ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

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

Nexо withdrew $15,000,000 in $ETH from Binancе and staked it all

1. It was changed an a slightly expedited but conservative way years ago with the expectation the topic would be re-visited.
2. Some stakeholders believe we need to revisit the topic in short order because 'too much' ETH is being staked which is driving down returns.
2. The optics of the proposal were poor from the start: submitted just before the proposal deadline and attached to a named upgrade (Hegota) which has the appearance of putting the cart before the horse.
3. Fundamentally there is going to be divisions between cohorts of small stakers, large staking farms, LSTs, and insitutional custodians which draws in companies like Coinbase.
4. This proposal, which may be directionally validate, is by design aggressive and in my view too lightly evidenced for such a policy shift.
Summary: The current Ethereum curve pays lower percentage yields as more ETH is staked, but total issuance continues rising and staking yield never falls much below roughly 1.5%. EIP-8361 argues this could eventually push a very large share of ETH into staking, custodians, ETFs, LSTs, and institutional operators.
The proposal would:
* Calculate a burn based on the total staking balance.
* Burn part of every validator's idealized attestation, proposal, and sync committee reward.
* Increase that burn as the staking ratio rises.
* Fully offset consensus issuance at 60.25m ETH staked, approximately 50% of current supply.
* Phase the permanent yield reduction in over 18 months.
The proposal does not model:
* The desired dollar value of slashable stake under major ETH price declines
* Operator concentration under different yields
* Regulatory coercion and custodial correlation
* MEV concentration
* Institutional versus solo staker yield sensitivity
* The effect of future consensus and proving roles
Approximate permanent yields
ETH staked | Current curve | EIP-8361 permanent curve
:--|:--|:--
25% | ~3.0% | ~1.9%
33% | ~2.6% | ~1.2%
40% | ~2.4% | ~0.7%
45% | ~2.2% | ~0.3%
50% | ~2.1% | 0.0%

Can someone explain me the current debate about ETH issuance and this new EIP?
What problem are they trying to tackle?
How does this EIP propose to resolve it?
Why are the pros and cons?
Thanks!

Running Ethereum from home was always altruistic.
It is extremely important that it is always possible, with cost and bandwidth requirements within consumer bounds. But expecting it to be a profitable endeavor was never sustainable, economies of scale will ensure that we will be outcompeted. This is true on the current curve as it is true on any curve.
The current curve eventually results in negative real yield for solo stakers, that's unacceptable.
Ensuring solo stakers remain viable, ensuring ETH remains the best money on Ethereum and avoiding structural capture of Ethereum needs to be top priority. This is why I support a change to the curve.

$1900 ETH rejected, looking to go lower \~$1750

Hi everyone! I’m 18, and I’m planning to start investing. According to a survey, I have a moderate risk tolerance. I’m currently looking into using GoTrade for US stocks and GoTyme for crypto, but I’m still pretty new to investing and would appreciate some advice before I actually put money in.
For US stocks, I’m thinking of starting with VOO and QQQM and holding them for the long term rather than constantly trading. For crypto, I’m also considering starting small, focusing mainly on BTC and ETH, and holding for the long term.
A few things I’m wondering:
* Is GoTrade a good platform for someone who’s just starting out on stocks?
* Is GoTyme a good option for buying/holding crypto?
* What mistakes should I avoid as a beginner?
I’m not looking for financial advice or a get-rich-quick strategy—just trying to learn and make better decisions with my money.
Would really appreciate any comments, suggestions, experiences, or beginner tips. Thanks!

The exact characteristics that you favor, make Litecoin a bad investment 🎯
Litecoin’s DEEP, evenly spread liquidity makes it act like a Utility Asset/Cheap Settlement layer, instead of a high-growth technology platform.
Large multimillion dollar orders are easily filled without pushing price up or down. & Users have no incentive to hold the coin.
Historically, swing trading Litecoin or holding for long periods has NOT paid anything comparable to Stocks or BTC/ETH/SOL.
Even when you catch the falling knife at the very bottom, you don’t earn thousands of dollars instantly like with ETH/SOL ☠️