_weidai

If an L1 enforces censorship after a large hack, then why not go all the way to implement in-protocol mechanisms to enforce social consensus so that any consensus hack can be reverted?

In the end-state a chain is either a neutral base layer or a social consensus engine.

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.)