Lots of words & not a lot of substance in that message.
What did they do wrong / what should they have done??
Btw, one thing that ppl miss is they do a lot for institutional adoption, and at this scale, that's the thing that pumps your bags.
They've invested in long-term initiatives like ZK development which in the long term benefits all + valuable things that wouldn't necessarily get easily funded otherwise (public goods). Exactly what they should be doing.
But really, they're a foundation not a company. The CEO paradigm is not even valid.
This is crypto, ser. Ethereum is supposed to be decentralized.
EF doesn't even peep in on e.g. the gas limit, that's up to validators. Historically ACD has been influential in their recommendations.
I'm sure EF could improve but really, they did pretty well.
Of course Ethereum Foundation deserves respect for what they have done and continue doing but why is ETH in the situation now that it needs 5-7 more years of development to come to the target vision and solve current problems?
5-7 years is so much... In most for-profit companies the top-management team would have been fired already.
May be Ethereum Foundation just needs an excellent CEO/COO (not a developer) from some top-tier for-profit company that knows how to deliver fast, optimise costs and can push the team.
Creating an innovation / writing extremely complicated code (ETH earlier) and management of a large corporation (ETH now) require different skills
Ethereum's greatest success, DeFi was achieved in spite of the Ethereum Foundation, not because of it
Читать полностью…It's easy to talk when you can start by copying a winning strategy and improving upon it. PoS vs. PoW was not clearly set out to be a winning formula, but EF navigated it very well and has set a new precedent.
They saw the success of Cosmos and Avalanche due to the flexibility to launch a chain on their protocols. Giants like Luna/Terra were building on top of the infrastructure, so they adapted their roadmap to also allow this higher level of ownership of chains—see L2s.
The psyop operation of Solana to gain mindshare that the L1 should scale massively could have been used by Neo, Eos, Ripple, Bitcoin SV, or any of the older L1s (the level of actual execution of Solana is, of course, superior to any of those). But in the end, it will be better for Solana to become an L2 or incorporate L2s, as you cannot and shouldnt try to optimize for everything.
So I think the vision is clear and on the right track. But it is ambitious and will take many years to come to fruition. Similarly to Bitcoin adopting the "Bitcoin is Gold" narrative, I personally thought that would be the nail in the coffin, but look where we are now. Chill and don’t let CT decide how you should feel or think about stuff.
Have been asking people to only use arbitrum/optimism. Not going to spend 15 dollars to send usdt to someone.
Читать полностью…I like your points but they seem a little utopian.
Main crypto use case is still gambling and partially stablecoins. Ofc we can spend 10 more years of development and billions of dollars and may be it prospers, may be dies.
I just feel that if we want to move from gambling with dramatically volatile cycles (everything to zero <-> everything to moon) we need to make a step forward by changing the approach to a more optimised one.
If we talk about ETH price (aka futarchy), ETH significantly underperformed its competitors this cycle so people have voted, haven’t they?
Ps I like ethereum and respect all builders there
Foundation:
- Funded half the initial DeFi research;
- Organises Devcon;
- Successfully transitioned Ethereum from PoW to PoS
every single crypto foundation has 1 thing in common and its selling the native token to fund its operations
Читать полностью…