ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

buy more ETH

What do we do when we’ve rescued issuance and ETH price is still holding nothing of its own to Bitcoin?

I agree that SOL probably has more upside than BTC and ETH. However, its volatility and unpredictability are also much higher. Network stability, ecosystem competition, and overall market sentiment can all have a significant impact on its price. For me, investing isn't just about chasing the highest returns—it's about finding the right balance between risk and reward. That's why my current focus is on short-term futures trading. I prefer to manage risk through strategy rather than relying solely on the long-term potential of a single coin

> I highly doubt that. 2.5% is not nothing, even if there's an element of altruism or hobbyism, there's a big difference between getting a reward that makes it worth the effort and getting essentially nothing.
The choice to solo stake comes down to a hurdle of opportunity cost. Since staking the lazy way (LSTs) already take a 10%+ fee which equals about 0.25% yield, solo stakers are already earning only 0.25% yield above opportunity cost.
In an environment where the entire staking reward is only 0.25%, the opportunity cost would most likely be compared to the 0% of holding ETH under your own key, since 0.25% is imo not enough to justify the counterparty risk of LST or managed staking. I myself would certainly never bother with an LST that paid only 0.25%.
So in both cases, solo staking nets you 0.25% over the next best alternative.

They are independent facts except for the fact that greed is driving this issuance change, because people want their ETH to be worth more, even if it risks messing with Ethereum.
Honestly people just want a high exit for their bags, clearly.
Big centralized entities are gonna hurt *less* than small operators.
LSTs will take a hit, for sure, but strategic reserve plays will gain a shit ton of power over the Network, which compensates the loss long term, when they can start their block Proposal/proving cartels and get paid to include shit with priority by big TradFi institutions.
And bottom of the barrell you have LSTs that represent considerably distributed validator sets like rocketpool or Lido CSM. All those people with less than 32 ETH running nodes will be inmediately pushed out.
This will massively decrease node count. Client and validator diversity will take a hit, risk will go up while also reducing incentives to participate. This cycle feedback into Canton/Solana-like permissioned Network.
If this is included into Hegota, I'm existing my vanilla validator, and likely giving up, since the last bastion of blockchain would have been conquered by greed and TradFi oligopolies.

In fact is the opposite. The point of introducing stake capping is to prevent large stakers from pushing out solo stakers.
You can see it modeled in detail here https://ethresear.ch/t/the-shape-of-issuance-curves-to-come/20405
With the current curve if we were to reach 60M ETH staked, solo staking would become economically unviable.

I think 50% is a better point, because it forces the majority of ETH out in the market instead of having it locked in the staking contract.
It's vanilla ETH that should be money, not stETH, cbETH, and rETH.

Rather than all the praises of increased usage, perhaps talk about why ETH price is unrelated (or not) to adoption. I certainly don’t understand it

Yeah perhaps a bit much 🙃
You can't deny that it's probably a factor though! Same as the 1559 debate.
We should think about Ethereum first, not our own pockets as experts that are likely to understand staking better than someone who just bought vanilla ETH and keeps it as such.

They both have some of the lowest multipliers in terms of return. Neither of those coins are getting more than a 3x and that is absolute best case scenario.
Hell even SOL can hit a 4.5x on it's best day. A far better ROI than BTC or ETH.

But they can. If there's a path to 0%, they will take it.
Look at Solo stakers surveys. Only 3% of Solo stakers are willing to stay under 0.3% APY.
Once they have enough share, they can push (specially now that big holders are starting to finance development and the EF IS fading away) to marginalize minories.
PoS is great. As long as all stakes are proporcionally relevant to their %stake.
If smaller players are pushed out, that is not PoS. Thats some Solana permissioned bullshit.
If they push smaller players out, they can rule a fork that says, I dunno, Minimum Effective Balance of 512 ETH moving forward. And smaller players cannot rally because they eroded them out.
This is a classic corporate play and Ethereum falling for It would be a dissapointment and likely the final death of crypto.

If you want to continue fucking around with XRP and ETH id recommend a warm wallet for anything other than long term holdings. Keep BTC away from alts. This is what I do. ETH in warm wallet where I can mess around with smart contracts, staking and whatnot, and hard wallet gets the BTC. I also park a bit on exchange. Enough to lower fees but not enough to care if the exchange falls. Temporary storage solutions until I hit X amount of BTC or ETH and it's worth transfer

Basically, solo staking already sucks so much compared to managed or LST staking that it's already the case nobody is doing it for any reason other than altruism/idealism. To borrow wording from /u/rhythm_of_eth: the economically rational thing to do, even under the current curve, is to not bother solo staking. You're basically giving up your own economic liquidity in exchange for the altruistic goal of diversity of stake.
So since I believe altruism/idealism is what currently powers solo staking, I don't think cutting the staking rewards would change the solo staker mix by much. People who solo stake for 2.5% would still solo stake for 0.25%. People who liquid stake for 2.5% might actually even quit if rewards went down to 0.25% to reduce their counterparty risk, so there might even be a paradoxical effect of increasing the relative solo staker mix.
I have no proof of any of this, it's just a hunch. It's solely an opinion on what I believe the data would say if it were collected. At the end of the day, I follow the data.
To really help solo staking, as I mentioned before, I would love for the protocol to move towards a service guarantee for well-behaved nodes. I think more people would solo stake if they had a guarantee that they could always get their ETH back net-30 with no unbounded exit queue. That reduces the relative benefits to going with LST or managed staking instead of solo.

It will only be 0 if the market thinks it should be 0. At that point there will be lots more ETH securing Ethereum than today.

* Bitcoin mining difficulty decreased 15% from January’s peak
* Emirates launched [Crypto.com](https://t.co/lhCPQEMn23) Pay™ on its website and mobile app
* Morgan Stanley launched spot ETH and SOL ETPs

The details [https://crypto.com/market-updates/crypto-market-pulse-weekly-2026-08-03?utm\_source=twtr&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=rni\_market-pulse](https://t.co/8VuCm1DaSw)
[](https://x.com/cryptocom_rni/status/2084578253252026478/photo/1)

I agree that we just have to wait and see, but this is a subreddit dedicated to trading ETH lol what else do you want people to talk about

at 50% supply it drops to 0 immediately. Like falls off a cliff. Even if the goal was finding minimum viable issuance I'd argue that a curve so steep is a horrible way to go about it. Predictability is required by DeFi and capital allocators.
Aside from that, I don't even know why >50% is the key number used here. Why does that specific target make sense? I haven't seen the arguments as to why that's even a reasonable target should be for ETH staked vs not, so I don't see a point in ratcheting yield down to target it.
And going a step further than that, I'm not even sure i believe in the mantra of "minimum viable issuance" anymore. Economies can't expand without inflation, and this one is already lower than current BTC, gold, certainly most fiat currencies. The risk of overshooting here or destroying what is currently a perfectly working economy built around ETH staking seems incredibly large for what amounts to very little payoff imo.

It all boils down to: "will Ethereum, the infra Layer, have enough leverage to capture value from this product?"
And "Will this capture be in the form of either a stronger position of ETH as trading pair to this tokenized asset, or in the form of ETH used and burned in the process of facilitating transfer, issuance and burning of this tokenized asset?"
A tokenized money market fund is a low moving asset. I see it as a low fee generating asset for Ethereum, so the only remaining thing is: "can I use it as collateral or trade it for ETH?" For compliance reasons, for now, the answer IS likely NO.

> relying on altruistic actors for security of a chain that is expected to grow in trillions of value secured, is an unrealistic expectation.
Yeah, it might very well be. That was attempted with NANO (blast from the past, I was running a node on my pre-ETH days!) and it's clearly not enough.
But we're not *really* projecting 0% APY here. If that were the case big actors would be the first to bail.
Realistically, we're just talking about lower-than-current rewards. Maybe low enough that home-staking would be irrational from a *purely economical* standpoint, but still enough if you are *also* incentivized by altruism, hobbyism, or securing the network your money is at.
At the end of the day, current staking APY makes validating at home pretty darn irrational already. There are much safer places I can park my ETH and make 2.5%, considering kids with LLMs seem to be able to break things so easily lately.

Looks like hard ETH rejection at $1900. Betting we'll go to $1750 first as there is 0 chance we're going higher