eddylazzarin

Inside "decentralization" there are two distinct concepts that are constantly confused, you see and hear this often: diffusion (or being "distributed") and control.

The ideal centralized sequencer is clearly not diffuse, but its operator lacks control. If all it can do is process transactions properly or stop running, we can trust it ("credible neutrality"). This is achieved without diffusion at all.

"Decentralization" in this sense is a means to an end: a system that lacks a single controller that you need to trust.

It's time for crypto move on from the "foundation" model.

@milesjennings explains why it was necessary to have two separate companies when making decentralized projects with network tokens.

But now we can cut complexity and accelerate dev without compromising decentralization.

L1 tokens aren't blockspace. They're:

1: the token you (usually) use to pay for blockspace
2: the token that captures value (via burn) from consumed block space

Blockspace is the "oil" (commodity). The network token is just ownership in the network/marketplace that sells it.

The strongest case so far against DCF for valuing L1s seems to be comparison with bitcoin, which is not a very good argument.

Sprinkling in words like "money" doesn't help much since the word has ~no rigorous meaning in crypto.

Just in time for the REV debate, here's our MEV explainer (link next).

When designing blockchains or apps, it's critical to take MEV into account as way value might be captured — or leaked — from everyone involved.

Bitcoin envy creates some of the absolute worst takes in crypto.

Why are we forcing institutions to collect honeypots of sensitive, slowly-changing personal data?

Every layer of the financial system should exploit every cryptographic tool to minimize data collection.

We have the technology to make radical privacy the default. Let's build it.

Something interesting about this pump: no one’s even inventing a reason. There’s usually at least one popular bogus explanation.