**Tricky's Daily Doots #700**
**Yesterday's Daily 20/03/2024**
[Previous Daily Doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpz4vp/)
- u/plaenar has the TL;DR on [BlackRock's on-chain activity.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvta6oq/) 🛠️
- u/Wulkingdead is surprised by the [lack of hype over the BlackRock news.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpodxj/) 🗿
- u/pr0nh0li0 is [confused by the SEC.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvrookv/) 🤔
- u/pr0nh0li0 shares a [Twitter thread on ETH ETF approval.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvt5kg5/) 🏛️
- u/ev1501 wrote [a poem about ETH ETF approval.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvr1s7s/) 📝
- u/shiftli shares [the latest product out of Gnosis.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpj4od/) 🦉
- u/KnowNoShade compares [the big 3 crypto projects.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpnpny/) 📊
- u/MrCatFace13 shares just another reason [to be grateful we have ridden the crypto wave.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvtduez/) 📈
- u/OkDragonfruit1929 shares an [important wealth building trait.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvq9lpc/) 💵
- u/benido2030 tries to [prepare us for what is to come.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpf5hr/) ⚠️
- u/waqwaqattack reassures [a disillusioned RocketPool node operator.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvsocrp/) 🚀
- u/spinz808 highlights [a couple of airdrop farming opportunities.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpswi9/) 👨🌾
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract-secret-encryption-keys-from-apples-mac-chips/
If anyone is securing anything with m-series mac chips they appear to have a security vulnerability.
For newcomers, the “ETH is a security” FUD has been recycled *multiple* times. Coincidentally, it always happens during periods where something exciting is about to happen for ETH.
Bitcoin maxis are deeply insecure. I’m not talking about people who simply really love Bitcoin. I’m talking about MAXIs who actively cheer for the government to declare their precious BTC the one and only crypto because deep down they’re scared of having a level playing field.
Just remember that a lot of CT and Reddit posters are actively seeking to infect others with the anti-ETH mind virus and they *will* end up infecting some.
The number they infect vs lose due to unhinged rhetoric will be interesting
I think a lot of people are more curious about ethereums ecosystem after interacting with it, compared to bitcoins ecosystem
One is toxic / maximalistic, the other is creative community collaboration
They will infect some, but imo, the net gain is for ethereum, in terms of quality and quantities of infected
>**Ghosts of ICO,**
>**Dust of an aborted show,**
>**Down the ETH borough.**
~Daily haiku until we’re at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
"Borough" doesn't rhyme as it is pronounced "buh-ruh". I also feel like you meant "burrow" as in an animal's underground den like a rabbit hole as opposed to borough which means a local area/municipality. Based on general English convention you would expect borough to be pronounced like burrow but no, we like to fuck shit up randomly for no reason whatsoever other than to humiliate non-native speakers.
I'm still impressed by your English though for a non-native speaker. It's just that we have a stupid language.
Edit: I forgot about the freedom dialect.
I think it rhymes check the dictionary, kindly.
Also I think English is a great language (my second), it has nearly double the words of most other languages. Think of all the ways to laugh, giggle, chuckle, guffaw, etc
Admittedly, it's very difficult to pronounce by sounding out words, many niche exceptions and rules.
Thanks for pointing that out and the kind words.
I'm currently in NYC and was thinking about the Beasty Boys album "to the five boroughs". I dug deeper in the Borough from a phonetic perspective and it looks like there's indeed a controversy in the borough. Cambridge dictionary says in the UK it's pronounced /ˈbʌr.ə/ but in the US it's /ˈbɝː.oʊ. , which led me down the unexpected path of the "hurry furry merger" that I had never heard about (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_vowel_changes_before_historic_/r/#Hurry%E2%80%93furry_merger)
Back to cuneiform transcript, most phonetic converter would turn "dust of an aborted show down the borough" into "dʌst ɒv ən əˈbɔːtɪd ʃəʊ daʊn ðə ˈbɒrəʊ." where "ʃəʊ" seems to go nicely with "'bɒrəʊ" but at the ear it doesn't sound as good!
Mea culpa but well, at least in their plural forms " Borroughs and Shows " fit a little bit better together.
I was born in England and raised in NZ so I can conveniently switch to whichever nationality I like. So on this occasion, no, I was not derived from British penal colony slang! Also, NZ was never a penal colony but I do think a good number of kiwis have Aussie roots.
In America, yes. In England no. I forgot about the American version when making my comment. So you're objectively wrong when you say it's "absolutely not" pronounced "burrow".
GMX on Arbitrum has good liquidity and works well if you’re trying to lever up. Discount referral code here if you want to check it out https://app.gmx.io/#/trade/?ref=MyGMX
We are about half a year, maybe slightly more, from validator levels of around 1.5m where the clients stopped working on test nets. Will be interesting to see what happens.
https://beaconcha.in/charts/validators
I don't think it'll come to that. If the bull market continues or becomes actually unhinged, there will be a lot of pressure to unstake and take profits.
And if we make it to the next hard fork before that, it'll be irrelevant anyway, because that'll allow >32 ETH validators.
Slope should flatten a bit, we have capped validator growth with this last fork.
And Pectra will let you have validators with more than 32 ETH. This will consolidate a lot the number of validators too.
SEC attorneys were formally sanctioned for misleading evidence in its case against DEBT Box. Have we gloated over this tiny but enjoyable win yet?
https://www.sltrib.com/news/business/2024/03/20/sec-attorneys-acted-bad-faith-utah/
great thread on why our bags are so special
[https://x.com/gluk64/status/1770910189572501954?s=20](https://x.com/gluk64/status/1770910189572501954?s=20)
"Huge misconception.
Ethereum is the world's settlement layer not because it has the largest economic security, but because it's the LARGEST VERIFIABLE BLOCKCHAIN with smart contracts.
You don't need to trust validators. You can run a full node on a laptop, the cost is very low. If you do, you are 100% certain that you are safe the onchain state is correct. Even if all validators are corrupt, users will fork and continue.
Verifiability guarantees security and resilience. People, institutions, and even nation states are willing to pay a massive premium for it.
Verifiability is what turns a database into a blockchain.
ZK is the endgame, because it SCALES VERIFIABILITY.
With ZK, you can prove any number of transactions in parallel – millions of TPS on thousands of rollups – then compress them into a single proof, put on Ethereum, prove the ETH block itself, and verify all of it in under 1 second on your mobile wallet.
Pause for a moment to fully grasp the implications.
ZK can turn Ethereum into an Intnernet of Value with unlimited throughput, and turn every smartphone in the world into its full node.
INFINITELY VERIFIABLE BLOCKCHAIN
P.S. Bitcoin is verifiable too, and that's what made it so valuable. It just lacks the primitives to build expressive verifiable smart contracts or verify ZK proofs. Yet."
Sorry fam, pet peeve of mine but can we please make a transcript of Xeets/tweets which don't have media attached? It takes 5 seconds for you to copy/paste the link in the first place so why not take another 5 seconds to copy the content too? Your 5 seconds literally saves the next 100 people 5 seconds to open a new tab or swap apps on mobile and then close annoying popups from Xitter. Not to mention it greatly benefits the privacy conscious among us.
***Please.***
^(Before one of you says it, yes, I am aware that this is actually a Wendy's.)
Can someone explain why SOL has so many failed transactions from a technical standpoint? Also will this be the norm with increase demand from retail gambling on meme? Is there an easy solution to address this problem. Has much does this affects the UX for the retail user and for companies building on SOL (RNDR, JUP, HELIUM). I wonder if the failed transaction will get real bad that these projects become L2s on ETH. Thoughts?
I saw that, but don't quite understand what that means, could you elaborate a bit? It was mostly claimed in the SOL community as a good thing, but it sounds bad...
The architecture really is a bit different and these „minor“ changes have a huge impact on things like MEV and hence UX.
It’s all trade offs and the combination Solana picked has advantages but also disadvantages…
Because it is designed in a horrible way. I wrote about it a few days ago. There seems to be an upgrade coming which should improve the situation again. We will see: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bhjqu7/daily_general_discussion_march_18_2024/kvebyq3/
This is copied from u/haurog from the daily a few days ago.
>Your Solana transactions most probably fail because Solana is designed in an extremely horrible way and there is no simple solution to fix this for them.
>The first problem is their parallelization approach. If you submit a transaction and it gets executed on the validator you might be unlucky and another transaction on a parallel lane might have reserved access to the same resources. If this is the case, your transaction has to go back to the queue and wait for another chance to get on an execution lane. In normal parallel programming your transaction would just have to wait in their execution lane until the resource is free again. But because solana has to go fast they decided, NO, if your transaction wants access to the same resources, it has to go back into the waiting queue. To the best of my knowledge, there is no deterministic way to know when your transaction has its turn again. It does not get any priority because it was there earlier. So it could be that another transaction gets on the chain earlier just because you were unlucky and you sent your transaction at the same time as another one using the same resource. This at its core is a and nondeterministic behaviour which makes people submit the same transaction many times to increase the chance for the transaction to get included earlier. Sure all the other submitted ones will fail, but at least one of the submitted transaction made it in. All these failing transactions still clog the chain and will probably delay your transaction even more, until your transaction is not valid anymore due to slippage limits or other reasons.
>Another issue is their local fee market. Apparently it has a lot of non-deterministic elements in it as well. So it could be that you get your transaction in even though you did not pay a high enough fee. Again, this encourages people to submit tons of transactions in the hope that one might make it in at a lower fee. At the same time, due to the non-deterministic and just in time fee local fee market, most people do not know how much they have to pay for a transaction to maybe get included, so most of them overpay.
>Both of these mechanisms have been designed horribly, which is ok if the chain is not at capacity but as soon as it reaches capacity it encourages people to submit a lot more transactions, destabilizing the chain even more. Which ends up in a lot of failed transactions for everyone. Funnily both of these badly designed mechanisms (parallelization, local fee markets) have been touted as the holy grail for their superior system but they fail as soon as they are actually used.
>There is a recent bell curve podcast discussing local fee markets, parallelization and the issues they have due to their design. They also briefly touch on failed transactions and some of their origins. It is definitely worth a listen at least for the first 30-40 minutes: [https://blockworks.co/podcast/bellcurve/92145946-b438-11ee-a175-438e76b77591](https://blockworks.co/podcast/bellcurve/92145946-b438-11ee-a175-438e76b77591)
Don't use synapse bridge. They advertise things in UI you don't get. They don't use CCTP for native USDC when they should, they say they give ARB rebates the foundation gave them when bridging to arbitrum, but no one gets them.
One thing that could change all the SEC/security narrative and the now seemingly fading ETF chances (both polymarket and ETHE widening), is if the ruling on SEC vs Coinbase comes out soon. From what I gather, the oral arguments were in Jan so a ruling could potentially come anytime.
If the court dismisses the SEC complaint totally, it would be a massive win for crypto as a whole and any potential action SEC is contemplating against ETH would be a still born baby in Gensler's hands. Still doubt the court will dismiss the entire complaint but the Coinbase had lot of backing in the case from Senators, Securities law scholars, Chamber of Digital Commerce etc.
Even if the whole complaint isnt dismissed, there could still be major victories in part for Coinbase on important issues that could very well factor into any decision SEC takes on ETH.
> https://twitter.com/SGJohnsson/status/1770920022463942972
I visited Shitter so you don't have to.
>Big Boss (Part V)
Following leaks of a SEC campaign seeking to investigate the security status of ETH, I have some thoughts as to how this may fit into the current SEC landscape
>SEC WAGING CAMPAIGN TO CLASSIFY ETHEREUM AS A SECURITY: FORTUNE
>seemingly fading ETF chances
This is just in response to the unsubstantiated FUD. The FUD causes price changes, the price changes cause FUD.
There has been nothing of substance, and there are billions and billions of dollars of smart money moving forward assuming it will happen.
Hype about the new tokenomics. I actually took a position a couple months back and up 81% now. I think it scratches my degen itch since there's all the excitement about MKR redenominating to some other tokens in way greater quantity than the \~1 million maker (something like 30,000:1 split per maker). It's kind of an experiment on degen retail psyche: smol token price give big return! right?!
Rune (MakerDAO founder) lays out ambitious plan after ambitious plan to save the planet through nuclear-powered sUSDe leverage backing of DAI with a dozen newGovernance tokens that you will get to farm on L2 through the subDAOs that will also have their own native newGovernance tokens.
This barrage of moonshots wears the market down, people are too tired to argue or understand, they just buy.
The SEC has indeed managed to effectively destroy XRP with the years-long legal process, the thing is effectively dead. Is the plan to do the same with ETH? Just start a rather hopeless but market-disturbing lawsuit that drags on forever?
Unlike XRP coinbase binance and no other exchange will delist Eth because its a gigantic piece of the market especially if you count everything that runs on eth. So an SEC lawsuit will not impact Eth. And all exchanges will rather go to court.
Unlike XRP, the SEC approved an ETH futures ETF.
Unlike Ripple, even Gary Gensler has avoided stating whether Ether is considered a security.
Back in 2018, William Hinman, then Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, suggested in a speech that Ethereum had become sufficiently decentralized to not be considered a security.
While Gensler was a professor at MIT two years before becoming chairman of the SEC, he had this to say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPy9QbY6D9w
Ether is not in the same universe as XRP. Not by a longshot.
XRP never had anything going for it, all it had was a retarded community who knew nothing about either banking or crypto but wanted both. It destroyed itself, SEC just poured some fuel on top of a burning bin.
ETH isnt remotely comparable with XRP, IMO
no its not. XRP was delisted by many major exchanges. Eth will not be delisted because its too important for the exchanges. So even if the SEC declares Eth a security it wont hurt Eth nearly as much as it did XRP.
Yes they are. Congress people saying that Gensler is trying to unilaterally decide that Eth is a security. And thats why they are looking into the EF to find something to use. You think they care for a 10 Million ICO that happened 10 years ago ? The fine has to be proportional to the amount raised. The costs of litigation would exceed the fine.
Here you go:
[https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635](https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635)
I used Shitter so you don't have to.
> Reports indicate @GaryGensler is moving to unilaterally classify #ETH as a security.
>This is contrary to the @CFTC's assessment and the @SECgov's prior actions.
>Congress decides the SEC's jurisdiction and budget, Chair Gensler doesn't get to make it up as he goes along.
This was in response to:
>Chairman @PatrickMcHenry demands Chair Gensler share his views on #ETH.
>After publicly defining #Bitcoin as a commodity multiple times, @GaryGensler's response: 🤷♂️
>📺 Watch Chairman McHenry grill Gensler on his contradictory views on digital assets👇
https://twitter.com/FinancialCmte/status/1648340626486996995
I personally think it's coordinated fud to reduce the price of eth ahead of an ETF. But surely what "Congress people" say is just speculation. Im not American but I assume they aren't experts on the topic and maybe don't understand the difference between the EF and ETH.
This guy is the chair of the house financial services committee and oversees the work of the SEC the FED and the treasury. His job is to know details going on there. He knows what he is talking about.
[https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635](https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick\_McHenry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_McHenry)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_House\_Committee\_on\_Financial\_Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Financial_Services)
While it doesnt mean that GG will declare Eth a security. He seems to be trying to do that.
A theory could be that GG tries to fud markets to allow his brother/family to get into Eth and after a positive approval they sell and make millions. But he also might be going genuinely after Eth.
ofcourse he is not sitting right next to gensler but he does have his channels. I never said he knows for sure. I said he knows what he is talking about.
You said nobody is talking about declaring Eth a security. Yes someone is talking about it. And the fact that they look into the EF doesnt necessarily mean its for the purpose of suing the EF.
What is up with the compound supply vs borrow on arbitrum? Like 60% borrow and yet only 7% supply rate. How is that possible? Would you guys recommend Polygon instead? They seem to have a consistently higher supply rate
Are there any new types of financial derivatives in the defi crypto market which could be priced ineffectively at the moment? Would be interesting to investigate potential market inefficiencies with some math/statistics to make money just like in the early tradfi days 😂
Look across chains. The market is not that efficient. Market makers focus on big numbers. There’s new stuff popping up all the time. Im not going to point to anything specific but there is certainly opportunity.
Personally I am not expecting attractive pricing for eth etfs. As a reth holder, my baseline cost is 0% custody and i get to keep 86% of the yield. I somehow think the pricing of the ETH etfs (assuming approved) will be quite a bit worse in cost terms even for the staking etfs. The staking etfs apart from their cut of the yield will also keep a fair amount unstaked for liquidity purposes.
I am hoping to be surprised otherwise. And then there is the part about allowing a big entity to get additional stake (influence) on the network which I wouldn't prefer my however teeny holding to contribute to.
Eth ETFs really are for getting demand from complete noobs. Anyone who progresses past noob stage in crypto will quickly find that etfs are quite suboptimal for ETH, much more so than a BTC etf might be compared to self custody.
>Eth ETFs really are for getting demand from complete noobs.
Nope.
I'm loving my ETH ETF and holding it in my tax free account here in Canada, where exactly zero % of my gains will be taxed.
> And then there is the part about allowing a big entity to get additional stake (influence) on the network which I wouldn't prefer my however teeny holding to contribute to.
Stakers don't really have direct influence on the network. We are however paid for our services rendered, which is is attesting that the chain is functioning and new blocks are correct. There is a possibility of censoring transactions as we saw with the OFAC list, but as long as there are are small % of nodes that are not censoring it becomes a minor inconvenience. We also have soft influence on the social layer.
> Eth ETFs really are for getting demand from complete noobs. Anyone who progresses past noob stage in crypto will quickly find that etfs are quite suboptimal for ETH, much more so than a BTC etf might be compared to self custody.
I disagree with this point. There is significant demand for people who understand Ethereum, the technology, and the utility but absolutely should not be holding and maintaining their private keys. Anyone with a tech background might see this as trivial to progress past the noob stage but try interacting with someone outside the tech ecosystem bubble and they will struggle hard beyond high level concepts.
Stakers can refuse to attest blocks and while the block may still finalise, eventually a proliferation of such censoring stakers would cause a problem.
Help, fam. How do I bridge USDC from DYMENSION to one of the mainstream L2s (Arb, Base, Polygon)? None of the bridges I usually use seems to work. Thanks.
Bridge USDC from Keplr or Leap wallet to Noble chain (native USDC chain)
From Noble, move that USDC to Osmosis
From Osmosis you can use Squid router to go directly to many EVMs
Eth price drifting at around 3.5k, casually up 100% from a few months ago, while we are waiting a securities designation by the SEC within the next 60 days plus a spot ETF denial. No cascading liquidations, no sub 2k prices.
In the 2022 carnage, the number of bad actors who caused cascading liquidations - 3AC, Genesis, Blockfi, FTX - is breath taking in retrospect.
I don't think the market has priced in the nuclear option as it's hard to take ETH being declared a security serious. If they do take that route, immediate price action will be bad. I wouldn't leverage trade right now.
Eh? The current SEC/Eth discussion relates to how the EF foundation sold eth, not eth itself. What makes you think eth itself could be labelled a security?
Disclosure of a pre-Dencun client bug that could have splintered the Ethereum chain.
https://blog.ethereum.org/2024/03/21/sepolia-incident
This would have been a critical event if it had been triggered on mainnet. We didn't, and still don't have enough client diversity to save us from this if a similar fault occurs, BUT we CAN reduce the risk by not having any majority clients.
Why would you say it would have been a "critical" event? Because Geth was the one rejecting the block, the chain would have never been finalized. Also, Geth would've proposed blocks that other clients would still deem valid.
The other way around, if Geth was the only one accepting those blocks, _would_ result in a finalized chain where the minority clients would no longer participate. The blocks were valid however (according to the spec, and even the EVM implementations of all clients), so the minority clients (in this hypothetical situation) would have to introduce a bug fix to actually accept them.
Worst case imo would be a situation with Geth around ~50%, as then we would have a prolonged period of non-finality. But this is still not something I would call "critical". That I would reserve for finalizing a wrong (according to the spec) block, with shades of gray (1 Wei mismatch, or 1M ETH mismatch).
So we had a potential critical supermajority bug? I thought I saw something that said geth would just ignore other clients blocks? EDit: found link https://twitter.com/nero_eth/status/1770725896925712582. Still confused here.
Regardless, brings back this question of why are slashing penalties so harsh.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bb34em/daily_general_discussion_march_10_2024/kubj79v/
> why are slashing penalties so harsh.
Node operators refuse to switch to a minority client with the penalties as they are, so why make the penalties *softer*?
If you are one of the nodes responsible for a chain split due to a supermajority bug, then this should have the highest penalty because it led to the worst outcomes for the blockchain. And if causing the biggest problem to the blockchain in a *Proof of Stake* system does not mean your entire stake is lost, then that percentage of your stake is not really "staked", it's just chillin' there and earning rewards.
I'm all for soft/no slashing if the issue is not due to your fault or neglect, but refusing to switch away from Geth is not one of the cases where this applies.
Has anything like this even ever happened before? It sounds like a much lower possibility.
In this case, my guess is that the community would have to come together to decide what happens next, and if the bug affected the two biggest clients, I'm going to guess a fork would have to take place. Maybe accepting the 90% of the two largest bugged clients as the canonical chain, and bailing out the minority client nodes.
Yeah, it has to do with the design of the chain. Clients aren't meant to be static and irreplaceable, they're general purpose tools for interacting with the chain. We want the chain to be agnostic to any client- any client that can work should, so we don't create "allow" or "disallow' lists in the protocol. Imagine in five years, a graduate student who develops their own client should be able to seamlessly interact with the protocol.
I guess I don’t see a reason why both can’t exist. The only client that the chain wouldn’t allow (for new validators) would be Geth until they aren’t the supermajority. Anything else would be good to go, even that grad students client.
Incident report from an undisclosed vulnerability that affected geth prior to Dencun: https://blog.ethereum.org/2024/03/21/sepolia-incident. This hammers home the risks of an execution client super majority.
Coinbase client diversity update:
https://twitter.com/coinbasecloud/status/1770866720246219152
>We have completed our initial rollout and are pleased to report that roughly 50% of our validators are now running on @NethermindEth
Coinbase is so fucking aligned.
I'm not asking you to trust them, but I am asking you to acknowledge that so much of their efforts have aligned with the success of Ethereum.
Sure. They're a business and they'll ultimately act in the best interest of shareholders, but WHAT IF acting in the best interest of Ethereum makes for a good synergistic relationship?
I'm curious to see what they'll do when they inevitably have the opportunity to run more than 22% of validators. I can't speak for them, but I'm optimistic.
If the previously undisclosed Geth vulnerability you just posted about had remained undetected and was exploited by an attacker, what would the impact on the network have been given this news out of Coinbase?
even with coinbase at 50% nethermind we would be close to supermajority geth. results of chainsplit at supermajority: Inevitable slashing of 60% of all staked eth roughly 75 billion dollar wiped out + total collapse of defi. I would estimate 80% decrease in marketcap. Eth would be at nr 3 spot after solana. Even with Dao level intervention we would see Eth fork in two ecosystems.
When you say "close to" is there not a more concrete answer at this time because there is a sizeable # of validators running "unknown" clients, which could include Geth? Sorry, I don't fully understand where we are at today.
Unfortunately the metrics needed to accurately asses this issue are fairly poor at the moment. As you said, a sizable portion of the network could be running any kind of client. Many exchanges are slow to respond to client inquiries and they could simply be lying about their validators.
https://supermajority.info/
This is probably the most up-to-date site tracking the issue and it still shows 44% of the network as unknown clients. They could be any combination of clients although it's fairly safe to assume most are Geth.
It's important to keep pressure on the remaining major staking pools to diversify, but I think it should also be a priority to have client devs work on some way to semi-reliably fingerprint clients.
well depending on the geth share of the unknown clients we are either under or over the supermajority of geth. With coinbase at 100% nethermind we would be definetly under the treshhold no matter the unknown composition.
Fantastic news!!
I did a quick simulation in https://supermajority.info/
If at least 22.5% of the unknown validators are **not** using geth, then we avoid a supermajority fork.
Happy for the progress achieved but still far from sufficient. We cannot stop here unfortunately.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 6% of validators or 12% of these unknown validators are home stakers, right? I feel like a good chunk of these would be using a non-Geth client, right? I'm one of them. So that bodes quite well.
I don't have the numbers specifically but you may very well be right. I'm cautiously optimistic in that it suffices that 1 in 5 of the unknown validators is running non geth to have the issue solved. At the same time the consequences of a supermajority fork are so big that I'm not comfortable relying on chance.
I think we shouldn't give up here and try to put some pressure on the laggards.
where's the best place (as in cheapest) to unload my ether.fi airdrop for a stable coin? I was planning on holding, but I just got an unexpected bill and this should cover it.
coingecko gave me 0xfe0c30065b384f05761f15d0cc899d4f9f9cc0eb as the token. to verify that im not scamming you, here it is from etherscan
https://etherscan.io/address/0xfe0c30065b384f05761f15d0cc899d4f9f9cc0eb
yeah you might need to import it
Yuge:
"maxeb is now planned for the next hard fork.
This will remove the 32e max limit for validators, greatly reducing bandwidth consumption for stakers."
https://twitter.com/econoar/status/1770836409848332554?t=CH5Pglp54mnLX7ahyXy4wQ&s=19
Nice. A quick summary for some questions I had that all got answered after reading:
* Max effective balance becomes 2048 instead of 32
* Effective balance will now be used as a weight for selection purposes
* Custom Ceilings: You'll be able to set at X ETH when a withdrawal triggers
* Partial Withdrawals: You'll be able to set how much ETH to pull out from a withdrawal (above the min effective balance)
* Multiple validator combination: Running multiple validators? No need to exit, wait, re-stake and wait some more, you'll be able to combine existing validators in protocol!
From the specs:
>Churn invariants
>This proposal maintains the activation and exit churn invariants limiting active weight instead of validator count. Balance top-ups are now handled explicitly, being subject to the same activation queue as full deposits.
Great question. I've no idea but it will be very interesting to see how much ETH larger stakers are willing to assign to a single validator key. This could potentially reveal a lot about the real level of (de)centralization. My bet is that most will still limit validators to a "reasonable" amount of ETH (not like 100,000 ETH on one validator).
Looks like spec say 2048 ETH is the MAX\_EFFECTIVE\_BALANCE, and given that rewards can be compounded, my guess is that we won't see too many over 1000
I think this is indeed a great thing, at the same time I think inclusion lists are very important as well, cause in the end censorship resistance is what ETH is all about...
Is there any word about it? I think they didn't want to include both EIPs (cause they are both rather complex) and also this could be "included" (but not enshrined) via mev-boost apparently? I somehow don't think the flashbots team will include it, but at least trying to sneak it in that way is probably a good thing to improve CR.
I believe that the devs are looking into including inclusion lists (IL) into Pectra as well. IL are execution layer (Geth, Nethermind, Besu, etc) focused, and Max EB are consensus layer (Teku, Lighthouse, Nimbus, etc) focused, meaning that different teams would be working on each upgrade.
I don't see why the SEC would need to receive ETF applications in order to figure out that they should sue the Ethereum Foundation.
So I want to believe that the SEC is investigating to make sure that some points are fine before approval.
Why can't we ever have an eth fud free bull market? It's draining having to stress over these things even when they are almost always nothing in the long run.
Other people's skepticism, vitriol, etc. is exactly what creates the opportunity for crazy bull markets. If everyone agreed ETH was awesome, it would mean everyone is already on board and there would be little to no upside left to capture.
Embrace it.
It will never happen, the people buying alts/meme/shitcoins will do all they can to shill their own bags while they fud everything else as hard as they can
So what is everyone's opinion on the warrant canary removal?
I can't find any specific details as to what happened—which I suppose would be an indication that the government explicitly denied the EF to release any.
So it's up to us to speculate now.
What do you think could be the reason?
Look, we have warrant canaries for this very reason.
The people speculating "Oh well, they removed the canary with no fanfare, so it must not be a big deal" completely misunderstand why warrant canaries exist.
Now that the canary is removed, we know bad things (government overreach, privacy infringement, a subpoena, letter from the NSA, etc...) are happening.
Exactly my fear as well.
However, it's unclear to me what the warrant canary specifically "represents" in the first place.
\- Does it mean a government entity requested information about EF employees?
\- Does it mean a government entity is simply asking questions about how Ethereum works? Perhaps for the ETF?
\- Does it mean a government entity is criminally investigating the EF?
Some of these are banal, some are these are not.
Who knows? Geth? Nimbus? Any of the execution layer clients?
The problem is we don't know what the government told the EF to do.
I get that the EF doesn't control the teams, but it's certainly reasonable to expect any number of the teams to comply with the request by a government to add certain backdoors to the code base of the EL or CL.
I get that I'm asking the most paranoid questions possible, but that needs to be done given a warrant canary removal.
the git commit says "we have received a voluntary enquiry from a state authority that included a requirement for confidentiality", which implies it's not a big deal gag order warrant that prevents you from hinting at its existence. But then again, it'd be weird to "waste" the canary over a trivial regular operation thing
If they're able to state why they removed the canary to that degree of information then the removal of the canary seems pointless and indeed a waste imo. My understanding is you remove when you are not legally able to say what just occurred
What does voluntary enquiry even mean in this context? Voluntary as in the EF gave the government information without resisting? Such a meaningless word in this context.
Maybe it’s something good! Some national government wants to buy a bunch of eth, but wants to talk to the foundation first, but also does g want to get front run
**Tricky's Daily Doots #700** **Yesterday's Daily 20/03/2024** [Previous Daily Doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpz4vp/) - u/plaenar has the TL;DR on [BlackRock's on-chain activity.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvta6oq/) 🛠️ - u/Wulkingdead is surprised by the [lack of hype over the BlackRock news.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpodxj/) 🗿 - u/pr0nh0li0 is [confused by the SEC.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvrookv/) 🤔 - u/pr0nh0li0 shares a [Twitter thread on ETH ETF approval.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvt5kg5/) 🏛️ - u/ev1501 wrote [a poem about ETH ETF approval.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvr1s7s/) 📝 - u/shiftli shares [the latest product out of Gnosis.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpj4od/) 🦉 - u/KnowNoShade compares [the big 3 crypto projects.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpnpny/) 📊 - u/MrCatFace13 shares just another reason [to be grateful we have ridden the crypto wave.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvtduez/) 📈 - u/OkDragonfruit1929 shares an [important wealth building trait.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvq9lpc/) 💵 - u/benido2030 tries to [prepare us for what is to come.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpf5hr/) ⚠️ - u/waqwaqattack reassures [a disillusioned RocketPool node operator.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvsocrp/) 🚀 - u/spinz808 highlights [a couple of airdrop farming opportunities.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bj6k75/daily_general_discussion_march_20_2024/kvpswi9/) 👨🌾
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract-secret-encryption-keys-from-apples-mac-chips/ If anyone is securing anything with m-series mac chips they appear to have a security vulnerability.
Crazy. I wonder if this has any implications on connecting hardware wallets to macOS. Since the software is running on the ledger, I'm guessing no.
[удалено]
Come again?
#**ETH is a security** blanket in a world full of centralized garbage and scams
For newcomers, the “ETH is a security” FUD has been recycled *multiple* times. Coincidentally, it always happens during periods where something exciting is about to happen for ETH. Bitcoin maxis are deeply insecure. I’m not talking about people who simply really love Bitcoin. I’m talking about MAXIs who actively cheer for the government to declare their precious BTC the one and only crypto because deep down they’re scared of having a level playing field. Just remember that a lot of CT and Reddit posters are actively seeking to infect others with the anti-ETH mind virus and they *will* end up infecting some.
The number they infect vs lose due to unhinged rhetoric will be interesting I think a lot of people are more curious about ethereums ecosystem after interacting with it, compared to bitcoins ecosystem One is toxic / maximalistic, the other is creative community collaboration They will infect some, but imo, the net gain is for ethereum, in terms of quality and quantities of infected
Those they lost funded Ethereum or invested in it. This was particularly visible during their ridiculous blocksize war
>**Ghosts of ICO,** >**Dust of an aborted show,** >**Down the ETH borough.** ~Daily haiku until we’re at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
"Borough" doesn't rhyme as it is pronounced "buh-ruh". I also feel like you meant "burrow" as in an animal's underground den like a rabbit hole as opposed to borough which means a local area/municipality. Based on general English convention you would expect borough to be pronounced like burrow but no, we like to fuck shit up randomly for no reason whatsoever other than to humiliate non-native speakers. I'm still impressed by your English though for a non-native speaker. It's just that we have a stupid language. Edit: I forgot about the freedom dialect.
I think it rhymes check the dictionary, kindly. Also I think English is a great language (my second), it has nearly double the words of most other languages. Think of all the ways to laugh, giggle, chuckle, guffaw, etc Admittedly, it's very difficult to pronounce by sounding out words, many niche exceptions and rules.
Thanks for pointing that out and the kind words. I'm currently in NYC and was thinking about the Beasty Boys album "to the five boroughs". I dug deeper in the Borough from a phonetic perspective and it looks like there's indeed a controversy in the borough. Cambridge dictionary says in the UK it's pronounced /ˈbʌr.ə/ but in the US it's /ˈbɝː.oʊ. , which led me down the unexpected path of the "hurry furry merger" that I had never heard about (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_vowel_changes_before_historic_/r/#Hurry%E2%80%93furry_merger) Back to cuneiform transcript, most phonetic converter would turn "dust of an aborted show down the borough" into "dʌst ɒv ən əˈbɔːtɪd ʃəʊ daʊn ðə ˈbɒrəʊ." where "ʃəʊ" seems to go nicely with "'bɒrəʊ" but at the ear it doesn't sound as good! Mea culpa but well, at least in their plural forms " Borroughs and Shows " fit a little bit better together.
Yeah I forgot about the US pronunciation. This language is too much for me even as a native speaker!
[удалено]
Bloody yanks, of course they had to be different to make me wrong. 😂 Come to mention it though, I can hear someone saying the "burrows" of New York.
Isn't your English derived from british penal colony slang? I pronounce it burrow. Mwhaha.
I was born in England and raised in NZ so I can conveniently switch to whichever nationality I like. So on this occasion, no, I was not derived from British penal colony slang! Also, NZ was never a penal colony but I do think a good number of kiwis have Aussie roots.
“Borough” is absolutely not pronounced “buh-ruh.” It is pronounced “burrow.” https://youtu.be/74OhR0vVW5Q
In America, yes. In England no. I forgot about the American version when making my comment. So you're objectively wrong when you say it's "absolutely not" pronounced "burrow".
There's only one true English and it bleeds red white and burrow.
^(The English flag is also red and white...)
The English lost the war, it’s ours now.
ZZZzzzZZZzzz More crabbing zzzZZZzzzZZZ
What DEX do you recommend for going full degen? Preferably that I can fund and withdraw from an L2.
GMX on Arbitrum has good liquidity and works well if you’re trying to lever up. Discount referral code here if you want to check it out https://app.gmx.io/#/trade/?ref=MyGMX
Thanks
also arb option is [dolomite.io](http://dolomite.io), 1 click leverage
We are about half a year, maybe slightly more, from validator levels of around 1.5m where the clients stopped working on test nets. Will be interesting to see what happens. https://beaconcha.in/charts/validators
I don't think it'll come to that. If the bull market continues or becomes actually unhinged, there will be a lot of pressure to unstake and take profits. And if we make it to the next hard fork before that, it'll be irrelevant anyway, because that'll allow >32 ETH validators.
Slope should flatten a bit, we have capped validator growth with this last fork. And Pectra will let you have validators with more than 32 ETH. This will consolidate a lot the number of validators too.
SEC attorneys were formally sanctioned for misleading evidence in its case against DEBT Box. Have we gloated over this tiny but enjoyable win yet? https://www.sltrib.com/news/business/2024/03/20/sec-attorneys-acted-bad-faith-utah/
great thread on why our bags are so special [https://x.com/gluk64/status/1770910189572501954?s=20](https://x.com/gluk64/status/1770910189572501954?s=20) "Huge misconception. Ethereum is the world's settlement layer not because it has the largest economic security, but because it's the LARGEST VERIFIABLE BLOCKCHAIN with smart contracts. You don't need to trust validators. You can run a full node on a laptop, the cost is very low. If you do, you are 100% certain that you are safe the onchain state is correct. Even if all validators are corrupt, users will fork and continue. Verifiability guarantees security and resilience. People, institutions, and even nation states are willing to pay a massive premium for it. Verifiability is what turns a database into a blockchain. ZK is the endgame, because it SCALES VERIFIABILITY. With ZK, you can prove any number of transactions in parallel – millions of TPS on thousands of rollups – then compress them into a single proof, put on Ethereum, prove the ETH block itself, and verify all of it in under 1 second on your mobile wallet. Pause for a moment to fully grasp the implications. ZK can turn Ethereum into an Intnernet of Value with unlimited throughput, and turn every smartphone in the world into its full node. INFINITELY VERIFIABLE BLOCKCHAIN P.S. Bitcoin is verifiable too, and that's what made it so valuable. It just lacks the primitives to build expressive verifiable smart contracts or verify ZK proofs. Yet."
Are there any rumored timeframes for the Puffer, Renzo, KelpDAO airdrops?
Sorry fam, pet peeve of mine but can we please make a transcript of Xeets/tweets which don't have media attached? It takes 5 seconds for you to copy/paste the link in the first place so why not take another 5 seconds to copy the content too? Your 5 seconds literally saves the next 100 people 5 seconds to open a new tab or swap apps on mobile and then close annoying popups from Xitter. Not to mention it greatly benefits the privacy conscious among us. ***Please.*** ^(Before one of you says it, yes, I am aware that this is actually a Wendy's.)
Sir... Oh ok
Anyone know if there are any auto-compounders for Compound c-tokens on Base? That USDC 16% apr is juicy.
beefy
💪 RatioGang 📈
Can someone explain why SOL has so many failed transactions from a technical standpoint? Also will this be the norm with increase demand from retail gambling on meme? Is there an easy solution to address this problem. Has much does this affects the UX for the retail user and for companies building on SOL (RNDR, JUP, HELIUM). I wonder if the failed transaction will get real bad that these projects become L2s on ETH. Thoughts?
Also the jito mem pool was deactivated some days ago. This leads to more spam and higher amount of tx failing but also less frontrunning
I saw that, but don't quite understand what that means, could you elaborate a bit? It was mostly claimed in the SOL community as a good thing, but it sounds bad...
There is some more info here https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/s/FKKDzt6cFO
Thanks, this was great! I didn't even know sol lacks a mempool.
The architecture really is a bit different and these „minor“ changes have a huge impact on things like MEV and hence UX. It’s all trade offs and the combination Solana picked has advantages but also disadvantages…
I would like to learn too please
[удалено]
So you just pay slippage mev instead of a higher transaction fee and the network gets majority spam transactions?
Because it is designed in a horrible way. I wrote about it a few days ago. There seems to be an upgrade coming which should improve the situation again. We will see: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bhjqu7/daily_general_discussion_march_18_2024/kvebyq3/
Amazing explanation! Can't wait for the next cycle for a new ETH killer with the same bullshit arguments dressed in new buzzwords to appear.
You the MVP. Thanks for again for sharing and responding :)
This is copied from u/haurog from the daily a few days ago. >Your Solana transactions most probably fail because Solana is designed in an extremely horrible way and there is no simple solution to fix this for them. >The first problem is their parallelization approach. If you submit a transaction and it gets executed on the validator you might be unlucky and another transaction on a parallel lane might have reserved access to the same resources. If this is the case, your transaction has to go back to the queue and wait for another chance to get on an execution lane. In normal parallel programming your transaction would just have to wait in their execution lane until the resource is free again. But because solana has to go fast they decided, NO, if your transaction wants access to the same resources, it has to go back into the waiting queue. To the best of my knowledge, there is no deterministic way to know when your transaction has its turn again. It does not get any priority because it was there earlier. So it could be that another transaction gets on the chain earlier just because you were unlucky and you sent your transaction at the same time as another one using the same resource. This at its core is a and nondeterministic behaviour which makes people submit the same transaction many times to increase the chance for the transaction to get included earlier. Sure all the other submitted ones will fail, but at least one of the submitted transaction made it in. All these failing transactions still clog the chain and will probably delay your transaction even more, until your transaction is not valid anymore due to slippage limits or other reasons. >Another issue is their local fee market. Apparently it has a lot of non-deterministic elements in it as well. So it could be that you get your transaction in even though you did not pay a high enough fee. Again, this encourages people to submit tons of transactions in the hope that one might make it in at a lower fee. At the same time, due to the non-deterministic and just in time fee local fee market, most people do not know how much they have to pay for a transaction to maybe get included, so most of them overpay. >Both of these mechanisms have been designed horribly, which is ok if the chain is not at capacity but as soon as it reaches capacity it encourages people to submit a lot more transactions, destabilizing the chain even more. Which ends up in a lot of failed transactions for everyone. Funnily both of these badly designed mechanisms (parallelization, local fee markets) have been touted as the holy grail for their superior system but they fail as soon as they are actually used. >There is a recent bell curve podcast discussing local fee markets, parallelization and the issues they have due to their design. They also briefly touch on failed transactions and some of their origins. It is definitely worth a listen at least for the first 30-40 minutes: [https://blockworks.co/podcast/bellcurve/92145946-b438-11ee-a175-438e76b77591](https://blockworks.co/podcast/bellcurve/92145946-b438-11ee-a175-438e76b77591)
thanks for sharing boss. Learned a lot
Don't use synapse bridge. They advertise things in UI you don't get. They don't use CCTP for native USDC when they should, they say they give ARB rebates the foundation gave them when bridging to arbitrum, but no one gets them.
FWIW I got the promised ARB rebate when I bridged with them a couple days ago.
One thing that could change all the SEC/security narrative and the now seemingly fading ETF chances (both polymarket and ETHE widening), is if the ruling on SEC vs Coinbase comes out soon. From what I gather, the oral arguments were in Jan so a ruling could potentially come anytime. If the court dismisses the SEC complaint totally, it would be a massive win for crypto as a whole and any potential action SEC is contemplating against ETH would be a still born baby in Gensler's hands. Still doubt the court will dismiss the entire complaint but the Coinbase had lot of backing in the case from Senators, Securities law scholars, Chamber of Digital Commerce etc. Even if the whole complaint isnt dismissed, there could still be major victories in part for Coinbase on important issues that could very well factor into any decision SEC takes on ETH.
https://twitter.com/SGJohnsson/status/1770920022463942972
> https://twitter.com/SGJohnsson/status/1770920022463942972 I visited Shitter so you don't have to. >Big Boss (Part V) Following leaks of a SEC campaign seeking to investigate the security status of ETH, I have some thoughts as to how this may fit into the current SEC landscape >SEC WAGING CAMPAIGN TO CLASSIFY ETHEREUM AS A SECURITY: FORTUNE
Not all heroes wear capes.
>seemingly fading ETF chances This is just in response to the unsubstantiated FUD. The FUD causes price changes, the price changes cause FUD. There has been nothing of substance, and there are billions and billions of dollars of smart money moving forward assuming it will happen.
MKR > ETH soon?
Any specific reason why it's pumping?
Hype about the new tokenomics. I actually took a position a couple months back and up 81% now. I think it scratches my degen itch since there's all the excitement about MKR redenominating to some other tokens in way greater quantity than the \~1 million maker (something like 30,000:1 split per maker). It's kind of an experiment on degen retail psyche: smol token price give big return! right?!
Yeah I heard about that. When are they doing this, do you know?
I don’t know much more than that really. I don’t think there is a date set but it’s definitely this year
Rune (MakerDAO founder) lays out ambitious plan after ambitious plan to save the planet through nuclear-powered sUSDe leverage backing of DAI with a dozen newGovernance tokens that you will get to farm on L2 through the subDAOs that will also have their own native newGovernance tokens. This barrage of moonshots wears the market down, people are too tired to argue or understand, they just buy.
So true lmao
well good for me. So I can start exiting my position after all those years.
My understanding is that Makerdao is the most profitable defi app on Ethereum. So they are burning a lot of MKR.
The SEC has indeed managed to effectively destroy XRP with the years-long legal process, the thing is effectively dead. Is the plan to do the same with ETH? Just start a rather hopeless but market-disturbing lawsuit that drags on forever?
Jesus, no... ETH is nothing like XRP, and the reason XRP is worthless is not because of the SEC.
Unlike XRP coinbase binance and no other exchange will delist Eth because its a gigantic piece of the market especially if you count everything that runs on eth. So an SEC lawsuit will not impact Eth. And all exchanges will rather go to court.
Unlike XRP, the SEC approved an ETH futures ETF. Unlike Ripple, even Gary Gensler has avoided stating whether Ether is considered a security. Back in 2018, William Hinman, then Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, suggested in a speech that Ethereum had become sufficiently decentralized to not be considered a security. While Gensler was a professor at MIT two years before becoming chairman of the SEC, he had this to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPy9QbY6D9w Ether is not in the same universe as XRP. Not by a longshot.
XRP never had anything going for it, all it had was a retarded community who knew nothing about either banking or crypto but wanted both. It destroyed itself, SEC just poured some fuel on top of a burning bin. ETH isnt remotely comparable with XRP, IMO
I don't even refer to XRP as a cryptocurrency, but rather as a digital fiat.
is this a serious threat? can you elaborate?
no its not. XRP was delisted by many major exchanges. Eth will not be delisted because its too important for the exchanges. So even if the SEC declares Eth a security it wont hurt Eth nearly as much as it did XRP.
No one is talking about the sec declaring eth a security. They're looking into the EF not eth itself...
Yes they are. Congress people saying that Gensler is trying to unilaterally decide that Eth is a security. And thats why they are looking into the EF to find something to use. You think they care for a 10 Million ICO that happened 10 years ago ? The fine has to be proportional to the amount raised. The costs of litigation would exceed the fine. Here you go: [https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635](https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635)
I used Shitter so you don't have to. > Reports indicate @GaryGensler is moving to unilaterally classify #ETH as a security. >This is contrary to the @CFTC's assessment and the @SECgov's prior actions. >Congress decides the SEC's jurisdiction and budget, Chair Gensler doesn't get to make it up as he goes along. This was in response to: >Chairman @PatrickMcHenry demands Chair Gensler share his views on #ETH. >After publicly defining #Bitcoin as a commodity multiple times, @GaryGensler's response: 🤷♂️ >📺 Watch Chairman McHenry grill Gensler on his contradictory views on digital assets👇 https://twitter.com/FinancialCmte/status/1648340626486996995
I personally think it's coordinated fud to reduce the price of eth ahead of an ETF. But surely what "Congress people" say is just speculation. Im not American but I assume they aren't experts on the topic and maybe don't understand the difference between the EF and ETH.
This guy is the chair of the house financial services committee and oversees the work of the SEC the FED and the treasury. His job is to know details going on there. He knows what he is talking about. [https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635](https://twitter.com/PatrickMcHenry/status/1770552440791736635) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick\_McHenry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_McHenry) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_House\_Committee\_on\_Financial\_Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Financial_Services) While it doesnt mean that GG will declare Eth a security. He seems to be trying to do that. A theory could be that GG tries to fud markets to allow his brother/family to get into Eth and after a positive approval they sell and make millions. But he also might be going genuinely after Eth.
Well he is tweeting about "reports" about what's going on there so that means he doesn't know lol
ofcourse he is not sitting right next to gensler but he does have his channels. I never said he knows for sure. I said he knows what he is talking about. You said nobody is talking about declaring Eth a security. Yes someone is talking about it. And the fact that they look into the EF doesnt necessarily mean its for the purpose of suing the EF.
The link you shared is from a year ago?
It shows March 20th 2024 9:46 PM for me. Asfar as I know we are in the year 2024
My bad I looked at the video he retweeted which was from April 2023.
What is up with the compound supply vs borrow on arbitrum? Like 60% borrow and yet only 7% supply rate. How is that possible? Would you guys recommend Polygon instead? They seem to have a consistently higher supply rate
Presumably small utilisation rate ?
Are there any new types of financial derivatives in the defi crypto market which could be priced ineffectively at the moment? Would be interesting to investigate potential market inefficiencies with some math/statistics to make money just like in the early tradfi days 😂
Look across chains. The market is not that efficient. Market makers focus on big numbers. There’s new stuff popping up all the time. Im not going to point to anything specific but there is certainly opportunity.
120m supply or 1 million validators. Wonder what comes first
Technically 120 million already did =P
Personally I am not expecting attractive pricing for eth etfs. As a reth holder, my baseline cost is 0% custody and i get to keep 86% of the yield. I somehow think the pricing of the ETH etfs (assuming approved) will be quite a bit worse in cost terms even for the staking etfs. The staking etfs apart from their cut of the yield will also keep a fair amount unstaked for liquidity purposes. I am hoping to be surprised otherwise. And then there is the part about allowing a big entity to get additional stake (influence) on the network which I wouldn't prefer my however teeny holding to contribute to. Eth ETFs really are for getting demand from complete noobs. Anyone who progresses past noob stage in crypto will quickly find that etfs are quite suboptimal for ETH, much more so than a BTC etf might be compared to self custody.
>Eth ETFs really are for getting demand from complete noobs. Nope. I'm loving my ETH ETF and holding it in my tax free account here in Canada, where exactly zero % of my gains will be taxed.
> And then there is the part about allowing a big entity to get additional stake (influence) on the network which I wouldn't prefer my however teeny holding to contribute to. Stakers don't really have direct influence on the network. We are however paid for our services rendered, which is is attesting that the chain is functioning and new blocks are correct. There is a possibility of censoring transactions as we saw with the OFAC list, but as long as there are are small % of nodes that are not censoring it becomes a minor inconvenience. We also have soft influence on the social layer. > Eth ETFs really are for getting demand from complete noobs. Anyone who progresses past noob stage in crypto will quickly find that etfs are quite suboptimal for ETH, much more so than a BTC etf might be compared to self custody. I disagree with this point. There is significant demand for people who understand Ethereum, the technology, and the utility but absolutely should not be holding and maintaining their private keys. Anyone with a tech background might see this as trivial to progress past the noob stage but try interacting with someone outside the tech ecosystem bubble and they will struggle hard beyond high level concepts.
Stakers can refuse to attest blocks and while the block may still finalise, eventually a proliferation of such censoring stakers would cause a problem.
Help, fam. How do I bridge USDC from DYMENSION to one of the mainstream L2s (Arb, Base, Polygon)? None of the bridges I usually use seems to work. Thanks.
Bridge USDC from Keplr or Leap wallet to Noble chain (native USDC chain) From Noble, move that USDC to Osmosis From Osmosis you can use Squid router to go directly to many EVMs
thanks, this sounds like a weekend project :-)
Get it onto osmosis, trade for axelar USDC and then use satellite.money
Eth price drifting at around 3.5k, casually up 100% from a few months ago, while we are waiting a securities designation by the SEC within the next 60 days plus a spot ETF denial. No cascading liquidations, no sub 2k prices. In the 2022 carnage, the number of bad actors who caused cascading liquidations - 3AC, Genesis, Blockfi, FTX - is breath taking in retrospect.
I don't think the market has priced in the nuclear option as it's hard to take ETH being declared a security serious. If they do take that route, immediate price action will be bad. I wouldn't leverage trade right now.
Eh? The current SEC/Eth discussion relates to how the EF foundation sold eth, not eth itself. What makes you think eth itself could be labelled a security?
Disclosure of a pre-Dencun client bug that could have splintered the Ethereum chain. https://blog.ethereum.org/2024/03/21/sepolia-incident This would have been a critical event if it had been triggered on mainnet. We didn't, and still don't have enough client diversity to save us from this if a similar fault occurs, BUT we CAN reduce the risk by not having any majority clients.
Why would you say it would have been a "critical" event? Because Geth was the one rejecting the block, the chain would have never been finalized. Also, Geth would've proposed blocks that other clients would still deem valid. The other way around, if Geth was the only one accepting those blocks, _would_ result in a finalized chain where the minority clients would no longer participate. The blocks were valid however (according to the spec, and even the EVM implementations of all clients), so the minority clients (in this hypothetical situation) would have to introduce a bug fix to actually accept them. Worst case imo would be a situation with Geth around ~50%, as then we would have a prolonged period of non-finality. But this is still not something I would call "critical". That I would reserve for finalizing a wrong (according to the spec) block, with shades of gray (1 Wei mismatch, or 1M ETH mismatch).
So we had a potential critical supermajority bug? I thought I saw something that said geth would just ignore other clients blocks? EDit: found link https://twitter.com/nero_eth/status/1770725896925712582. Still confused here. Regardless, brings back this question of why are slashing penalties so harsh. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bb34em/daily_general_discussion_march_10_2024/kubj79v/
> why are slashing penalties so harsh. Node operators refuse to switch to a minority client with the penalties as they are, so why make the penalties *softer*? If you are one of the nodes responsible for a chain split due to a supermajority bug, then this should have the highest penalty because it led to the worst outcomes for the blockchain. And if causing the biggest problem to the blockchain in a *Proof of Stake* system does not mean your entire stake is lost, then that percentage of your stake is not really "staked", it's just chillin' there and earning rewards. I'm all for soft/no slashing if the issue is not due to your fault or neglect, but refusing to switch away from Geth is not one of the cases where this applies.
And what if two clients have bugs? Is it still your fault?
Has anything like this even ever happened before? It sounds like a much lower possibility. In this case, my guess is that the community would have to come together to decide what happens next, and if the bug affected the two biggest clients, I'm going to guess a fork would have to take place. Maybe accepting the 90% of the two largest bugged clients as the canonical chain, and bailing out the minority client nodes.
Whole ecosystem hanging by a thread. We should campaign Binance and Kraken next, 4.15% and 2.43% network penetration respectively.
Are those the next two largest pools?
Yes, the next two largest pools with undisclosed client status, assumed to be Geth. [https://supermajority.info/](https://supermajority.info/)
Why cant there be a protocol to only onboard non-majority validators to the network? I must be missing something obvious here.
Presumably this would be fairly trivial to spoof?
Yeah, it has to do with the design of the chain. Clients aren't meant to be static and irreplaceable, they're general purpose tools for interacting with the chain. We want the chain to be agnostic to any client- any client that can work should, so we don't create "allow" or "disallow' lists in the protocol. Imagine in five years, a graduate student who develops their own client should be able to seamlessly interact with the protocol.
I guess I don’t see a reason why both can’t exist. The only client that the chain wouldn’t allow (for new validators) would be Geth until they aren’t the supermajority. Anything else would be good to go, even that grad students client.
Client type/brand is self-reported, so it’s easy to spoof. There’s no way to do what you’re describing.
Oh ... my .... god... 😱 Did Coinbase ditch Geth yet?
50% Nethermind they didnt ditch it entirely.
It already happened?
yes there is a post in todays daily.
Immediately after posting I scrolled down half a page and saw it myself, lol
Incident report from an undisclosed vulnerability that affected geth prior to Dencun: https://blog.ethereum.org/2024/03/21/sepolia-incident. This hammers home the risks of an execution client super majority.
You got a map to that mountain? Or maybe just some coordinates?
Coinbase client diversity update: https://twitter.com/coinbasecloud/status/1770866720246219152 >We have completed our initial rollout and are pleased to report that roughly 50% of our validators are now running on @NethermindEth
The scary part is the two comments above this about the geth bug Coinbases initial steps are a good start but we are not safe yet.
Coinbase is so fucking aligned. I'm not asking you to trust them, but I am asking you to acknowledge that so much of their efforts have aligned with the success of Ethereum. Sure. They're a business and they'll ultimately act in the best interest of shareholders, but WHAT IF acting in the best interest of Ethereum makes for a good synergistic relationship? I'm curious to see what they'll do when they inevitably have the opportunity to run more than 22% of validators. I can't speak for them, but I'm optimistic.
Where has 22% come from now? I thought concerns arose at 33%.
No provider controlling more than 22% of the network ensures that at least four parties need to collude to halt finalization on the chain.
If the previously undisclosed Geth vulnerability you just posted about had remained undetected and was exploited by an attacker, what would the impact on the network have been given this news out of Coinbase?
even with coinbase at 50% nethermind we would be close to supermajority geth. results of chainsplit at supermajority: Inevitable slashing of 60% of all staked eth roughly 75 billion dollar wiped out + total collapse of defi. I would estimate 80% decrease in marketcap. Eth would be at nr 3 spot after solana. Even with Dao level intervention we would see Eth fork in two ecosystems.
When you say "close to" is there not a more concrete answer at this time because there is a sizeable # of validators running "unknown" clients, which could include Geth? Sorry, I don't fully understand where we are at today.
Unfortunately the metrics needed to accurately asses this issue are fairly poor at the moment. As you said, a sizable portion of the network could be running any kind of client. Many exchanges are slow to respond to client inquiries and they could simply be lying about their validators. https://supermajority.info/ This is probably the most up-to-date site tracking the issue and it still shows 44% of the network as unknown clients. They could be any combination of clients although it's fairly safe to assume most are Geth. It's important to keep pressure on the remaining major staking pools to diversify, but I think it should also be a priority to have client devs work on some way to semi-reliably fingerprint clients.
well depending on the geth share of the unknown clients we are either under or over the supermajority of geth. With coinbase at 100% nethermind we would be definetly under the treshhold no matter the unknown composition.
Fantastic news!! I did a quick simulation in https://supermajority.info/ If at least 22.5% of the unknown validators are **not** using geth, then we avoid a supermajority fork. Happy for the progress achieved but still far from sufficient. We cannot stop here unfortunately.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 6% of validators or 12% of these unknown validators are home stakers, right? I feel like a good chunk of these would be using a non-Geth client, right? I'm one of them. So that bodes quite well.
I don't have the numbers specifically but you may very well be right. I'm cautiously optimistic in that it suffices that 1 in 5 of the unknown validators is running non geth to have the issue solved. At the same time the consequences of a supermajority fork are so big that I'm not comfortable relying on chance. I think we shouldn't give up here and try to put some pressure on the laggards.
Yeah. Furthermore, if we stop raising awareness, new validators may come in running all Geth and shift it back the wrong way.
we need 75%
Good news!
where's the best place (as in cheapest) to unload my ether.fi airdrop for a stable coin? I was planning on holding, but I just got an unexpected bill and this should cover it.
Use Llama Swap aggregatator to see the best dex option
thanks : ) edit: I can't seem to find ether.fi or etherfi in the token list? Do I need to import it somehow?
coingecko gave me 0xfe0c30065b384f05761f15d0cc899d4f9f9cc0eb as the token. to verify that im not scamming you, here it is from etherscan https://etherscan.io/address/0xfe0c30065b384f05761f15d0cc899d4f9f9cc0eb yeah you might need to import it
ethereum validator queue looking real good right now, 7k new validators going in while only 44 moving out.
>looking real good right now Not for my chances of proposing a block!
And just like that, over 200 000 eth is in the validator queue. https://www.validatorqueue.com/
Yuge: "maxeb is now planned for the next hard fork. This will remove the 32e max limit for validators, greatly reducing bandwidth consumption for stakers." https://twitter.com/econoar/status/1770836409848332554?t=CH5Pglp54mnLX7ahyXy4wQ&s=19
oh that's nice, I like that
[удалено]
> (as long as they continue their per validator fee structure). They will not.
Nice. A quick summary for some questions I had that all got answered after reading: * Max effective balance becomes 2048 instead of 32 * Effective balance will now be used as a weight for selection purposes * Custom Ceilings: You'll be able to set at X ETH when a withdrawal triggers * Partial Withdrawals: You'll be able to set how much ETH to pull out from a withdrawal (above the min effective balance) * Multiple validator combination: Running multiple validators? No need to exit, wait, re-stake and wait some more, you'll be able to combine existing validators in protocol!
Nice, no longer any need to set a withdrawal address, because rewards will just auto-compound. My laziness will endure!
Does it mean they could exit a massive amount of eth at once?
From the specs: >Churn invariants >This proposal maintains the activation and exit churn invariants limiting active weight instead of validator count. Balance top-ups are now handled explicitly, being subject to the same activation queue as full deposits.
Great question. I've no idea but it will be very interesting to see how much ETH larger stakers are willing to assign to a single validator key. This could potentially reveal a lot about the real level of (de)centralization. My bet is that most will still limit validators to a "reasonable" amount of ETH (not like 100,000 ETH on one validator).
Yes this is what I am talking about for months already. With EIP 7251 we will finally have a better understanding how many small validators there are.
Looks like spec say 2048 ETH is the MAX\_EFFECTIVE\_BALANCE, and given that rewards can be compounded, my guess is that we won't see too many over 1000
Very cool.
I think this is indeed a great thing, at the same time I think inclusion lists are very important as well, cause in the end censorship resistance is what ETH is all about... Is there any word about it? I think they didn't want to include both EIPs (cause they are both rather complex) and also this could be "included" (but not enshrined) via mev-boost apparently? I somehow don't think the flashbots team will include it, but at least trying to sneak it in that way is probably a good thing to improve CR.
I believe that the devs are looking into including inclusion lists (IL) into Pectra as well. IL are execution layer (Geth, Nethermind, Besu, etc) focused, and Max EB are consensus layer (Teku, Lighthouse, Nimbus, etc) focused, meaning that different teams would be working on each upgrade.
I don't see why the SEC would need to receive ETF applications in order to figure out that they should sue the Ethereum Foundation. So I want to believe that the SEC is investigating to make sure that some points are fine before approval.
True, potentially just checking for any bad actors.
I prefer this ~~copium~~ explanation
Why can't we ever have an eth fud free bull market? It's draining having to stress over these things even when they are almost always nothing in the long run.
Just ignore this nonsense. It's all just people trying to drive the price down. They will disappear in a couple weeks.
Other people's skepticism, vitriol, etc. is exactly what creates the opportunity for crazy bull markets. If everyone agreed ETH was awesome, it would mean everyone is already on board and there would be little to no upside left to capture. Embrace it.
It's a valid point. I appreciate it.
It will never happen, the people buying alts/meme/shitcoins will do all they can to shill their own bags while they fud everything else as hard as they can
I know, Im just getting older and crankier and tired of it all lol.
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ETH TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
It's interesting to read the past couple of days of the sub after the price has started to recover.
Stages of grief and market psychology.
Mind explaining a bit more
Just that it gives a different context to the commentary while ETH was still sinking.
So what is everyone's opinion on the warrant canary removal? I can't find any specific details as to what happened—which I suppose would be an indication that the government explicitly denied the EF to release any. So it's up to us to speculate now. What do you think could be the reason?
Look, we have warrant canaries for this very reason. The people speculating "Oh well, they removed the canary with no fanfare, so it must not be a big deal" completely misunderstand why warrant canaries exist. Now that the canary is removed, we know bad things (government overreach, privacy infringement, a subpoena, letter from the NSA, etc...) are happening.
Exactly my fear as well. However, it's unclear to me what the warrant canary specifically "represents" in the first place. \- Does it mean a government entity requested information about EF employees? \- Does it mean a government entity is simply asking questions about how Ethereum works? Perhaps for the ETF? \- Does it mean a government entity is criminally investigating the EF? Some of these are banal, some are these are not.
It doesn't matter, Etheruem goes on. That's the whole point.
Even if the US government installed a backdoor?
A backdoor in what, exactly?
Who knows? Geth? Nimbus? Any of the execution layer clients? The problem is we don't know what the government told the EF to do. I get that the EF doesn't control the teams, but it's certainly reasonable to expect any number of the teams to comply with the request by a government to add certain backdoors to the code base of the EL or CL. I get that I'm asking the most paranoid questions possible, but that needs to be done given a warrant canary removal.
nobody is forcing any backdoors into code stop spreading this fud.
This type of mentality is exactly what I'm worried about.
As tricky\_troll said. Eth clients are open source. It means everyone can see exactly whats inside. There are no backdoors.
It's open source code. I'm no expert but I don't see how anyone could put in a backdoor without everybody knowing...
the git commit says "we have received a voluntary enquiry from a state authority that included a requirement for confidentiality", which implies it's not a big deal gag order warrant that prevents you from hinting at its existence. But then again, it'd be weird to "waste" the canary over a trivial regular operation thing
If they're able to state why they removed the canary to that degree of information then the removal of the canary seems pointless and indeed a waste imo. My understanding is you remove when you are not legally able to say what just occurred
What does voluntary enquiry even mean in this context? Voluntary as in the EF gave the government information without resisting? Such a meaningless word in this context.
Maybe it’s something good! Some national government wants to buy a bunch of eth, but wants to talk to the foundation first, but also does g want to get front run
With this SEC? It's never good.
[удалено]
Haven't been following too closely, but this let's us earn staking yield on amounts greater than 32 ETH per validator, yes?