Thread by @semajeth

@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.

@cyounessi1 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:

@cyounessi1 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.

@cyounessi1 Philosophical principles are often held unknowingly, 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

@cyounessi1 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

@cyounessi1 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.

@cyounessi1 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