1/ Dankrad: "let's commit to scaling the L1 100x over 4 year | _weidai on Binance Square

Trending Articles

Bookmarked and Liked

--

1/ Dankrad: "let's commit to scaling the L1 100x over 4 years."Vitalik: "let's simplify the L1."
If you had to choose one, which one would you commit to?
These are surprisingly different approaches, in their underlying philosophy: research-led vs. product-led.

Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.

ETH

2,501.02

+0.29%

21

0

Explore the latest crypto news

⚡️ Be a part of the latests discussions in crypto

💬 Interact with your favorite creators

👍 Enjoy content that interests you

Email / Phone number

Relevant Creator

@_weidai

Explore More From Creator

Blob gas price has dropped back to 0 after Pectra. Uber doesn't charge $0 when there are more drivers than riders. Why would Eth charge $0 for a valuable resource? What if EIP1559 is actually terrible for non-congested markets as it was designed for congested ones?

--

Theory crafting: SoV assets need *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it. =========== If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away. But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response. Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero). Compound that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder). =========== In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls. Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it. (All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)

--

Theory crafting: SoV assets require *stability* of their cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it. =========== If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away. But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response. Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero). Compounds that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder). =========== In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls. Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it. (All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)

--

Theory crafting: SoV assets requires *stability* of their cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it. =========== If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away. But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response. Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero). Compounds that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder). =========== In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls. Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it. (All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)

--

It's wild that merchants are still paying ~2-3% from each sale to banks & credit card companies. How come crypto has not won yet in C2B payments? Here're the necessary components: For consumers: token incentives, payment app, tradfi-grade account statements, on-ramp from banks, stablecoin savings with yield For businesses: point-of-sale apps on phones/ipads, stablecoin account with yield, off-ramp to banks, (+ token incentives) Banks & credit card companies bootstrapped this in the 60s/70s, why can't crypto companies do this today?

--

Latest News

BNB Surpasses 650 USDT with a 0.20% Increase in 24 Hours

--

Bitcoin(BTC) Surpasses 107,000 USDT with a 1.50% Increase in 24 Hours

--

Ethereum(ETH) Surpasses 2,500 USDT with a Narrowed 0.65% Decrease in 24 Hours

--

Bitcoin Poised for Record Monthly Close Amid Bull Market Surge

--

SEC Chair Paul Atkins Signals New Approach to Cryptocurrency Regulation

--

Trending Articles

WHY XRP DON'T RISE? 😵‍💫📈💲DONT WORRY ITS A NUCLEAR ⚛️ BOOM

Convince me that Nicolas is not Satoshi Nakamoto From every

Crucial Warning Issued by SHIB Team, Recommendation Follows

$SOL 📊 SOL/USDT Futures – Scalp Trade Setup (15–30 min) Ca

Sheikh Ahmed Mueen

free reward claim👉 [reward claim 😍](https://www.binance.co

crypto_update_6756

Cookie Preferences

Cookie Preferences