It is a difficult, thorny issue that provokes strong emotions for good reason. Let us get the obvious out of the way: it is likely the most profitable move to jump ship from ETH to a series of generically-designed centralised VC-vested L1s as they pump, before returning to ETH
once Vitalik, Arbitrum, et al. figure out how to really fix the gas issues with ZKRPs etc (a huge simplification of the process, but broadly true). Since we are all homo economicus, profit-maximising individuals, we should all do this. However, this is where things fall apart.
If each of us independently chases VC-pumped L1s, we are harming ETH. The Ethereum maximalist, for all his flaws, generally understands that what elevates ETH above its competitors is its commitment to decentralisation. It's a rare beast; a philosophical idea come to fruition.
But it is an idea that depends on a fair amount of cooperation amongst its adherents; to continue to use and believe in ETH through its massive teething problems (which were inevitable; no-one has ever overcome the trilemma before). So ETH maxis are picking up on something here:
When an individual defects in a Prisoner's Dilemma, it is best for him, but if everyone defects, it's worst for all of us. When one of us chases L1s, it's best for him. When none of us commit to ETH, we get the worst outcome: the CBDC/centralised chain world. No decentralization.
Philosophical principles are often held unknowingly and in the abstract, but people draw on them all the same, even if they don't quite know they're doing it. ETH maxis are aware in a gestalt sense that some tacit agreement is being violated, but they don't quite know how to
formalise that intuition, how to argue that if ever individual maximises their own profit curve, we all end up much worse. The invisible hand isn't infallible, Smith was wrong: cooperation and altruism is sometimes necessary. What the ETH/AVAX debate boils down to isn't really
fundamentals: it's a question of how far the sovereign individual should be allowed to go to maximise profit in light of the fact that everyone mindlessly doing that impoverishes all of us, while enriching Zuck and the WEF. That's a difficult tension to resolve. Maybe impossible.
But if there is something we can agree on, it's that Zuck and 3AC are rich enough. A priori skepticism towards institutions like Facebook, 3AC and VC funds is justified given their prior exploitative behaviour. Let them prove their commitment to decentralisation, or perish. #ETH
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@cyounessi1 It is a difficult, thorny issue that provokes strong emotions for good reason. Let us get the obvious out of the way: it is likely the most profitable move to jump ship from ETH to a series of generically-designed centralised VC-vested L1s as they pump, before returning to ETH
@cyounessi1 once Vitalik, Arbitrum, et al. figure out how to really fix the gas issues with ZKRPs etc (a huge simplification of the process, but broadly true). Since we are all homo economicus, profit-maximising individuals, we should all do this. However, this is where things fall apart.
@cyounessi1 If each of us independently chases VC-pumped L1s, we are harming ETH. The Ethereum maximalist, for all his flaws, generally understands that what elevates ETH above its competitors is its commitment to decentralisation. It's a rare beast; a philosophical idea come to fruition.
Venture capitalism frequently amounts to a concealed form of rent-seeking. Bootstrapping is difficult because of early bottlenecks that require capital to be overcome; VCs provide that capital, but frequently onboard perverse incentives like quarterly growth and vested dumping.
The solution to the problem of bootstrapping is already here: it's token effects. We just haven't properly conceptualised it. With the incentive to use projects early in order to receive airdrops, and with the capacity of airdrops to provide a vital influx of capital early in the
project's life, VCs are simply no longer needed. The best amongst them will survive, like a16z, because they provide things other than capital (mentorship) without the perverse incentives, but the industry at large will be forced to consolidate. As they should.
And the first significant #WolfGame exploit is found. We knew this was coming; unaudited contract + relatively complex mechanism is a recipe for bot-oriented exploits. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't matter too much, and in fact ended up causing a supply shock because of
the dev pausing wolf minting. On an abstract level, this is an interesting concept: solutions to exploits that actually cause NFT/on-chain item to appreciate, not depreciate. I imagine that as time goes on, holders will grow increasingly hostile to any dev response to exploits
that harms the asset's holder, as there are many devs who'll find creative solutions to problems that don't harm the community. As w/ all things in crypto, low-quality middlemen will be erased; we know how this applies to banks etc, but it also applies to devs and the supply side