131–137 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone has a mutual interest in not destroying the world we live on. A fraction of a percent of the population cares about Etherum's impact on the way they already conduct business.
> Everyone has a mutual interest in not destroying the world we live on I don't know in which world you live in, but from where I'm sitting, it sure as hell doesn't look like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I understand, without any work (energy consumption) that is directly tied to the value of the asset, there's no argument left for it to be a currency, i.e. it can only be categorised as a security asset.
Buying Eth: No investment in a common enterprise, no expectation of profit nor is that non-profit derived from others. Not a security. Staking Eth: Investment in common enterprise, expectation of profit and profit derived from others. Looks and quacks like a security. Buying and holding Eth without staking it shouldn't be considered a security, while staking said Eth should be considered a security. At least if we're…
A different thing is what happens with a liquid staking token like stETH, a much better argument can be made that it quacks and walks like a security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can be both positive about the benefit that this move brings, yet deeply negative about the overall value of crypto.
Perhaps that nuance is achievable, but I have seen none of that here. That said, I fundamentally disagree that crypto is "overall negative", and with the move to PoS the largest negative aspect of crytpo (the environmental cost of PoW) goes away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoW is those with the most wealth can determine what the truth is.
No, in PoW those with the most hashrate determine what the order of transactions is. Most of the world's computing power is in personal computers, so it is at least somewhat fairly distributed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. This is a triumph and the entire open source community should be celebrating
Disagree. This is a centralized project forcing a set of breaking consensus rule changes on users. Literally "upgrade your software or your money is gone" Bitcoin has hard guarantees of user rights. Ethereum is a centralized project masquerading as decentralized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buying Eth: No investment in a common enterprise, no expectation of profit nor is that non-profit derived from others. Not a security. Staking Eth: Investment in common enterprise, expectation of profit and profit derived from others. Looks and quacks like a security. Buying and holding Eth without staking it shouldn't be considered a security, while staking said Eth should be considered a security. At least if we're…
Staked ETH derives profit from your own effort. You have to buy equipment (consumer-grade computer), pay for internet and energy costs to have it plugged and put your own effort in maintaining it online, operational and secure. This is basically a side-job for techies but a side-job in the end. Staked ETH rewards are thus not passive income and staked ETH is not a security. In a similar manner that rental income is t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Staked ETH derives profit from your own effort. You have to buy equipment (consumer-grade computer), pay for internet and energy costs to have it plugged and put your own effort in maintaining it online, operational and secure. This is basically a side-job for techies but a side-job in the end. Staked ETH rewards are thus not passive income and staked ETH is not a security. In a similar manner that rental income is t…
The profit is to be derived from the efforts of others. People staking at this point are entirely dependent on the Foundation to add the ability to withdraw your staked ETH. Do stakers expect to make a profit if the Foundation doesn't add this feature?
Besides that important clarification, validators are already receiving income for their efforts. The tips and MEV are already flowing to their wallets as we speak, it's only the issuance that is locked. The particular change required to unlock funds is rather trivial and can be implemented on your own even if you wanted to. But doing so without a large consensus of validators would fork you out of the main chain and those unlocked coins could be rather useless, this should show the delicate balance that decentralized consensus involves.