ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

BTC or ETH, as was said

>**Send attestation,**
>**Verify aggregation,**
>**Run validation.**
~Daily haiku until we’re at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap

The most interesting attempt I've seen so far at a solution to LSTs capture is this: https://x.com/intocryptoast/status/2085831237881762274
It basically suggests charge an entry fee in ETH for every validator of a minimum size, and then ratchet down yield for higher contentrations of stake. (larger validators)
I think this idea is interesting because it respects the idea that you can't effectively stop sybil, but you can make it more expensive. If you get a better rate for a smaller stake, LSTs could always just sybil a bunch of small validators, however if every validator pays an entry, then at some point it just becomes more profitable to stack more onto an existing large validator set than the sybil attack.
The downside is that it would create an up front cost for new stakers, which would take time to pay off. The exact numbers would have to be tuned for something reasonable. If people really want to encourage solo-staking and dicinsentivize LST caputre, this is more along the lines of something that actually makes sense imo

Depends on your goal, here's what I'd recommend after 6+ years working FT and investing in the crypto industry.
\- safer and long term holds: go with the big names, BTC, ETH, SOL, SUI (not XRP, Cardano, they're dead)
\- riskier, shorter hold, higher upside: find a project that's about to launch, get involved in their community and get in early. Or look for well funded projects in the 200 - 400 market cap listing on coingecko .com (expect it to go to zero)
These are very early startups, very young, very risky.
Not advice but Euclid Protocol is one of my favorite projects that we've worked with for years and will launch in 1 - 2 months.

Probably BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP (Larger market cap coins with institutional support). Do some research and go with the one you have the most conviction on.

Can someone help me understand how @vbuterin achieves his n-of-m with guardians in real life. Particularly how do you even have such a conversation with the potential guardians where it doesn’t immediately become an invest in my pet project kind of relationship and more to the point how does one today join people into a multisig without them knowing how much ETH is in there and that becoming all consuming to them?

lol, there's only one mainstream crypto that offers privacy as a feature, and BTC and ETH are NOT one of them.

But why ETH price is in the toilet?

I don't think that you are misrepresenting the research but no I do not agree. I found [this post](https://ethresear.ch/t/the-shape-of-issuance-curves-to-come/20405) quite convincing, and I just find the arguments that this proposal would hurt big stakers more than solo stakers more convincing. But my biggest fear is not the composition of the validator set (solo stakers are marginal in that sense anyway) but about the total ETH that is amassed by these big institutions, and the role of ETH as the central asset on Ethereum. I fear that we will in time see governance on Ethereum being captured, and you can see a version of that playing out today.
Closer to what?! Well, let's not forget that Lido doesn't decide anything about who stakes or not. People decide whether or not they want to stake with Lido. Lido stake consists of a heterogenous group of people, each with their own margins and preferences for when to enter or exit. I don't see how becoming relatively more profitable as solo stakers compared to Lido (or relatively less loss-making, I should say) than the status quo is anything other than a win. You will just have a very hard time convincing me that someone who stakes with Lido is *less* sensitive to a drop in yield than a solo staker. The conviction of a solo staker is an order of magnitude greater, and staking with Lido carries risks that become a lot pricier at lower yield.

Helpful template for y'all:
---
**Your post advocates a**
( ) cap-based ( ) identity-based ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to incentivize solo staking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
**One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea:**
( ) Nobody will be able to enter the staking set anymore.
( ) Large stakers can split their stake up into a bunch of small 32 ETH validators.
( ) Large stakers can cheaply rent a bunch of IP addresses to assign validator traffic to.
( ) Large stakers can anonymize their staked ETH to hide the very fact that they are a large staker.
( ) Solo stakers will be incentivized to stake with an institution instead of solo staking.
**Specifically, your plan fails to account for**
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it in most countries globally
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for authorizing new validator entries
( ) People assigning their withdrawal address to a contract
( ) People trading ownership of validators without ever actually exiting them
( ) Asshats
( ) Potential dangers of weird unproven consensus mechanisms
( ) Huge existing investment in ETH by institutions
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all approaches to identifying how much stake an entity controls
( ) Profitability of large stakers splitting stake and pretending to be a bunch of solo stakers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of stakers themselves
( ) Malicious software that stakers write themselves and run on their staking rigs
( ) Geth
**and the following philosophical objections may also apply:**
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Interactions with the beacon chain deposit contract should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blocklists suck
( ) Allowlists suck
( ) We should be able to stake any 32 ETH, no matter where it came from, without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Spinning a solo validator up and down should be essentially free
( ) Rotating keys for a solo validator should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/time-limited validators are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government vetting the origin of all my ETH
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you validate and slash your entire stake!
Adapted from craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

>we will get to such high stake rates that no other chain has encountered
Sol is currently sitting at 69% stake rate. That staking rate on ethereum would mean negative real yield for solo stakers and positive real yield for industry. Big problem.
>mUSD (yield bearing stable) will become more popular as a collateral
This is very far fetched imo and the current defi market disproves this. Vanilla ETH is the most liquid collateral on Uniswap. That's the case even on the new robinhood chain, even with no yield(!). People want to use vanilla ETH in defi, let's not take their money while they try to use Ethereum?
>You are completely ignoring what is being said just because it's coming from stani.
His points on MEV were fair, other points were honestly Ai slop. I just put his long comment from ethereum magicians into an ai detector and it came back 100% ai generated.. It's also not surprising that people that have a vested interested in something would lash out with ai slop. Everyone in the industry is hurting, i'm sure aave is too.

Hi, I don't know how much holdings you have, but I guess the best would be putting it in the ETH smart contract and run a validator node simultaneously.

> Also we will never get to 0% yield, we need to stop the fearmongering, the current curve also leads to zero!
This is funny because there's a ton of fear mondering coming from the issuance change side saying that we will get to such high stake rates that no other chain has encountered and people will stake at negative real yield. But when it comes to the proposed curve all of a sudden people will be rational and the curve will reach equilibrium above 0%.
Make it make sense.
> Defi summer came before LST
At one point NFTs were hot too. Now people have learned that token yield is worthless.
> This I don't see happening, could you explain?
For example since LSTs are yield bearing you can do things like self paying loans. If that's not possible then things like mUSD (yield bearing stable) will become more popular as a collateral.
> Aave will get less business, ETH will be fine
You are completely ignoring what is being said just because it's coming from stani.

>Why would I try to "spin" anything? Spinning assumes that I have some interest that I'm concealing, and that what I am saying is not in defense of that true interest. But my only interest is what's best for Ethereum.
I'm asking about this because the research pretty much all states that solo stakers almost certainly will hurt if we change the issuance curve, while also introducing a new attack vector. To me that immediately kills any claims about how this EIP protects solo stakers.
Don't you agree with this? Do you think I'm misrepresenting what the research states in my highlights from yesterday? Do you think the research is wrong? I really can't understand how this doesn't clearly show that small solo stakers aren't protected. Why else would you say "I did read your post yesterday, it has made me realise that it's a losing game to present this EIP as beneficial to solo stakers."?
>What I know is that if you halve the stake, for example, I will still be paying $1 for every $100 I've got staked, while LIDO will be paying some amount per $100 staked that is higher than $0.25. Maybe they're still beating me, but at least I'm getting closer.
Closer to what?! What does it matter what you're closer to if you're not operating with a profit? I don't understand what point you're making here.
>This may be hard to reason about backwards - how do we know that Lido would lose any stakers if issuance went down? But we are seeing the reverse play out right in front of our eyes: as the stake is growing, Lido keeps getting more and more efficient, and the big guys are getting all of the marginal new stake.
But this is a moot point because the proposed EIP just makes it worse. Yes, we *might* face in issue, in like 30m staked ETH with the current issuance curve. With the proposed EIP we just make it worse, we speed up when we would face an issue and we introduce a new attack vector. How is that any better?

Who says the ETH token is gonna capture this value? And we will see this back in the price of ETH?

Hi everyone,
I'm an investor holding Ethereum with a strong belief in its long-term value. I have some questions regarding ETH storage methods and would love to get the community's advice.
To manage various risks, my current portfolio storage allocation is:
* **60%** on Exchanges
* **30%** in a Cold Wallet *(Both allocations are currently being staked.)*
For my cold wallet, I use a combination of a dice-generated mnemonic and a passphrase, which I believe provides strong security. However, after seeing the recent Coldcard incident, I am seriously considering migrating to a multisig setup.
I understand the Coldcard issue was caused by a compromised device-generated mnemonic, but it made me realize that relying on a single manufacturer's hardware could expose me to unforeseen risks. Even with a dice-generated mnemonic + passphrase combo, I still worry about potential vulnerabilities when connecting the device via USB.
Here are my main questions:
1. **Is it common for individual investors to use multisig?** Or is it predominantly used by enterprises and institutions?
2. **Are smart contracts secure enough for individual multisig?** Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum requires smart contracts (like Gnosis Safe) for multisig setups. I've heard that smart contracts aren't 100% flawless in terms of security, which makes me hesitant.
3. **Or should I just stick to my current setup?**
I would really appreciate any thoughts, feedback, or advice you might have. Thanks in advance!

People can yap all day about "institutions", TVL, transactions, dapps, blah blah blah. None of that matters when the tokenomics are broken. ETH doesn't capture anywhere near enough value to sustain it's massive FDV. The bear case continues to play out, as it has for years.

Thank you, it is good to hear that you acknowledge that there is a problem. And yes I did read your post yesterday, it has made me realise that it's a losing game to present this EIP as beneficial to solo stakers.
Although personally I am quite confident in the economics. Everyone says solo stakers have high fixed costs and are pushed out sooner. No, solo stakers have much *lower* fixed costs. I'm not talking about fixed costs per ETH - that's a contradiction in terms. Fixed costs, i.e. total fixed costs regardless of how much ETH you're staking (that's what fixed cost means). Solo stakers have hardware, institutions have hardware, personnel, office space.
What's the winning model if you have low fixed costs but higher variable costs? Lower economies of scale! We need to reduce the stake.

She's literally framing the very first post as "rich people voting to keep their passive income based off of your dilution"
>nixo.eth 🐌
>okay, i actually love this. @ethvaorg has a vote for node operators to signal whether or not their income should be cut. they have 29 votes w 83k ETH voting no (surprise)
>this represents 29 people each making $140k per year in passive income off the inflation of your ETH (1/x)
And then she's qualifying herself with a bunch of emotional arguments about how she's so passionate about staking that she left a career in academia for staking. She makes 0 mention of any of the mechanics or effects of the proposed curve change.
I don't dislike Nixo, the opposite in fact, and I appreciate her efforts and have been happy to see her advance from being a regular community member. But she's not arguing facts here.

Simplest way I'd put it to a beginner: BTC = digital gold (store of value, keep it simple). ETH = the platform other apps get built on (more moving parts, more risk). Most people starting out do fine with mostly BTC and a little ETH, and ignore everything else until they understand it.