The earnETH vault is live on Jumper. Your ETH, working, powered by @LidoFinance. Start earning: jumper.xyz/earn/lido-earneth…

🇩🇪 It's not finalized yet but a new German crypto law draft seems to force CEXes to withhold taxes on every sale unless the user can prove cost basis (TBD how). Say you sell 1 ETH for €2k . They withold 26.375% (25% Abgeltungsteuer + solz) × €1k = €263.75 You get €1736.25

I want to close my chapter, for now, on the EIP-8363 analysis. After having a few more calls with people who are for- and against- issuance reduction (stakers, founders, DeFi people, and regular Ethereum holders) - here is a subjective view on the matter. I think it has some new aspects I didn't see much of before (💡) - TLDR 1: I don't think this should go through right now. The proposal is raw and the arguments are still weak. It's weird to say this because it has been in the works for five years on and off, but it still doesn't make sense. I respect the authors who put time and effort into this, but after looking into it and having so many conversations across the space - it doesn't check out. - TLDR 2: Neither side should be talking about anyone being "captured." You cannot say that core devs living and breathing the network are captured. No, they care about it and are involved. That is good! Similarly, you cannot say DeFi founders or the staking companies are captured. These people own the asset and are economically interested in having it grow. We have to put those arguments aside - it is just cheap talk. - TLDR 3: Regarding the process: whether now or later, issuance policy shouldn't just go through a normal network upgrade process. It's not just about repricing or a minor technical tweak; this is way too big to be considered in that fashion. Maybe it could work within the existing process, but only if the opinions of founders and other stakeholders were respected a bit more, rather than just discarding them all as being captured. Now to the arguments 🦞 I haven't really strayed from what I wrote a few weeks ago (tweet below). As a shorter summary, the argument for reduction falls through three main holes. 1. First, there is this allegiance to a "no inflation" economy perception: the idea that inflation is inherently bad, that (over)paying for something is bad, and that there is just too much of something. That mindset is not correct. In the modern economic world, since we stopped making money only from growing potatoes, it doesn't make sense. The belief that this will somehow make the Ethereum price moon, or that there is too much ETH being dumped on the market, is nonsense. It's one of the least inflating assets. 💡 You have to consider your broader goals. Your issuance strategy should reflect your general adoption strategy. If you think ETH is just an asset, money, a unit of account, or whatever narrative you want to come up with - like the "pet rock" meme Bitcoin style - fine. It's not bad, and it's okay to say that. But then the general adoption strategy should reflect it. It should just be marketing a hard asset, not worry about devs, open-source or anything creative. It's just digital gold, go to hard money conferences and enjoy. However, if you see Ethereum as a World Computer, as a way to build different use cases, as an "infinite garden" for lack of a better phrase, as a platform - then there is no point in cutting the issuance. Currently, issuance creates different opportunities and products on this platform. EVEN IF you think it's a subsidy, then what? Platforms have subsidies. Why tamper with it if you have no definite alternative. These subsidies worked, they continue working and getting attention, and the platform is winning as a result of that (adoption, liquidity, trust, security, etc.) If you offboard one big user segment from your marketplace, what's your alternative? Because you are then killing some of the plants in your garden that you've previously incentivized. It's not a weed, and presenting it as a weed is incorrect because nothing shows that's the case. 2. Second, the argument falls through on all the talk about the staking ratio, staking centralization, supply capture, solo stakers, inability to pass slashing, and so on. These are generally good discussions to have, but the suggested proposal does not fix those 🚫 💡 Take the part about slashing and forks, for example. All of these fancy ideas of how staker behavior is going to play out aren't really realistic. Nobody writes about which network - in terms of a slashing event or a fork - USDC, USDT, and centralized issuers would actually consider and back. Important factors affecting network resilience should be solved, but this proposal does not solve them. It does not improve conditions for solo stakers. The argument that the staking distribution will get worse if we continue - is also unproven. There is no proper distinction made between "good" LSTs and "bad" LSTs (if you want to think this way). If you believe that Binance and Coinbase staking shouldn't be increasing as much, that's a different discussion. A blanket cut wouldn't kill them as much as it would kill some LSTs that are actually favorable to the development of the core network. I'm not against an issuance reduction as a move potentially; I'm against how it is being argued, and that it's being argued in a weak way . 3. Third, the mechanics of yield are now being accepted as an asset in DeFi protocols (stETH over raw ETH, for example). These are interesting opportunities to consider, but thinking you can mess with this in isolation while killing what exists now isn't cool. Having Ethereum's economic policy be more set in stone is far more important to current participants than just trying out stuff by breaking an ecosystem that exists today. 💡 If institutions and such players appreciate ETH as an asset and engage with real use cases, do not stop them by trying to hypothetically make other use cases possible. They appreciate the current staking rate and have built strategies around it. If the proposal would solve security or network resilience while causing some pain in the short term, that would be acceptable. But as I've established, the arguments presented are weak and in many cases incorrect, so it doesn't even solve the purpose. ----- You have to decide what you actually want to happen: - Do you want to play trader and mess around with the ETH price by thinking less inflation is better - Or do you want to solve network resilience and make it uncapturable? You have to answer one of these questions. Right now, they are all packaged together. As a result, it's a mess, because it's not solving a problem that is explained - or it's solving a problem that is not proven to exist. Sorry 8363, but hope no.

New earning opportunity: Earn ETH and USD with @LidoFinance Earn vaults on Jumper. 100% DeFi. 0% Complexity.

Neutrl continues to be paused while we work through a complex situation. Our priority is to work toward the best possible outcome for users. We are currently assessing the available reserves and developing a plan for an orderly process. We will provide further information on next steps as soon as they are determined. We are not going anywhere, and we're committed to working through this responsibly and returning as much value as possible to users. Please rely only on announcements from Neutrl's official accounts and remain vigilant against malicious actors, impersonation, and phishing attempts. Official community channels have been set to read-only while we continue to publish updates through these accounts.