big tradfi, all while lindy continues to accrue. Ethereum is unlikely to fail. But what about ETH price? I agree the days of 10x seem largely gone, but getting to 10k within the next 2-3 years is, to me, within a probability range that keeps me hodling.

But ETH alone is already 50x the market cap of LTC not to mention total market cap of all the tokens on ETH. Litecoin's ratio is much more impressive.

>**Beyond collusion,**
>**Proposed for inclusion,**
>**Despite delusion.**
~Daily haiku until we’re at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap

First, maybe we should stick closer to today's reality. Talking about what's going to happen at 100m staked ETH isn't important for this discussion and not something we should make decisions based upon imo. We're at 40m staked ETH, it took us like 6 years to get to this point, we've seen periods of stagnation to the queue.
Also, solo stakers have different sized staked and different expenses and tax obligations, so you can't simply state that "solo staking becomes unviable at 70m". First 32ETH stakes become unviable, then 64, 128, etc. These are still solo stakers and important to the network, so it's not a true statement.
I 100% agree that the curve is something to look at and maybe change, *in some way*.
>On the new curve solo stakers don't have a tax obligation at the 0% real yield point (or very little) this means they can follow LST's and industry for most of the curve and not get pushed out of Ethereum by industry.
This doesn't make any sense for 2 reasons. First, solo stakers pay taxes on the yield, not on the profit, and they don't get to deduct expenses, so you can not compare solo stakers to LSTs. A solo staker with 32 ETH and a normal setup can be expected to spend about $500 a year to pay for their setup and connections and another couple of $100 depending on their tax bracket, which is like almost 50% of their yield gone. Second, according to the proposal, "market equilibrium" ensures that we'll never see 0% yield.
So what you're saying doesn't really add up.

Considering their deals are OTC I have some doubts it had any impact on price aside from sentiment.
They have paced their buying to match overall volume of traded ETH, to ensure they don't influence price... Roughly representing 0.1 to 0.5% of all ETH volume traded on CEX/DEX on any given week.

>When ETH rallies people will rush for the exit. Most likely that population overlaps massively with those supporting the EIP.
I wonder to what extent the fact that BMNR has bought 5% of ETH and staked 80% of it has to some extent backstopped the decline of ETH price.
I remember at least twice Ethereum Foundation sold ETH directly to BMNR for fear of affecting market price.

It’s so obvious IMO. ETH has had a demand problem for so long people actually think it’s the issuance that is a growing problem. No. It’s because we’ve become so used to parking ETH into staking over any other utility.
Make people want to unstake their ETH and use or spend it. The issuance is perfectly fine

Currently holding the “but if it just goes back to ATH port” with SNDK, ETH and ORCL

I don’t believe it’s rational, all else equal, to hold ETH at 2.5% yield but dump it at 0-0.5% yield.
Yield has never been the determiner of whether I hold ETH. I held Bitcoin no yield for years, then ETH no yield up until the beacon chain launch.

So all of this assumed that the exit point consequences there were correct. I've done some vibecoding to analyze the model behind the EIP and the original GitHub repo:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d154a44b-68ab-4230-a4b8-75dc6557dd83
Home staker profits at **current** staking % crash from 0.63% to 0.13%. LST go down more in percentage points 1.3% -> 0.7%.
The "real yield = 0" gap gets wider with the proposal because MEV and fees alone support LST/inst all the way to 100% staking. But this is not the right analysis yet:
- 0 is not the real threshold as there needs to be some risk premium over just holding ETH. We should be look at exit at some risk premium level >0.
- the equilibrium here would shift as staking % falls.
So the analysis moves to look at exit point given a risk premium, and relative risk premium for delegation (advantage of pure ETH node at home vs institutional/LST risks):
- The advantage needed for home stakers to outlast LST decreases with EIP! **That's good.** <- this looks like the main point.
- The EIP actually has a 100% runaway at very low LST risk premiums. No runaways with current curve - we never reach 100%.
Ughh I am done trying to understand this for today. For your question there's a costs and revenue breakdown for different stakers that should be helpful.

A *hard* hard limit causes technical and incentive issues (key rotation, incumbency, sales premium for active validators, etc, basically the New York taxi medallion debacle but digital.)
A soft limit would work. Say we keep the same yield curve until 50% of all ETH is staked, then say everyone’s staking yield drops to 0 at 60% staked, then negative yield at 60%+ staked. That’s something I might be able to get behind. But then that starts looking a bit similar to the curve that was actually proposed.
This incentive strategy is similar to how Aave pools work. Everyone gets low borrowing rates until 80% of the pool is lent out, then rates get jacked up to the moon as utilization approaches 100%. This incentivizes the pool to generally be at 80-90% utilization, which is ideal.
> I think the current issuance curve is here to stay, or we might end up with a contentious fork in our hands. 
A contentious fork is always preferable to the death of Ethereum as a secure, decentralized, functional platform. I don’t think we will need to push that far, but the harder big staking operators push back, the more we need to think critically about their arguments and incentives.
As a universal disclaimer, however, I do believe the curve should stay unchanged for the next year or two as the market regains footing, unless there’s extraordinary evidence that doing so would be detrimental.

>The current curve ensures (with 100% certainty) an uneven playing field
No it doesn't. It only does so in the case that we reach 60m staked ETH is not 100% guaranteed.
> The new curve ensures a much more fair playing field, guaranteed.
No it doesn't. If this was true, it would be trivial for you to explain how. Without referring me to some obscure post or comment someone else made, explain with your own words why this is the case.

You could. Thats the idea... Everyone should propose their own issuance.
Apparently you can half ass and rush baseless EIPs and then throw your hands in the air and say: "adopt my EIP before the situation is too dire!" As I've heard today.
Theres no evidence or support to the claim that we well ever reach anywhere near 50%.
We have gone up 5% in a year because some random Ethereum Strategic Reserve play bought literally 5% of ETH and staked 80% of it.
Chill. When ETH rallies people will rush for the exit. Most likely that population overlaps massively with those supporting the EIP.

The extreme holders are waiting for somebody dumber than them to come along and buy. It’s not a bad idea for big money to start buying ETH, get it going so the dum money rushes and drives it up above 2,000 and then sell out, again, because why not. You got bag holders who will never sell