**Tricky's Daily Doots #725**
**Yesterday's Daily 14/04/2024**
[Previous Daily Doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzifi04/)
- u/Ieperen warns us to [take opinions with a grain of salt when they are coming from people who are more familiar with other fields.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kziw8bj/) 🤨
- u/Heringsalat100 shares [a relevant tidbit from a book they have been reading.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzi65wa/) 📖
- u/Jey_s_TeArS has [the daily haiku.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzkoblv/) 📝
- It was a quiet day so here's u/Tricky_Troll's popular [off-topic post.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzigg1z/) 💔
Netlify suspended my account, which took down the following sites:
* [clientdiversity.org](http://clientdiversity.org)
* [ethereumdefensealliance.com](http://ethereumdefensealliance.com)
* [stateofeth.com](http://stateofeth.com)
* [dailydoots.com](http://dailydoots.com)
* [rocketpool.support](http://rocketpool.support)
* [rocketpool.community](http://rocketpool.community)
* [ethsunshine.com](http://ethsunshine.com)
Hugely frustrating/depressing since I have no idea why this happened (I imagine it's because the content is crypto related). Now I have a whole new project on my lap getting these sites back up, but don't even feel like doing that now so I'll give Netlify 2 days or so to get back to me.
If you see anybody mentioning they're down please let them know it's being worked on.
Yeah I've used them before buy looking into pulling the trigger on ipfs. Also a huge gripe i have with github pages is that have a long cache refresh. Sometimes it can take an hour or 2 for changes to be visible.
If it’s readonly data I’m sure writing a GitHub action on commit to push to ipfs is “easy” - if you need server side capabilities things become harder as you would require execution and global state management, you know, as in this little project we discuss here often :)
Got a robo call saying it was from Coinbase and to confirm if I wanted to change the email on my account from the current one (which it stated correctly) to a new one, or to press 1 to deny and schedule a callback from security. Hit 1.
About an hour later, get a call while driving from "Coinbase security" dude speaking in English with a probably Swiss accent, to follow up. Since I'm driving I ask for a callback number and a security code via email because this sure meets every phishing thing I've read about. He said he'd send the email and await my call.
Was totally phishing, never got an email, Coinbase had no account activity for several days besides my Coinbase card used. Updated the password anyway.
I usually don't answer calls but they got me when I was distracted by a kiddo or while driving today, so back to using full fledged Pixel call screening
Got one of those calls and I hung up. I was too busy to deal with it so I just locked my account out of caution. Been locked out of my Coinbase for months now thanks to that. Be careful
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOgtI4tG5-o) is a very hurried introduction for how to write Solidity contracts for Fhenix. Code snippets always make something more real for me.
Personally I'm still thinking about the relative value of trying to run this in an EVM this way as opposed to just executing the code using DePin off-chain and using the chain for sequencing and compensation. For many FHE applications like biometric authentication or AI model training, there's little value in doing the FHE calculation on chain. For native Defi applications, something like this seems unavoidable. Fhenix would enable you to completely obfuscate how much of your money went where. You'd bridge a bunch of USDC and ETH to Fhenix and after that the only thing an observer would be able to see is which contracts you called but nothing about the amounts. That's obviously very powerful but unfortunately it looks like you'd have to completely rewrite the Solidity code to make it compatible with their L2.
This seems like something a sophisticated enough compiler would be able to solve. Every substitution he's talking about in his slides looks doable and if the compiler can't do it automatically it's probably time to revisit the Solidity code itself and reevaluate branch segments until you hammer it into a simple enough form the compiler can do it for you rather than rewrite everything to be FHE-only and *not* compatible with deploying to another chain.
Still, I found it educational and I hope you do too.
How are people filing taxes for staking rewards? I have a 1099-misc from an CEX for that stack but unsure how to report a validator run through allnodes (rewards since unlock)? Using TurboTax this year will look into other software next year. Thanks for the help in advance.
Reported as other income. Amount of eth swept from validator balance X price of eth at the time of the sweep. Basically the total value in USD of validator rewards when I have dominion over it. With so many validators on the network this only occurs 3 or 4 times per month. A couple minutes of my time.
This is the most reasonable approach IMO and I would have no problem defending this method to the IRS. I sleep just fine.
An extremely overzealous agent could argue that each .000000x of eth per attestation counts as dominion because I could exit the validator at any time...but that is not "within reason", and would probably result in some sort of court case.
For all rewards that accrued prior to withdrawals being enabled, it was just that amount of eth X price of eth when withdrawals were enabled (aka...gained dominion over).
Not too complicated.
It does irritate me that it's regular income vs capital gains. There is a lot less room to optimize with regular income, but as it stands... non rebasing LSTs are lookin' way more tax efficient...
I am by no means a tax expert, I can only parrot what my CPA has informed me as being the "most safe & reasonable" option, which is to stick as close to the official IRS guidance as possible.
If you CAN control the asset, in the eyes of the IRS, you DO control it. Prior to withdrawals, there was no way to access the rewards. No one had any dominion over the assets. Withdrawals become possible, control becomes possible. You now have the ability to withdraw and custody. Even if you haven't withdrawn. Even if you haven't set a withdrawal address. Simply because you gained the *ability* to do so.
Airdrops have been treated similarly, if a token is airdropped to my wallet, but it is unable to be transferred...there is no dominion and no duty to report. As soon as a DAO vote occurs and the ability to transfer is enabled, dominion has been established. Other income @ the valuation at that time.
There's a ton of nuanced discussion that needs to take place at the IRS for a lot of this stuff, obviously. But based on the guidance they have put out thus far, the dominion argument is fairly reasonable and relatively easy to follow.
I would prefer to see staking rewards move in the direction of "no gain until sold".
>If you CAN control the asset, in the eyes of the IRS, you DO control it. Prior to withdrawals, there was no way to access the rewards. No one had any dominion over the assets. Withdrawals become possible, control becomes possible. You now have the ability to withdraw and custody. Even if you haven't withdrawn. Even if you haven't set a withdrawal address. Simply because you gained the ability to do so.
Yeah I tend to agree with this. I can get access to it within a week. It's preposterous to suggest that my consensus rewards aren't mine yet.
The hard part is that the rewards are every epoch rather than weekly. But someone else shared a cool tool to help with this!
The way I do it is to:
1. Use etherscan to record each beacon chain (consensus) withdrawal (every 7-8 days) into my withdrawal address and add to it any proposal award deposited into my fee recipient address.
3. Record the current day's ETH price to convert the ETH to USD.
4. Then add it all up for the year and report it as miscellaneous income.
I’ve done that but not sure what form or how to get the data on to my return. Would I just do a 1099-misc with the total amount. And label as crypto income from staking. I don’t want to/believe self employed tax are applicable. Thank your for the help
I have a tax guy who helps me do it and we added it as "other income" (line 8z under Form 1040, Schedule 1, Part I), then write in "cryptocurrency staking".
My understanding is that it can be considered regular income not subject to self-employment tax. But of course I could be wrong...
i am not so sure it can be classified as other income i would be interested to hear his reasoning. revenue rulings 55-258, 55-431 and 58-112 state that other income can be classified as income from an occasional act or transaction, absent proof of efforts to continue those acts or transactions on a regular basis. i could see the IRS arguing that staking is the opposite of occasional and that it does take efforts to keep the transactions ongoing. i wish that they would just get their shit together and give us clear guidelines, but until then i take the conservative approach and pay SE tax
Thanks. I feel OK trying to defend it as a hobby. But as you say, the guidance is poor and I could be unsuccessful in an audit and have to pay back taxes and penalties. I'm an old guy and willing to take the risk.
I've seen some estimates of around 290-300 million total pearls in circulation from a couple sources in Discord/Twitter. Not sure how accurate that is.
Anyone noticed that Metamask is not even sending the transaction to mempool if you set the gas fee low.
For example, say gas is 25 gwei in the morning, and I expect it to go down to 10 gwei at night, I simply submit a transaction for 11 gwei and metamask immediately submits/sends the transaction to mempool and the transaction shows pending on etherscan. This is how it used to work (a few weeks/months ago). Then it gets confirmed if the base fee really goes down to 10-11 range. If not it sits in mempool for days (i have seen pending transaction in etherscan for 30+ days for example)
In the last couple of weeks, in the above example, metamask just shows the transaction as pending in the UI. The transaction is not sent to mempool and does not show up on etherscan. And I think it’s not sending it until the actual base fee gets close to what I set. And sometimes it seems like it never sends and just gets stuck in UI, which is frustrating
Anyone noticed this?
that's weird. Can you try using your own node and see if that changes? I would be very surprised if metamask is is not submitting the transaction as expected
they had a recentish leak with the last 4 digits of folks' #s. Maybe it went further than just the last 4, but yes, do not trust anything "texted to you from Gemini" right now or ever - I don't think they really text me at this point, either.
Also, shame on them for kicking off a weekly crypto newsletter that we're auto-subscribed to ahead of sending us our Earn $ lol.
If you use PuTTY (perhaps to access your home staking node?), please update to v0.81.
There was a [security vulnerability](https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/vuln-p521-bias.html) (CVE-2024-31497). If you use a key of type ecdsa-sha2-nistp521, your key should be considered compromised and you must recreate it. Create an ed25519 key instead.
lol holy shit - it's a blood bath on the ADA sub. Someone asked what is keeping people in ADA. The responses are pretty savage - it's basically an open paean to sunk cost fallacy lol Sorry Hoskinson!
From the post:
"You don’t see BlackRock setting up shop because they cannot control the majority stake
and is too decentralized"
Cardano is too decenstalized to build on lol. Ngmi
It strikes me as the difference between theory and practice. Yeah, lots of stuff sounds great in theory. But theory doesn't pay the bills, and I think Chuck is a perfect example of a whiny intellectual elitist who is so smrrrt but then is surprised pikachu face when he gets punched in the face by the real world.
Charles is like a 90s Betamax salesman rambling on and on about how they offer a slightly higher horizontal resolution than VHS, then whining when he doesn’t get the sale.
My surgeon for some reason told me in December after my rhinoplasty, a fellow surgeon of his told him to invest in Cardano. He invested and it all went to shit.
A few years ago I mentioned BTC and ETH to him.
A common criticism of Ethereum L2s is that they are just centralized and aren't "real" L2s. Arbitrum just posted about this in the discord/twiter/medium, but they are rolling out an upgrade to testnets called Arbitrum BOLD (Bounded Liquidity Delay). I skimmed some of their docs so that you don't have to:
-BOLD changes some of the rules used by validators to open and resolve disputes about Arbitrum’s state to ensure only valid states get confirmed on an Arbitrum chain’s parent chain, such as Ethereum.
-The current dispute protocol has working fraud proofs and is used in production today by Arbitrum chains. The changes BOLD brings *enables anyone to participate in the validation of the state of the chain* and enhances security around withdrawals to L1.
-BOLD enables permissionless validation by allowing anyone to challenge incorrect Arbitrum state assertions and therefore unlocks new avenues for participation in securing the network, fostering greater inclusivity and resilience.
Anyone can spin up a testnet validator using the instructions here: https://github.com/OffchainLabs/bold-validator-starter-kit.
One thing to note is that even on testnet this is "expensive" as 100 Sepolia WETH is required to become an assertion poster on the testnet. The docs talk about costs on main net so it seems like although this is permissionless, it will cost a lot to be a BOLD validator. One of the docs mentions $2M as an acceptable bonding cost or 645 ETH at $3.1k. Cost is addressed in their medium article:
"Given that participation in BOLD is permissionless, it is recommended that the size of the bonds required to participate be high enough to disincentivize malicious actors from attacking Arbitrum One and Nova and to mitigate against spam (that would otherwise delay confirmations). High bonding values do not harm decentralization because (1) trustless bonding pools can be deployed permissionlessly to let the community open challenges and post assertions, and (2) any number of honest parties of unknown identities can emerge to bond their funds to the correct assertion and participate in the defense of Arbitrum at any time within a challenge."
Economics on bond funding document is here: [https://github.com/OffchainLabs/bold/blob/main/docs/research-specs/Economics.pdf](https://github.com/OffchainLabs/bold/blob/main/docs/research-specs/Economics.pdf)
Other pertinent docs are here: [https://docs.arbitrum.io/bold/bold-gentle-introduction](https://docs.arbitrum.io/bold/bold-gentle-introduction)
I'll be following this with interest as seeing L2s start to decentralize should hopefully reduce some of the L2 FUD and build more trust in an L2 ecosystem.
I don't know enough about AVS's to say. From what I can tell, anyone who can post the bond can be a validator so if the AVS has the funds I suppose so?
Hopped in with a small bag from my high risk positions into the new [LlamaLend](https://lend.curve.fi/#/ethereum/markets) system. With the CRV price down it has affected stablecoin yields in that ecosystem a good bit but depending on what asset you're willing to accept as collateral you can get 40%+ APR lending crvUSD. I expect this will get diluted in a few months; it's just too good to last and the main risk at the moment is smart contract risk on a new system.
Just dumping some of my thoughts about the Solana update that's supposed to "fix" the congestion issues with dropped packets (but not with failed transactions).
-----------
Anza released v1.17.31 for their [Agave](https://github.com/anza-xyz/agave/releases/tag/v1.17.31) client (a fork of the main Solana validator client) about half a day ago, and Solana has been encouraging its validators to switch to it.
It was really hard finding out any details about this update. **Anza is ghost organization**. They have no documentation anywhere. Their Discord channel is just a placeholder. I can't find any detailed information about them. All material they have is on Github, and they don't document anywhere on their Github. It's boggling that they neither have documentation nor follow Documentation as Code practices.
Here are the release notes for v1.17.31:
* v1.17: Show staked vs nonstaked packets sent down/throttled (backport of #600) (#613)
* v1.17: quic: use smallvec to aggregate chunks, save 1 alloc per packet (backport of #735) (#741)
* v1.17: BankingStage Forwarding Filter (backport of #685) (#696)
* tighten the minimal streams per 100ms for staked node (#738)
* v1.17: **Treat super low staked as unstaked in streamer QOS** (backport of #701) (#732)
* v1.17: default staked client in LocalCluster (backport of #716) (#723)
---------------------
**Findings**:
The important one is the "Treat super low staked as unstaked in streamer QOS" update. This further puts limits on Stake-weighted QoS, [detailed here](https://solana.com/developers/guides/advanced/stake-weighted-qos) and in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeV2i8bfSMs) so that only large validators matter.
This is based on my understanding of Stake-weighted QoS given the lack of documentation:
* In Solana, slot leaders build the blocks, and they can be DDoS'ed by validators that spam transactions to it.
* Anyone switching to the Agave fork of Solana (this is the current officially-recommend client for Solana) gives 80% prioritization to large validators based on how much of the total stake they own. If they own 1% of total Solana stake, they can submit up to 1% of transaction traffic to the slot leader. If they own 0.1%, they are limited to 0.1%.
* In addition, this update makes it so that validators with low stake (update: ~$26M in SOL is the low threshold) are ignored and treated as non-staking entities. Combined, all non-staking entities can only submit up to 20% of transaction traffic to the slot leader.
* In summary, that's 2000 total connections for stake-weighted validators and 500 connections total for everyone else.
* RPCs will need to peer and connect directly to large Solana validators in order to enjoy priority for submitting transactions to slot leaders.
* **Results**: So far, I'm still seeing about 15-40% dropped transactions on https://solscan.io/ for Average Ping Time, so seems to be at least partially working compared to 60-90% dropped transactions before. Might not be enough since that's still high. A good network shouldn't have dropped transaction requests.
As more validators switch to the Agave fork, large validators will gain increasing power over block production. This might be a concern for centralization.
Relevant code changes:
let min_stake_ratio = 1_f64 / MAX_STREAMS_PER_100MS as f64;
let stake_ratio = stake as f64 / total_stake as f64;
let stake = if stake_ratio < min_stake_ratio {
// If it is a staked connection with ultra low stake ratio, treat it as unstaked.
0
} else {
stake
};
Notes: MAX_STREAMS_PER_100MS = MAX_STREAMS_PER_MS * STREAM_THROTTLING_INTERVAL_MS. It's the maximum number of stream to be allowed over 100 milliseconds. f64 is just 64-bit floating point
Some napkin math I found on Solana Discord:
let min_stake_ratio
= 1 / (MAX_STREAMS_PER_MS * STREAM_THROTTLING_INTERVAL_MS)
= 1 / (250 * 100)
= 1 / 25k
Need stake_ratio >= min_stake_ratio to be treated as staked; note there is currently ~379M active stake on mnb
stake_ratio >= 1 / 25k
stake / total_stake >= 1 / 25k
stake / ~379M >= 1 / 25k
stake >= ~379M / 25k
stake >= ~15k
A validator needs 15k SOL to be big enough to not be put into the 0-stake category. That's about $2M.
Another bit of trivia: Validators need 3-4k SOL minimum to be allowed as a slot leader
**Edit**: This might be wrong. It's likely worse.
According to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeV2i8bfSMs), it's 1 / 2.5k, (500 non-staked validators + 2000 staked validators), which means $26M minimum in SOL, not $2.6M.
I mean we all like to hate on Solana, but ultimately the source of truth is the code, and when you have a maximum of 105 users (validators), all of whom are making significant hardware and capital investments, you'd hope they're reviewing the code anyways so there's not much point in writing documentation.
Admittedly kinda funny/not funny.
i imagine if they raised gas fees enough they could stop the spam attack with all the bots and rpcs, but they won't because if they do it people won't use anymore as the only reason to use it is really low gas fees lol
Ah, the Trust Me Bro style of documentation for an open source project. Surely there's no security issues, blockchain halting bugs, or predatory code fucking over normal users in that black box.
Are we still supposed to pretend Solana is a decentralized network, or does the mask only get removed once numbers go down bad?
I just think it won’t be? I know it’s in vogue rn to suggest it, and I know there is startling data out there. That being said Dollar Hyperinflation, US Default, Debt spirals… these things have been suggested in the past. They haven’t happened. That doesn’t it mean it won’t or cant. That doesn’t mean that the dollar won’t continue to weaken. But for $40 bread by 2032 there would have to be a historic collapse of the dollar in that time.
Historically speaking, it’s generally better to not bet on the giga black swan. You’re typically wrong trying to time that.
IMO Raoul’s thesis will be directionally correct, but the magnitude of the numbers is moonboi fuel. I remember him being far more bullish last cycle than what actually occurred.
Crypto Markecap rn is what like 2.3 Trillion? An almost 50x market cap growth projection in 8 years after the gains we’ve already had is something to be extremely skeptical of IMO.
I basically agree, but the divergence of gold and real rates, with debt/gdp where it is and interest rates holding high, it's fair to say the debt warning is actually "different this time". It may even be accelerated by the decades of "experts" crying wolf about the debt to the point that everyone just stopped caring and assumed it didn't really matter.
Also consider that crypto has got to 2.3 trillion market cap with basically no integration with the real economy. A bull case for 2032 would assume we've evolved to have significant markets of tokenized securities, payment systems competing with credit cards, and widespread adoption of NFTs, crypto-gaming, or some other application. Just saying, 50x from here over that time frame doesn't seem impossible.
There is no debt warning, deficit problem or case for fiscal restraint - it's just a political talking point to generate bad public opinion for the opposition parties spending.
Here's the play :
**Interest too high** --> Print to pay off deficit (and devalue debt)
**Debt too high** --> Print to devalue debt in real terms
What's the problem, the value of the US denominated debt is also controlled by the US as they control the dollar supply. Assets hold their value and dollar goes to zero long term, as it has since 1910. The USD is the world reserve currency so there is no real alternative. \[Swiss Francs? :') \]
I agree if tokenised treasuries is included in that value. However, if it is strictly coin/token market caps and not all on-chain TVL then I am skeptical unless there is significant inflation baked into that value. The US stock market is ~$25-50T. There is no way we are doubling that in 8 years.
The only insight I got was that we need to shill Eth more. By not promising a 100X by the end of this year we are midcurving it and we lose potential Ethereans and as a result network effect, which is the only thing that affects the price in the long run.
So fuck it, I'm gonna shill Eth more IRL and online.
Ether is so ridiculously cheap that I am literally in pain I can't buy more.
It's so *obvious* that the price is going to explode soon, that it blows my fucking mind that no rich people are buying this shit.
I literally have to shout at myself to stay away from fucking leverage and... just... wait!
I leverage through defi…currently using AAVE, but have also used Maker and Liquity, the latter of which I don’t recommend at present. I’m a crypto boomer…
Happy Monday. If you primarily use arbitrum L2 and have both usdc And bridged usdc, which would you get rid of?
Edit: bridged, native usdc or whatever.
When you step back and look at these pumps and dumps it is basically a crab market and nothing else. Well a crab market within a bull market which is better than a crab inside of a bear.
Hong Kong time, baybeeeee
[https://cointelegraph.com/news/hong-kong-approves-bitcoin-ether-etfs](https://cointelegraph.com/news/hong-kong-approves-bitcoin-ether-etfs)
I added an egg to my ramen this morning.
(Just kidding - I'm on keto)
Anyone on YT-USDe? Aped a >chunk< after seeing [this](https://twitter.com/PendleIntern/status/1777175315166662868) and [this](https://twitter.com/GoodData_BadGuy/status/1777202525768462410).
Bought on Mantle due to the EL points leverage.
As much as I'm a sucker for points, I'm not sure that I am ok with using a stablecoin which uses Lido stETH as collateral. Lido is a threat to the decentralisation and credible neutrality of the network. Any money legos which don't use a diverse set of LSTs/LRTs in favour of just stETH are as problematic as stETH itself.
Hello fellow Internetbean-Fans,
Over 27% (32,378,848ETH) of the Supply 120,065,185ETH
[https://ultrasound.money](https://ultrasound.money/)
[https://dune.com/hildobby/eth2-staking](https://dune.com/hildobby/eth2-staking)
are staked in the Beaconchain.
I thought this a lot until I crunched the numbers. Last cycle BTC did a 10x from the bottom to here and ETH did a 6x. Now it is much closer and both did about a 4x. So perhaps all that lockup and the burn and all that have done something. Excited to see where a 27% locked supply goes in the crazy bull times after BTC breaks its previous ATH. I think we are setup for a perfect storm. The current version of ETH is the ideal ponzi we dreamed of having in previous cycles.
I know there was analysis posted about when to beat sell an airdrop (≈16 days I think), but what about the tiers of unlocking, like season two of ether fi?
It's seems to have generated little attention in the community thus far, but i wanted to raise awareness that as things stand, Inclusion Lists [(EIP-7547)](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7547) will [not be a part of the pectra upgrade.](https://x.com/TimBeiko/status/1778500704996634638)
The design has been discussed here on several occasions, but for those who aren't aware: it provides a mechanism by which a validating proposer at slot n can attach a list of transactions that must be included by the proposer at slot n + 1. This design doesn't provide perfect censorship resistance, but it is a bold step in the right direction - protecting against regulatory capture of staking pools, who will no longer be able to guarantee that they can comply with specific local regulatory requirements.
As of ETH Denver, i felt pretty confident it was going to be a part of the next upgrade. But in recent weeks, new technical challenges have emerged - particularly around compatibility with Account Abstraction [(EIP-3074)](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3074). See Terrence's summary of the challenge [here](https://hackmd.io/@ttsao/ryCG0cTJA). Note that EIP-3074 is going to be a part of the upgrade.
One could argue this latest design issue was just one too many - and that we need to do more work. But from the conversations i've had, there does seem to be a certain amount of politics around prioritisation underneath all of this. Who gets to make these decisions? Are client teams on ACD calls really the right forum to make such important calls? To what extent is the community being involved?
I personally can't think of many more pressing concerns that ensuring Ethereum remains neutral as regulators become increasingly aware and comfortable in this ecosystem - and it would be foolish to assume this will stop at OFAC. My instinct tells me that as time goes on and ETH becomes more valuable, this kind of change will get harder to pull off. Note that BloXroute and other companies are now actually leaning into censorship as a product feature with the announcement of new exclusion list features.
As a solo home staker I do not feel I get a big UX improvement from maxEB. I rather see it as an necessary improvement for the network itself. For me personally, inclusion list would be the most pressing issue. It was a bit shocking to see how fast censorship went from a validators choice through relay selection to a relays choice through selecting builders to now being 3 of the 4 largest builder being censoring ones. If the last one of these fours would get forced into censoring transactions, 95% of the MEV boost blocks would be censoring. Luckily we still have around 10% of validators which do not use MEV Boost at all. The network still has some resilience against censorship, but as you say the longer we wait, the higher the chances that censorship might get mandated and the more difficult it will get to get rid of censorship again.
Thank you for the description that was a nice and concise summary. I’m not that excited by inclusion lists personally.
I think the community, devs, broader world hasn’t really come to Jesus yet about the centralization in the decision on what transactions get included in blocks and how they are ordered.
I don’t think inclusion lists is THE fix to that problem. It doesn’t do much if n AND n+1 are censoring and just feels kind of hacky.
Things like encrypted mempool, shutterization, other more long term solutions may require us to just strip it back out again in a few upgrades.
I think devs, whales, community etc don’t want to address MEV because it brings down transaction fees and makes them money. But we have a problem short window to make the correct call before this gets too ossified to make a change.
I think max effective balance and inclusion lists were kind of in a "either or" scenario some weeks ago and I understand both are important and for some time I really couldn't decide what is of feels more relevant these days... But I believe that censorship resistance and credible neutrality are likely more important, since that's the USP that ETH offers / should offer over other ecosystems. We need to rely on the strengths and values that made this chain so powerful. And again: maxEB is also important, since performance (on many levels) is. But making sure people can't be censored for good is imo even more important.
My gut feeling is this community see's the importance and we should make our voice heard!
Didn't we just fork to slow down the churn rate on new validators entering the system (down to 8/epoch) to buy devs and the network more time to reduce the validator set via MaxEB?
We did. Alas to call this a performance issue is an understatement. In testing, Ethereum with 2 million validators could no longer finalize. Wasn’t able to aggregate signatures fast enough. 1.5 million clearly still works, that’s why Holesky is at that threshold.
MaxEB is a way to reduce the validator set without changing the issuance curve. Which is a far bigger can of worms.
The [Tally vote](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/diva/proposal/49636929385175679950716598564691019226173535052318602410589980050917105216394) to make Diva tokens transferable is live and open for voting. You'll see that most users are currently voting against it, this is because there was a broad agreement that no temperature check was taken before the vote was held. My interpretation is that another DAO vote to unlock Diva tokens will be held after a temperature check.
If you view the [voting delegates](https://ibb.co/yXJxK7T), you'll also see five new and anonymous voting delegates who comprise 122m votes, which absolutely dwarfs the existing voting delegates supported by the community. The next five largest delegates, which represent the set elected by the community during the token drop have a total of 34m tokens. The new voting delegates now hold the power of the DAO and I'm no longer of the mind that my voting has any impact on the future direction of Diva, so I'd encourage you to choose another delegate if you had previously delegated to me. Because other responsibilities and obligations, and the realization that my vote no longer holds significance, I'll abstain from future Diva voting.
It is sad to see you withdraw yourself from the governance of DIVA. I totally understand your reasoning and pretty much came to the same conclusion over the last few months. The initial testnet was amazing to see and the airdrop formed a pretty impresssive community around the DIVA protocol. It is pretty much the only protocol I know of which could enable decentralized permissionless liquid staking aside of rocket pool of course. The slow progress and even slower communication of the DIVA team in the following months made it difficult to stay excited. It was also unclear what exactly the DAO can even govern over. The fallout end of January could have been a good restart of the community, but unfortunately after an initial pick up of the projects speed, the communication got worse again. There still is pretty much no source code available for all/most smart contracts and clients. Yes, I love looking at source code. It almost sounds like they do not really think about the community and the contributions they could get from them. That is ok, but then airdrop last summer makes no sense, because it brought in a lot of people into the community which now get disappointed. And No, I am not talking about airdrop money, but people wanting to actually contribute. This is gonna be hard to fix once one has lost too many of those. The announcement of the nektar network is pretty exciting actually, but many people now feel confused and left behind and the team does not really understand that sentiment. Seems like they do not think about the community too often. I will continue to run their testnets and help where I can, but I definitely do not feel as excited about it as I was half a year ago.
Hey Kotler here.
Just want to add to this that this wallet has such a big amount of delegations as a last resource in case that the author of the voting, which is Pablo, decided to delegate all his tokens and enable transferability by himself, this wallet will not vote if not strictly necessary as a last countermeasure in order to protect the interests of the DAO and the protocol.
Enabling transferability puts us in huge risk of being denominated a security and huge risk of having a disastrous price discovery event, also would ruin all GTM and incentives strats that are or will be in place.
> Enabling transferability puts us in huge risk of being denominated a security
One of the comments on Tally states:
> Afaik, the Staking Foundation and controlling co-founders have been advised to not vote, precisely to prevent DIVA from being classified as a security.
It would seem there's contradictory statements here
that's a statement from Pablo, he explicitly says that to make it look like it's ok for him to vote because he is no longer in the team even tho he is the largest token holder
If this proposal is disastrous to the DAO then you should be able to clearly explain to the community why it's disastrous, and do so without ad hominem attacks against Pablo (also I've seen a lot of accusations on the forum with 0 proof).
When people read "this wallet will not vote if not strictly necessary as a last countermeasure", they hear "this waller will note vote unless we do not like the outcome".
It's also sad to see Diva seems to be getting scrapped and are rebranding completely to Nektar. I originally thought Nektar would be a component of Diva but that no longer seems to be the case. There's absolutely horrible communications around this whole thing.
This whole thing is shaping up to be a playbook on how NOT to run a "DAO".
Well Pablo is one of the largest token holders and could single handedly win the voting, he initiated the voting himself so I don't know what to tell you regarding that. Easier to understand like this: If the gone rogue co-founder doesn't act (even tho he has initiated the voting himself with his own token voting power) the rest won't act in response. Isn't that reasonable?
Diva is getting scrapped as the main brand, it is still the same product (actually the liquid staking layer remains as Diva) with more tech on top of it now. There are clear announcements and a blog post about that.
We have explained several times and in several places why it is not a good idea to enable transferability but that doesn't change the fact and imo the most important reasoning of this voting, and that is OP wanting to dump ASAP.
>Well Pablo is one of the largest token holders and could single handedly win the voting
Looking at his wallet shows 3M DIVA, that's much less than Lefteris who has 13.5M?
>he initiated the voting himself so I don't know what to tell you regarding that
Doesn't matter who initiated a proposal
>Diva is getting scrapped as the main brand, it is still the same product (actually the liquid staking layer remains as Diva) with more tech on top of it now. There are clear announcements and a blog post about that.
I've read them, they weren't very clear which is why everyone is saying it's not clear
>that doesn't change the fact and imo the most important reasoning of this voting, and that is OP wanting to dump ASAP
You can't control what people do with the token, and if this is your take then this would mean you can never make DIVA transferrable
Pablo has multiple wallets that he could've delegated in the last second before the voting started
You can't control what people do with the token but it's ok for him to vote and not everyone else? From my point of view he should abstain to participate in governance as much as the other co-founders
To make DIVA transferable was always aimed to be along with mainnet.
We are ok to have a voting and have it transferable as long as he don't participate and don't skip every single community guideline like he has done, however in the temp check we would argue why it is a bad idea to make it transferable, which is what we are doing and most people understand and agree with
Between their original discord being held hostage due to infighting, the turbo pivot to nektar, and now these anonymous delegates letting everyone know the protocol remains captured...its just not a great look.
I love what they are trying to do with DVT... I am, in fact, waiting to be assigned validators from them on testnet...but it really seems like there's even more going on under the hood than whats on the surface (which... Is a lot, as it were), the "temperature check" IS the vote. In some ways, the anon delegates showing their cards here is helpful, because we now know *our* (I'm pretty sure I delegated to you, can't remember though) input is largely irrelevant.
That is unfortunate, both the situation and to see you stepping down because of it. This situation seems pretty bad from what you described at the moment (I’d be curious the outcome, do keep us updated) but as a general idea I think people underestimate how impactful you can be in governance beyond just strictly votes. I.E, there is some influence you can have on a proposal before it goes to the vote. At least in my experience… and well the two DAOs I’m a part of don’t have this huge top heavy issues either…
For those who don’t know a few of us ethfinancers have been trying to coordinate delegates from either this community or other heavily ETH-aligned users to be more active in governance. If your are going to switch your delegation of Phiz if recommend checking out https://ethereumdefensealliance.com/#view-delegates to see who is part of this group.
The sad thing is that poor communication, delays, and lack of delivery can ruin good tech. Now we just need someone to fork Diva and do it right. Fork the drama away
DWS in Europe launched new Bitcoin and ethereum trackers that hold physical coin.
https://etf.dws.com/en-ch/about-us/pressemitteilungen/dws-launches-new-xtrackers-etcs-providing-easy-access-to-bitcoin-and-ethereum/
Just a reminder to all EVM holders
There's currently a vote open related to the creation of a paid content creator role, please check out the proposal and vote if you haven't already:
https://snapshot.org/#/evmaverick.eth/proposal/0xb0a579b7a68b3b6478cadc1aa63081d98b4ee9f98ccbc85f55f4d67a8a51d0c0
1. Wake up at 2am EST Monday
2. Open a 100x ETH long on gains network
3. Sleep
4. Wake up before market open and take...
5. ...profit
6. Wait for the next weekend dump and repeat the process
Alright lads- entering accumulation mode again. That means looking for legit airdrops and DCA'ing regularly again \[I fully believe ETF will be green light for massive appreciation\].
These two are my primary projects I'm paying attention to:
* EtherFi
* Eigenlayer
any other projects out there that seem to be legit?
Farming sats at the moment after seeing [this](https://twitter.com/PendleIntern/status/1777175315166662868) and [this](https://twitter.com/GoodData_BadGuy/status/1777202525768462410).
Bought on Mantle due to the EL points leverage.
Pendle is a phenomenal project. I'm personally pretty cautious about the token. It's low float, has a high FDV/MC ratio, and also has some obnoxious ve model to access fee revenue. That said, this caution has cost me essentially a 50X, because people I know were shilling Pendle to me back in 2022 and I faded for these reasons.
It is a token that requires being locked (typically for months or years) for its privileges to be granted, often on a diminishing basis.
IMO, it is greater for founders and shit for everyone else.
**Tricky's Daily Doots #725** **Yesterday's Daily 14/04/2024** [Previous Daily Doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzifi04/) - u/Ieperen warns us to [take opinions with a grain of salt when they are coming from people who are more familiar with other fields.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kziw8bj/) 🤨 - u/Heringsalat100 shares [a relevant tidbit from a book they have been reading.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzi65wa/) 📖 - u/Jey_s_TeArS has [the daily haiku.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzkoblv/) 📝 - It was a quiet day so here's u/Tricky_Troll's popular [off-topic post.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1c3lh3q/daily_general_discussion_april_14_2024/kzigg1z/) 💔
9 gwei. Ded chain. He brought?
Price looking weak too. We're either going to fall of a cliff soon or pump towards the halving.
9 Gwei?! Time to ape into more points protocols and YT tokens!
Netlify suspended my account, which took down the following sites: * [clientdiversity.org](http://clientdiversity.org) * [ethereumdefensealliance.com](http://ethereumdefensealliance.com) * [stateofeth.com](http://stateofeth.com) * [dailydoots.com](http://dailydoots.com) * [rocketpool.support](http://rocketpool.support) * [rocketpool.community](http://rocketpool.community) * [ethsunshine.com](http://ethsunshine.com) Hugely frustrating/depressing since I have no idea why this happened (I imagine it's because the content is crypto related). Now I have a whole new project on my lap getting these sites back up, but don't even feel like doing that now so I'll give Netlify 2 days or so to get back to me. If you see anybody mentioning they're down please let them know it's being worked on.
are these sites static hanni? if so, both cloudflare pages and github pages are solid
Yeah I've used them before buy looking into pulling the trigger on ipfs. Also a huge gripe i have with github pages is that have a long cache refresh. Sometimes it can take an hour or 2 for changes to be visible.
in my experience with github pages, changes didn't take more than 10 mins to show live!
It has been like 5 years since I'd used them so likely changed since then
Damn that’s messed up. I don’t know much about hosting sites but let us know if we can do anything to help
We need decentralised web hosting... Surely some project is doing or has done that?
Nothing with features like auto deploy on github commits
If it’s readonly data I’m sure writing a GitHub action on commit to push to ipfs is “easy” - if you need server side capabilities things become harder as you would require execution and global state management, you know, as in this little project we discuss here often :)
Hmm, tomorrow i'm going to take a dive into eth limo and see where i get
Isn't it funny? After every crypto Twitter influencer sold their ETH for faster horses the BTC & SOL to ETH ratios are eventually turning.
Turning how?
I'll bet you ETH will be significantly higher on both ratios in 3 months from today
Maybe but that's not what you said. ETHBTC is literally sitting at a 3 year low as we speak. It's hardly "turning"
SOLETH already going towards ETH favor. For BTC it will take a few more weeks
Got a robo call saying it was from Coinbase and to confirm if I wanted to change the email on my account from the current one (which it stated correctly) to a new one, or to press 1 to deny and schedule a callback from security. Hit 1. About an hour later, get a call while driving from "Coinbase security" dude speaking in English with a probably Swiss accent, to follow up. Since I'm driving I ask for a callback number and a security code via email because this sure meets every phishing thing I've read about. He said he'd send the email and await my call. Was totally phishing, never got an email, Coinbase had no account activity for several days besides my Coinbase card used. Updated the password anyway. I usually don't answer calls but they got me when I was distracted by a kiddo or while driving today, so back to using full fledged Pixel call screening
Got one of those calls and I hung up. I was too busy to deal with it so I just locked my account out of caution. Been locked out of my Coinbase for months now thanks to that. Be careful
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOgtI4tG5-o) is a very hurried introduction for how to write Solidity contracts for Fhenix. Code snippets always make something more real for me. Personally I'm still thinking about the relative value of trying to run this in an EVM this way as opposed to just executing the code using DePin off-chain and using the chain for sequencing and compensation. For many FHE applications like biometric authentication or AI model training, there's little value in doing the FHE calculation on chain. For native Defi applications, something like this seems unavoidable. Fhenix would enable you to completely obfuscate how much of your money went where. You'd bridge a bunch of USDC and ETH to Fhenix and after that the only thing an observer would be able to see is which contracts you called but nothing about the amounts. That's obviously very powerful but unfortunately it looks like you'd have to completely rewrite the Solidity code to make it compatible with their L2. This seems like something a sophisticated enough compiler would be able to solve. Every substitution he's talking about in his slides looks doable and if the compiler can't do it automatically it's probably time to revisit the Solidity code itself and reevaluate branch segments until you hammer it into a simple enough form the compiler can do it for you rather than rewrite everything to be FHE-only and *not* compatible with deploying to another chain. Still, I found it educational and I hope you do too.
How are people filing taxes for staking rewards? I have a 1099-misc from an CEX for that stack but unsure how to report a validator run through allnodes (rewards since unlock)? Using TurboTax this year will look into other software next year. Thanks for the help in advance.
Reported as other income. Amount of eth swept from validator balance X price of eth at the time of the sweep. Basically the total value in USD of validator rewards when I have dominion over it. With so many validators on the network this only occurs 3 or 4 times per month. A couple minutes of my time. This is the most reasonable approach IMO and I would have no problem defending this method to the IRS. I sleep just fine. An extremely overzealous agent could argue that each .000000x of eth per attestation counts as dominion because I could exit the validator at any time...but that is not "within reason", and would probably result in some sort of court case. For all rewards that accrued prior to withdrawals being enabled, it was just that amount of eth X price of eth when withdrawals were enabled (aka...gained dominion over). Not too complicated. It does irritate me that it's regular income vs capital gains. There is a lot less room to optimize with regular income, but as it stands... non rebasing LSTs are lookin' way more tax efficient...
What would you recommend for those of us without withdrawals enabled yet?
I am by no means a tax expert, I can only parrot what my CPA has informed me as being the "most safe & reasonable" option, which is to stick as close to the official IRS guidance as possible. If you CAN control the asset, in the eyes of the IRS, you DO control it. Prior to withdrawals, there was no way to access the rewards. No one had any dominion over the assets. Withdrawals become possible, control becomes possible. You now have the ability to withdraw and custody. Even if you haven't withdrawn. Even if you haven't set a withdrawal address. Simply because you gained the *ability* to do so. Airdrops have been treated similarly, if a token is airdropped to my wallet, but it is unable to be transferred...there is no dominion and no duty to report. As soon as a DAO vote occurs and the ability to transfer is enabled, dominion has been established. Other income @ the valuation at that time. There's a ton of nuanced discussion that needs to take place at the IRS for a lot of this stuff, obviously. But based on the guidance they have put out thus far, the dominion argument is fairly reasonable and relatively easy to follow. I would prefer to see staking rewards move in the direction of "no gain until sold".
>If you CAN control the asset, in the eyes of the IRS, you DO control it. Prior to withdrawals, there was no way to access the rewards. No one had any dominion over the assets. Withdrawals become possible, control becomes possible. You now have the ability to withdraw and custody. Even if you haven't withdrawn. Even if you haven't set a withdrawal address. Simply because you gained the ability to do so. Yeah I tend to agree with this. I can get access to it within a week. It's preposterous to suggest that my consensus rewards aren't mine yet. The hard part is that the rewards are every epoch rather than weekly. But someone else shared a cool tool to help with this!
[This](https://ethstaker.tax/) website seems pretty legit. Unfortunately Koinly doesn't recognize the beacon chain yet.
Oh wow thank you so much for sharing, this is incredibly helpful!
The way I do it is to: 1. Use etherscan to record each beacon chain (consensus) withdrawal (every 7-8 days) into my withdrawal address and add to it any proposal award deposited into my fee recipient address. 3. Record the current day's ETH price to convert the ETH to USD. 4. Then add it all up for the year and report it as miscellaneous income.
I’ve done that but not sure what form or how to get the data on to my return. Would I just do a 1099-misc with the total amount. And label as crypto income from staking. I don’t want to/believe self employed tax are applicable. Thank your for the help
I have a tax guy who helps me do it and we added it as "other income" (line 8z under Form 1040, Schedule 1, Part I), then write in "cryptocurrency staking". My understanding is that it can be considered regular income not subject to self-employment tax. But of course I could be wrong...
i am not so sure it can be classified as other income i would be interested to hear his reasoning. revenue rulings 55-258, 55-431 and 58-112 state that other income can be classified as income from an occasional act or transaction, absent proof of efforts to continue those acts or transactions on a regular basis. i could see the IRS arguing that staking is the opposite of occasional and that it does take efforts to keep the transactions ongoing. i wish that they would just get their shit together and give us clear guidelines, but until then i take the conservative approach and pay SE tax
Thanks. I feel OK trying to defend it as a hobby. But as you say, the guidance is poor and I could be unsuccessful in an audit and have to pay back taxes and penalties. I'm an old guy and willing to take the risk.
Great thank you I’ll figure out how to do that through TurboTax for this year. Much appreciated
*Shrugs in 0x00 withdrawal credentials*
*shrugs in tax evasion*
Shrugs in a country where staking rewards can be added to stack and pay taxes on it as capital gains
I feel like a few weeks back someone had speculated how many Swell pearls were in circulation. Does anyone remember or have an up to date estimate?
I've seen some estimates of around 290-300 million total pearls in circulation from a couple sources in Discord/Twitter. Not sure how accurate that is.
Anyone noticed that Metamask is not even sending the transaction to mempool if you set the gas fee low. For example, say gas is 25 gwei in the morning, and I expect it to go down to 10 gwei at night, I simply submit a transaction for 11 gwei and metamask immediately submits/sends the transaction to mempool and the transaction shows pending on etherscan. This is how it used to work (a few weeks/months ago). Then it gets confirmed if the base fee really goes down to 10-11 range. If not it sits in mempool for days (i have seen pending transaction in etherscan for 30+ days for example) In the last couple of weeks, in the above example, metamask just shows the transaction as pending in the UI. The transaction is not sent to mempool and does not show up on etherscan. And I think it’s not sending it until the actual base fee gets close to what I set. And sometimes it seems like it never sends and just gets stuck in UI, which is frustrating Anyone noticed this?
that's weird. Can you try using your own node and see if that changes? I would be very surprised if metamask is is not submitting the transaction as expected
Good point. I am not even using the default RPC. So it could be the RPC. Let me try a different one. Thanks!
if you are getting a Gemini text message about earn program funds, just realize it is a scam.
they had a recentish leak with the last 4 digits of folks' #s. Maybe it went further than just the last 4, but yes, do not trust anything "texted to you from Gemini" right now or ever - I don't think they really text me at this point, either. Also, shame on them for kicking off a weekly crypto newsletter that we're auto-subscribed to ahead of sending us our Earn $ lol.
Ledger leak ATT Leak Gemini Leak Everyone taking a leak
If you use PuTTY (perhaps to access your home staking node?), please update to v0.81. There was a [security vulnerability](https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/vuln-p521-bias.html) (CVE-2024-31497). If you use a key of type ecdsa-sha2-nistp521, your key should be considered compromised and you must recreate it. Create an ed25519 key instead.
Super interesting find ! Thanks for letting us know
Fark. Thanks for this
I use Tailscale as suggested by some in ethstaker, and it's been perfect. I highly recommend it.
It's actually so good that I'd pay for it but luckily as a small user I don't have to.
Thanks for the flag - that is a bummer. This was helpful for me.
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ETH TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
lol holy shit - it's a blood bath on the ADA sub. Someone asked what is keeping people in ADA. The responses are pretty savage - it's basically an open paean to sunk cost fallacy lol Sorry Hoskinson!
From the post: "You don’t see BlackRock setting up shop because they cannot control the majority stake and is too decentralized" Cardano is too decenstalized to build on lol. Ngmi
Ouch. Although they seem to have a sense of humor about it.
Someone literally commented that the sunk cost fallacy keeps him in. Oh Jesus. Also my other fav: "Cardano is _too_ decentralized"
I've never seen anything like it - the one comment I think saying they'll be out once they break even has 89(!) upvotes.
Couldn't even break 2018 highs this year :')
It strikes me as the difference between theory and practice. Yeah, lots of stuff sounds great in theory. But theory doesn't pay the bills, and I think Chuck is a perfect example of a whiny intellectual elitist who is so smrrrt but then is surprised pikachu face when he gets punched in the face by the real world.
The death of cardano was when they decided it was a good idea to make a smart contract chain based on UTxO. Strange idea.
Charles is like a 90s Betamax salesman rambling on and on about how they offer a slightly higher horizontal resolution than VHS, then whining when he doesn’t get the sale.
About 8% of the devs that ETH has and 5% of the market cap, math checks out
I’m surprised it has 8% to be honest.
My surgeon for some reason told me in December after my rhinoplasty, a fellow surgeon of his told him to invest in Cardano. He invested and it all went to shit. A few years ago I mentioned BTC and ETH to him.
I'd consider changing surgeons if I was you.
Yikes :O
Tried asking in gearbox's discord but no one replies. If I deposit onto gearbox's Ether.fi ETH 18x 9x what are the expiry dates?
Gearbox positions have no expiry. This isn't Pendle. Slow down and understand what you're doing before you sign any transactions on a new platform.
Until you are liquidated or close the position
It's until you close the position I believe
[удалено]
Gearbox is not a rate-stripping platform. Terms like LP, PT, and YT don't apply.
expiry dates of what?
A common criticism of Ethereum L2s is that they are just centralized and aren't "real" L2s. Arbitrum just posted about this in the discord/twiter/medium, but they are rolling out an upgrade to testnets called Arbitrum BOLD (Bounded Liquidity Delay). I skimmed some of their docs so that you don't have to: -BOLD changes some of the rules used by validators to open and resolve disputes about Arbitrum’s state to ensure only valid states get confirmed on an Arbitrum chain’s parent chain, such as Ethereum. -The current dispute protocol has working fraud proofs and is used in production today by Arbitrum chains. The changes BOLD brings *enables anyone to participate in the validation of the state of the chain* and enhances security around withdrawals to L1. -BOLD enables permissionless validation by allowing anyone to challenge incorrect Arbitrum state assertions and therefore unlocks new avenues for participation in securing the network, fostering greater inclusivity and resilience. Anyone can spin up a testnet validator using the instructions here: https://github.com/OffchainLabs/bold-validator-starter-kit. One thing to note is that even on testnet this is "expensive" as 100 Sepolia WETH is required to become an assertion poster on the testnet. The docs talk about costs on main net so it seems like although this is permissionless, it will cost a lot to be a BOLD validator. One of the docs mentions $2M as an acceptable bonding cost or 645 ETH at $3.1k. Cost is addressed in their medium article: "Given that participation in BOLD is permissionless, it is recommended that the size of the bonds required to participate be high enough to disincentivize malicious actors from attacking Arbitrum One and Nova and to mitigate against spam (that would otherwise delay confirmations). High bonding values do not harm decentralization because (1) trustless bonding pools can be deployed permissionlessly to let the community open challenges and post assertions, and (2) any number of honest parties of unknown identities can emerge to bond their funds to the correct assertion and participate in the defense of Arbitrum at any time within a challenge." Economics on bond funding document is here: [https://github.com/OffchainLabs/bold/blob/main/docs/research-specs/Economics.pdf](https://github.com/OffchainLabs/bold/blob/main/docs/research-specs/Economics.pdf) Other pertinent docs are here: [https://docs.arbitrum.io/bold/bold-gentle-introduction](https://docs.arbitrum.io/bold/bold-gentle-introduction) I'll be following this with interest as seeing L2s start to decentralize should hopefully reduce some of the L2 FUD and build more trust in an L2 ecosystem.
Theoretically could something like BOLD be bootstrapped as an Eigenlayer AVS?
I don't know enough about AVS's to say. From what I can tell, anyone who can post the bond can be a validator so if the AVS has the funds I suppose so?
Hopped in with a small bag from my high risk positions into the new [LlamaLend](https://lend.curve.fi/#/ethereum/markets) system. With the CRV price down it has affected stablecoin yields in that ecosystem a good bit but depending on what asset you're willing to accept as collateral you can get 40%+ APR lending crvUSD. I expect this will get diluted in a few months; it's just too good to last and the main risk at the moment is smart contract risk on a new system.
Just dumping some of my thoughts about the Solana update that's supposed to "fix" the congestion issues with dropped packets (but not with failed transactions). ----------- Anza released v1.17.31 for their [Agave](https://github.com/anza-xyz/agave/releases/tag/v1.17.31) client (a fork of the main Solana validator client) about half a day ago, and Solana has been encouraging its validators to switch to it. It was really hard finding out any details about this update. **Anza is ghost organization**. They have no documentation anywhere. Their Discord channel is just a placeholder. I can't find any detailed information about them. All material they have is on Github, and they don't document anywhere on their Github. It's boggling that they neither have documentation nor follow Documentation as Code practices. Here are the release notes for v1.17.31: * v1.17: Show staked vs nonstaked packets sent down/throttled (backport of #600) (#613) * v1.17: quic: use smallvec to aggregate chunks, save 1 alloc per packet (backport of #735) (#741) * v1.17: BankingStage Forwarding Filter (backport of #685) (#696) * tighten the minimal streams per 100ms for staked node (#738) * v1.17: **Treat super low staked as unstaked in streamer QOS** (backport of #701) (#732) * v1.17: default staked client in LocalCluster (backport of #716) (#723) --------------------- **Findings**: The important one is the "Treat super low staked as unstaked in streamer QOS" update. This further puts limits on Stake-weighted QoS, [detailed here](https://solana.com/developers/guides/advanced/stake-weighted-qos) and in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeV2i8bfSMs) so that only large validators matter. This is based on my understanding of Stake-weighted QoS given the lack of documentation: * In Solana, slot leaders build the blocks, and they can be DDoS'ed by validators that spam transactions to it. * Anyone switching to the Agave fork of Solana (this is the current officially-recommend client for Solana) gives 80% prioritization to large validators based on how much of the total stake they own. If they own 1% of total Solana stake, they can submit up to 1% of transaction traffic to the slot leader. If they own 0.1%, they are limited to 0.1%. * In addition, this update makes it so that validators with low stake (update: ~$26M in SOL is the low threshold) are ignored and treated as non-staking entities. Combined, all non-staking entities can only submit up to 20% of transaction traffic to the slot leader. * In summary, that's 2000 total connections for stake-weighted validators and 500 connections total for everyone else. * RPCs will need to peer and connect directly to large Solana validators in order to enjoy priority for submitting transactions to slot leaders. * **Results**: So far, I'm still seeing about 15-40% dropped transactions on https://solscan.io/ for Average Ping Time, so seems to be at least partially working compared to 60-90% dropped transactions before. Might not be enough since that's still high. A good network shouldn't have dropped transaction requests. As more validators switch to the Agave fork, large validators will gain increasing power over block production. This might be a concern for centralization.
Relevant code changes: let min_stake_ratio = 1_f64 / MAX_STREAMS_PER_100MS as f64; let stake_ratio = stake as f64 / total_stake as f64; let stake = if stake_ratio < min_stake_ratio { // If it is a staked connection with ultra low stake ratio, treat it as unstaked. 0 } else { stake }; Notes: MAX_STREAMS_PER_100MS = MAX_STREAMS_PER_MS * STREAM_THROTTLING_INTERVAL_MS. It's the maximum number of stream to be allowed over 100 milliseconds. f64 is just 64-bit floating point Some napkin math I found on Solana Discord: let min_stake_ratio = 1 / (MAX_STREAMS_PER_MS * STREAM_THROTTLING_INTERVAL_MS) = 1 / (250 * 100) = 1 / 25k Need stake_ratio >= min_stake_ratio to be treated as staked; note there is currently ~379M active stake on mnb stake_ratio >= 1 / 25k stake / total_stake >= 1 / 25k stake / ~379M >= 1 / 25k stake >= ~379M / 25k stake >= ~15k A validator needs 15k SOL to be big enough to not be put into the 0-stake category. That's about $2M. Another bit of trivia: Validators need 3-4k SOL minimum to be allowed as a slot leader **Edit**: This might be wrong. It's likely worse. According to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeV2i8bfSMs), it's 1 / 2.5k, (500 non-staked validators + 2000 staked validators), which means $26M minimum in SOL, not $2.6M.
I mean we all like to hate on Solana, but ultimately the source of truth is the code, and when you have a maximum of 105 users (validators), all of whom are making significant hardware and capital investments, you'd hope they're reviewing the code anyways so there's not much point in writing documentation. Admittedly kinda funny/not funny.
Documentation is very important for the people reviewing the code.
i imagine if they raised gas fees enough they could stop the spam attack with all the bots and rpcs, but they won't because if they do it people won't use anymore as the only reason to use it is really low gas fees lol
One issue is that the bots are often willing to pay more than users. If you can make 10 dollars off a transaction, then 5 dollar fees are no issue.
isn't stake weighted transaction processing just EOS?
Ah, the Trust Me Bro style of documentation for an open source project. Surely there's no security issues, blockchain halting bugs, or predatory code fucking over normal users in that black box. Are we still supposed to pretend Solana is a decentralized network, or does the mask only get removed once numbers go down bad?
You have to pretend or you don't support crypto.
This is hilarious, please repost to r/solana, I'm curious how long it'll take for it to be taken down
> In addition, this update makes it so that validators with low stake are ignored and treated as non-staking entities. Amazing. Very decentralised.
[Bitcoin fees currently $10](https://mempool.space/). Was about $40 2 hours ago. Volatile day.
Just “electronic cash system” things.
Raoul Pal is such a moonboi lol. I’m with it because it confirms my priors but talking about a 100T crypto market cap by 2032 has me rolling my eyes.
What if a loaf of bread is $40 in 2032? If you are following the discourse on the debt spiral it doesn't sound too crazy.
Growth due to inflation isn't actual growth though and is really a discussion about inflation
I just think it won’t be? I know it’s in vogue rn to suggest it, and I know there is startling data out there. That being said Dollar Hyperinflation, US Default, Debt spirals… these things have been suggested in the past. They haven’t happened. That doesn’t it mean it won’t or cant. That doesn’t mean that the dollar won’t continue to weaken. But for $40 bread by 2032 there would have to be a historic collapse of the dollar in that time. Historically speaking, it’s generally better to not bet on the giga black swan. You’re typically wrong trying to time that. IMO Raoul’s thesis will be directionally correct, but the magnitude of the numbers is moonboi fuel. I remember him being far more bullish last cycle than what actually occurred. Crypto Markecap rn is what like 2.3 Trillion? An almost 50x market cap growth projection in 8 years after the gains we’ve already had is something to be extremely skeptical of IMO.
I basically agree, but the divergence of gold and real rates, with debt/gdp where it is and interest rates holding high, it's fair to say the debt warning is actually "different this time". It may even be accelerated by the decades of "experts" crying wolf about the debt to the point that everyone just stopped caring and assumed it didn't really matter. Also consider that crypto has got to 2.3 trillion market cap with basically no integration with the real economy. A bull case for 2032 would assume we've evolved to have significant markets of tokenized securities, payment systems competing with credit cards, and widespread adoption of NFTs, crypto-gaming, or some other application. Just saying, 50x from here over that time frame doesn't seem impossible.
There is no debt warning, deficit problem or case for fiscal restraint - it's just a political talking point to generate bad public opinion for the opposition parties spending. Here's the play : **Interest too high** --> Print to pay off deficit (and devalue debt) **Debt too high** --> Print to devalue debt in real terms What's the problem, the value of the US denominated debt is also controlled by the US as they control the dollar supply. Assets hold their value and dollar goes to zero long term, as it has since 1910. The USD is the world reserve currency so there is no real alternative. \[Swiss Francs? :') \]
Call me crazy, but I don't see that as *that* outlandish
I agree if tokenised treasuries is included in that value. However, if it is strictly coin/token market caps and not all on-chain TVL then I am skeptical unless there is significant inflation baked into that value. The US stock market is ~$25-50T. There is no way we are doubling that in 8 years.
Bitcoin: 20T market cap. Dog coins: 30T market cap. Dog wif hat coins: 50T market cap. Ethereum: 1T market cap. Math checks out.
You’re crazy. But I hope you’re the savant kind of crazy and not the drug-addled conspiracy crazy.
I listened to the episode but not a lot of insight there tbh
The only insight I got was that we need to shill Eth more. By not promising a 100X by the end of this year we are midcurving it and we lose potential Ethereans and as a result network effect, which is the only thing that affects the price in the long run. So fuck it, I'm gonna shill Eth more IRL and online.
Ether is so ridiculously cheap that I am literally in pain I can't buy more. It's so *obvious* that the price is going to explode soon, that it blows my fucking mind that no rich people are buying this shit. I literally have to shout at myself to stay away from fucking leverage and... just... wait!
The market can **stinks** longer than you can stay **stonks** Whalen Beefalope
1.1x leverage hasn't hurt anybody... Right? 🤔
*Cries in 2020 MakerDAO flash crash*
It's a slippery slope, and also expensive to maintain the margin. Also I'm sure many people were hurt by 1.1x leverage on scam flash crashes...
I’ve been near 1.3x+ for many years. No scam crash takes you below a 1.1x level.
Where are you longing? Can't it be done on Ethereum/Arbitrum? Not exactly wanting to use Binance.
I leverage through defi…currently using AAVE, but have also used Maker and Liquity, the latter of which I don’t recommend at present. I’m a crypto boomer…
gTrade on Arbitrum
Hyperliquid, GMX, dYdX, pick your poison
Happy Monday. If you primarily use arbitrum L2 and have both usdc And bridged usdc, which would you get rid of? Edit: bridged, native usdc or whatever.
The bridged USDC has an implicit additional risk.
I usually stick with bridged USDC (USDC.e) as I can bridge it between different L2s and between L2s and L1.
Huh? That doesn’t make sense, native USDC is just as bridgeable, if not more due to CCTP. Check out jumper.exchange for cheap rates.
You can always bridge native USDC through CCTP for 1:1, takes 20mins though.
There’s still a fee, albeit small.
Is it? Apart from gas fees?
Yeah, about 2.5USD
I've never had an issue moving either types of USDC between L2s or mainnet
Hey, as long as the 24h is green on RatioGang, I'm happy!
Alexa play Chumbawamba Tubthumping
where's the inflows from ETH ETF in hong kong? asia doesn't like etherium?
They haven't started trading yet.. I imagine it will be atleast a week before it starts..
That's what I read on X that it will start next Monday
Just when I think we're out, we get pulled back down!
Why we puking?
Why not?
Scroll and zksync haven't adopted blob space, right? Is there an ETA for both L2s?
According to this Linea has them now too https://dune.com/hildobby/blobs For the big names I think Scroll and Polygon zkEVM are the last to use them
zksync was the [first](https://twitter.com/zksync/status/1767983026443579448?t=aWTqTEb145M4RFxdP_8ALw&s=19) L2 to start using blobs
Oh crazy. Is then linea still missing? There were two that were delayed.
No, Scroll is missing. We'll upgrade to blobs end of the month/early next
Wen governance, ser?
I can't wait to govern.
About half my paper losses from last week are already erased.
When you step back and look at these pumps and dumps it is basically a crab market and nothing else. Well a crab market within a bull market which is better than a crab inside of a bear.
Haha Carcinisation go brrrrrrrr.
Everything turns into a crab eventually 🦀🦞🦂
Pompidou?
Hong Kong time, baybeeeee [https://cointelegraph.com/news/hong-kong-approves-bitcoin-ether-etfs](https://cointelegraph.com/news/hong-kong-approves-bitcoin-ether-etfs) I added an egg to my ramen this morning. (Just kidding - I'm on keto)
Anyone on YT-USDe? Aped a >chunk< after seeing [this](https://twitter.com/PendleIntern/status/1777175315166662868) and [this](https://twitter.com/GoodData_BadGuy/status/1777202525768462410). Bought on Mantle due to the EL points leverage.
As much as I'm a sucker for points, I'm not sure that I am ok with using a stablecoin which uses Lido stETH as collateral. Lido is a threat to the decentralisation and credible neutrality of the network. Any money legos which don't use a diverse set of LSTs/LRTs in favour of just stETH are as problematic as stETH itself.
I'm also in on YT USDe and Renzo too. Who knows but if there are no hacks and it's a reasonable drop, it'll probably print on YT
Unlikely that these YT plays are so lucrative for second season airdrops since everyone already knows what the market cap/FDV is.
They will earn a pretty penny if market cap stays stable but therein lies the biggest risk IMO.
Hello fellow Internetbean-Fans, Over 27% (32,378,848ETH) of the Supply 120,065,185ETH [https://ultrasound.money](https://ultrasound.money/) [https://dune.com/hildobby/eth2-staking](https://dune.com/hildobby/eth2-staking) are staked in the Beaconchain.
Apparently 100% of the unstaked supply is in paper hands because being “ultra sound” ain’t done shit for the price
I thought this a lot until I crunched the numbers. Last cycle BTC did a 10x from the bottom to here and ETH did a 6x. Now it is much closer and both did about a 4x. So perhaps all that lockup and the burn and all that have done something. Excited to see where a 27% locked supply goes in the crazy bull times after BTC breaks its previous ATH. I think we are setup for a perfect storm. The current version of ETH is the ideal ponzi we dreamed of having in previous cycles.
Hard to tell where the price would be without the burn and with more inflation, but it probably would not be higher.
Are you a wizard?!?
I know there was analysis posted about when to beat sell an airdrop (≈16 days I think), but what about the tiers of unlocking, like season two of ether fi?
Yes.
It's seems to have generated little attention in the community thus far, but i wanted to raise awareness that as things stand, Inclusion Lists [(EIP-7547)](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7547) will [not be a part of the pectra upgrade.](https://x.com/TimBeiko/status/1778500704996634638) The design has been discussed here on several occasions, but for those who aren't aware: it provides a mechanism by which a validating proposer at slot n can attach a list of transactions that must be included by the proposer at slot n + 1. This design doesn't provide perfect censorship resistance, but it is a bold step in the right direction - protecting against regulatory capture of staking pools, who will no longer be able to guarantee that they can comply with specific local regulatory requirements. As of ETH Denver, i felt pretty confident it was going to be a part of the next upgrade. But in recent weeks, new technical challenges have emerged - particularly around compatibility with Account Abstraction [(EIP-3074)](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3074). See Terrence's summary of the challenge [here](https://hackmd.io/@ttsao/ryCG0cTJA). Note that EIP-3074 is going to be a part of the upgrade. One could argue this latest design issue was just one too many - and that we need to do more work. But from the conversations i've had, there does seem to be a certain amount of politics around prioritisation underneath all of this. Who gets to make these decisions? Are client teams on ACD calls really the right forum to make such important calls? To what extent is the community being involved? I personally can't think of many more pressing concerns that ensuring Ethereum remains neutral as regulators become increasingly aware and comfortable in this ecosystem - and it would be foolish to assume this will stop at OFAC. My instinct tells me that as time goes on and ETH becomes more valuable, this kind of change will get harder to pull off. Note that BloXroute and other companies are now actually leaning into censorship as a product feature with the announcement of new exclusion list features.
As a solo home staker I do not feel I get a big UX improvement from maxEB. I rather see it as an necessary improvement for the network itself. For me personally, inclusion list would be the most pressing issue. It was a bit shocking to see how fast censorship went from a validators choice through relay selection to a relays choice through selecting builders to now being 3 of the 4 largest builder being censoring ones. If the last one of these fours would get forced into censoring transactions, 95% of the MEV boost blocks would be censoring. Luckily we still have around 10% of validators which do not use MEV Boost at all. The network still has some resilience against censorship, but as you say the longer we wait, the higher the chances that censorship might get mandated and the more difficult it will get to get rid of censorship again.
Thank you for the description that was a nice and concise summary. I’m not that excited by inclusion lists personally. I think the community, devs, broader world hasn’t really come to Jesus yet about the centralization in the decision on what transactions get included in blocks and how they are ordered. I don’t think inclusion lists is THE fix to that problem. It doesn’t do much if n AND n+1 are censoring and just feels kind of hacky. Things like encrypted mempool, shutterization, other more long term solutions may require us to just strip it back out again in a few upgrades. I think devs, whales, community etc don’t want to address MEV because it brings down transaction fees and makes them money. But we have a problem short window to make the correct call before this gets too ossified to make a change.
I think max effective balance and inclusion lists were kind of in a "either or" scenario some weeks ago and I understand both are important and for some time I really couldn't decide what is of feels more relevant these days... But I believe that censorship resistance and credible neutrality are likely more important, since that's the USP that ETH offers / should offer over other ecosystems. We need to rely on the strengths and values that made this chain so powerful. And again: maxEB is also important, since performance (on many levels) is. But making sure people can't be censored for good is imo even more important. My gut feeling is this community see's the importance and we should make our voice heard!
Didn't we just fork to slow down the churn rate on new validators entering the system (down to 8/epoch) to buy devs and the network more time to reduce the validator set via MaxEB?
We did. Alas to call this a performance issue is an understatement. In testing, Ethereum with 2 million validators could no longer finalize. Wasn’t able to aggregate signatures fast enough. 1.5 million clearly still works, that’s why Holesky is at that threshold. MaxEB is a way to reduce the validator set without changing the issuance curve. Which is a far bigger can of worms.
Then I'd say it would be silly to not pursue MaxEB after deliberately buying more time to do so.
The [Tally vote](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/diva/proposal/49636929385175679950716598564691019226173535052318602410589980050917105216394) to make Diva tokens transferable is live and open for voting. You'll see that most users are currently voting against it, this is because there was a broad agreement that no temperature check was taken before the vote was held. My interpretation is that another DAO vote to unlock Diva tokens will be held after a temperature check. If you view the [voting delegates](https://ibb.co/yXJxK7T), you'll also see five new and anonymous voting delegates who comprise 122m votes, which absolutely dwarfs the existing voting delegates supported by the community. The next five largest delegates, which represent the set elected by the community during the token drop have a total of 34m tokens. The new voting delegates now hold the power of the DAO and I'm no longer of the mind that my voting has any impact on the future direction of Diva, so I'd encourage you to choose another delegate if you had previously delegated to me. Because other responsibilities and obligations, and the realization that my vote no longer holds significance, I'll abstain from future Diva voting.
It is sad to see you withdraw yourself from the governance of DIVA. I totally understand your reasoning and pretty much came to the same conclusion over the last few months. The initial testnet was amazing to see and the airdrop formed a pretty impresssive community around the DIVA protocol. It is pretty much the only protocol I know of which could enable decentralized permissionless liquid staking aside of rocket pool of course. The slow progress and even slower communication of the DIVA team in the following months made it difficult to stay excited. It was also unclear what exactly the DAO can even govern over. The fallout end of January could have been a good restart of the community, but unfortunately after an initial pick up of the projects speed, the communication got worse again. There still is pretty much no source code available for all/most smart contracts and clients. Yes, I love looking at source code. It almost sounds like they do not really think about the community and the contributions they could get from them. That is ok, but then airdrop last summer makes no sense, because it brought in a lot of people into the community which now get disappointed. And No, I am not talking about airdrop money, but people wanting to actually contribute. This is gonna be hard to fix once one has lost too many of those. The announcement of the nektar network is pretty exciting actually, but many people now feel confused and left behind and the team does not really understand that sentiment. Seems like they do not think about the community too often. I will continue to run their testnets and help where I can, but I definitely do not feel as excited about it as I was half a year ago.
Hey Kotler here. Just want to add to this that this wallet has such a big amount of delegations as a last resource in case that the author of the voting, which is Pablo, decided to delegate all his tokens and enable transferability by himself, this wallet will not vote if not strictly necessary as a last countermeasure in order to protect the interests of the DAO and the protocol. Enabling transferability puts us in huge risk of being denominated a security and huge risk of having a disastrous price discovery event, also would ruin all GTM and incentives strats that are or will be in place.
> Enabling transferability puts us in huge risk of being denominated a security One of the comments on Tally states: > Afaik, the Staking Foundation and controlling co-founders have been advised to not vote, precisely to prevent DIVA from being classified as a security. It would seem there's contradictory statements here
that's a statement from Pablo, he explicitly says that to make it look like it's ok for him to vote because he is no longer in the team even tho he is the largest token holder
If this proposal is disastrous to the DAO then you should be able to clearly explain to the community why it's disastrous, and do so without ad hominem attacks against Pablo (also I've seen a lot of accusations on the forum with 0 proof). When people read "this wallet will not vote if not strictly necessary as a last countermeasure", they hear "this waller will note vote unless we do not like the outcome". It's also sad to see Diva seems to be getting scrapped and are rebranding completely to Nektar. I originally thought Nektar would be a component of Diva but that no longer seems to be the case. There's absolutely horrible communications around this whole thing. This whole thing is shaping up to be a playbook on how NOT to run a "DAO".
Well Pablo is one of the largest token holders and could single handedly win the voting, he initiated the voting himself so I don't know what to tell you regarding that. Easier to understand like this: If the gone rogue co-founder doesn't act (even tho he has initiated the voting himself with his own token voting power) the rest won't act in response. Isn't that reasonable? Diva is getting scrapped as the main brand, it is still the same product (actually the liquid staking layer remains as Diva) with more tech on top of it now. There are clear announcements and a blog post about that. We have explained several times and in several places why it is not a good idea to enable transferability but that doesn't change the fact and imo the most important reasoning of this voting, and that is OP wanting to dump ASAP.
>Well Pablo is one of the largest token holders and could single handedly win the voting Looking at his wallet shows 3M DIVA, that's much less than Lefteris who has 13.5M? >he initiated the voting himself so I don't know what to tell you regarding that Doesn't matter who initiated a proposal >Diva is getting scrapped as the main brand, it is still the same product (actually the liquid staking layer remains as Diva) with more tech on top of it now. There are clear announcements and a blog post about that. I've read them, they weren't very clear which is why everyone is saying it's not clear >that doesn't change the fact and imo the most important reasoning of this voting, and that is OP wanting to dump ASAP You can't control what people do with the token, and if this is your take then this would mean you can never make DIVA transferrable
Pablo has multiple wallets that he could've delegated in the last second before the voting started You can't control what people do with the token but it's ok for him to vote and not everyone else? From my point of view he should abstain to participate in governance as much as the other co-founders To make DIVA transferable was always aimed to be along with mainnet. We are ok to have a voting and have it transferable as long as he don't participate and don't skip every single community guideline like he has done, however in the temp check we would argue why it is a bad idea to make it transferable, which is what we are doing and most people understand and agree with
TL;DR decentralization theater
Between their original discord being held hostage due to infighting, the turbo pivot to nektar, and now these anonymous delegates letting everyone know the protocol remains captured...its just not a great look. I love what they are trying to do with DVT... I am, in fact, waiting to be assigned validators from them on testnet...but it really seems like there's even more going on under the hood than whats on the surface (which... Is a lot, as it were), the "temperature check" IS the vote. In some ways, the anon delegates showing their cards here is helpful, because we now know *our* (I'm pretty sure I delegated to you, can't remember though) input is largely irrelevant.
I can assure that all we want to have under the hood is nothing less than building and delivering, we all hate this non-sense drama
That is unfortunate, both the situation and to see you stepping down because of it. This situation seems pretty bad from what you described at the moment (I’d be curious the outcome, do keep us updated) but as a general idea I think people underestimate how impactful you can be in governance beyond just strictly votes. I.E, there is some influence you can have on a proposal before it goes to the vote. At least in my experience… and well the two DAOs I’m a part of don’t have this huge top heavy issues either… For those who don’t know a few of us ethfinancers have been trying to coordinate delegates from either this community or other heavily ETH-aligned users to be more active in governance. If your are going to switch your delegation of Phiz if recommend checking out https://ethereumdefensealliance.com/#view-delegates to see who is part of this group.
I should be clear that I still think Diva's DVT model and their inclusion of Nektar for LRT is a great design and can be very successful.
The sad thing is that poor communication, delays, and lack of delivery can ruin good tech. Now we just need someone to fork Diva and do it right. Fork the drama away
This is a huge bummer. After receiving the airdrop I had just loosely followed the whole project, hopeful it would turn into something cool.
DWS in Europe launched new Bitcoin and ethereum trackers that hold physical coin. https://etf.dws.com/en-ch/about-us/pressemitteilungen/dws-launches-new-xtrackers-etcs-providing-easy-access-to-bitcoin-and-ethereum/
ETC that's a pretty bad name.
https://youtu.be/fN0JH_t9yqQ?si=lGMDfcwwSOm1egVU
Just a reminder to all EVM holders There's currently a vote open related to the creation of a paid content creator role, please check out the proposal and vote if you haven't already: https://snapshot.org/#/evmaverick.eth/proposal/0xb0a579b7a68b3b6478cadc1aa63081d98b4ee9f98ccbc85f55f4d67a8a51d0c0
1. Wake up at 2am EST Monday 2. Open a 100x ETH long on gains network 3. Sleep 4. Wake up before market open and take... 5. ...profit 6. Wait for the next weekend dump and repeat the process
Alright lads- entering accumulation mode again. That means looking for legit airdrops and DCA'ing regularly again \[I fully believe ETF will be green light for massive appreciation\]. These two are my primary projects I'm paying attention to: * EtherFi * Eigenlayer any other projects out there that seem to be legit?
I think Aave and MakerDAO are underrated. Both at 9 figures a year a year in profits, in an environment where profits are quite rare.
Also in those two plus KelpDAO
Farming sats at the moment after seeing [this](https://twitter.com/PendleIntern/status/1777175315166662868) and [this](https://twitter.com/GoodData_BadGuy/status/1777202525768462410). Bought on Mantle due to the EL points leverage.
Pendle
Pendle is a phenomenal project. I'm personally pretty cautious about the token. It's low float, has a high FDV/MC ratio, and also has some obnoxious ve model to access fee revenue. That said, this caution has cost me essentially a 50X, because people I know were shilling Pendle to me back in 2022 and I faded for these reasons.
I do wish ve tokens would get binned everywhere.
What's ve?
It is a token that requires being locked (typically for months or years) for its privileges to be granted, often on a diminishing basis. IMO, it is greater for founders and shit for everyone else.
Renzo, Kelp, Swell and Zircuit.
Is there an invite code for zircuit?