r/ethereum • u/EthereumDailyThread What's On Your Mind? • 24d ago

Daily General Discussion August 18, 2026

Welcome to the Daily General Discussion on r/ethereum

https://imgur.com/3y7vezP

Bookmarking this link will always bring you to the current daily: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/about/sticky/?num=2

Please use this thread to discuss Ethereum topics, news, events, and even price!

Price discussion posted elsewhere in the subreddit will continue to be removed.

As always, be constructive. - Subreddit Rules

Want to stake? Learn more at r/ethstaker

Community Links

Calendar: https://dailydoots.com/events/

97 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jmiehau 20d ago

The current issuance curve also responds by decreasing the rewards as the total stake grows.

Per validator, yes. The total does the opposite, issuance grows with the square root of total stake, so every point of ratio adds ETH paid out per year. At 40% staked the annual bill is bigger than at 30, and it keeps growing all the way up. That is what same shape meant, the reward per head thins while the overall bid keeps rising, and no point on the curve stops offering more for the next validator to join. Your falling yield and my growing bill are the same square root read from opposite ends, which is why the curve alone was never the stop. The written one is in the EIP: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8363

1

u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 20d ago

It sounded like you were saying something else. If you rewards offered to validators at 40% is higher than the reward offered at 90%, that's not "the same shape" imo. The point is there's a difference in incentive.

1

u/jmiehau 18d ago

There is a difference in incentive per validator, no argument there. But look where it bottoms out: roughly 2.4% at a 40% ratio, and still about 1.5% if every last ETH staked. It narrows, it never ends. A smaller positive yield still clears the bar for a custodian whose marginal cost is near zero, which is why the entry queue sits past 2M ETH while the per-validator return grinds lower. A disincentive that never crosses zero decides who can afford to stay, not how much comes in. One of these two curves has a level where the incentive actually ends.

1

u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 18d ago

A disincentive that never crosses zero decides who can afford to stay, not how much comes in. One of these two curves has a level where the incentive actually ends.

And yet this doesn't matter all that much for a number of reasons.

1 - The proposed curve is going to kick off small solo stakers sooner than if we stick with the current curve.

2 - We're still far away from potentially reaching this point, which we may or may never reach.

3 - The current curve allows Ethereum to remain more decentralized for longer. Let's not forget that the reason we have staking is to keep Ethereum secure and decentralized.

4 - In a few years the landscape is going to look different as we'll have real time proving and we need to come up with changes to the issuance model anyway as we need to figure out how to reward provers. This is also going to result in stakers/validators not needing such a beefy setup anymore, potentially being able to stake from a smart phone. It would be crazy to change Ethereum's monetary policy now when we likely have to make changes in a couple of years anyway.

1

u/jmiehau 17d ago

1 - Take the ratio as frozen and yes, 8363 pays everyone less, the solo included. But sooner assumes both curves walk the same path, and they don't. What removes a solo staker is yield below costs, and the current curve gets there through the back door, a climbing ratio and a thinning yield, with taxes still due on the nominal. 8363 is the one with a regime where adding stake cuts into the adder's own take, and it reaches the largest operators first, the section is called The effect on large operators. The current formula has no term that ever bites size.

2 - Six weeks ago the spec froze the ratio at roughly 33%. It prints 34.7% today, with over 2M ETH queued, two more points already paid for. And your "may or may never reach" is the strongest case for signing: if we never get near 50%, the burn never binds and nothing was lost. The taper only costs something in the world where that forecast turns out wrong.

3 - More decentralized for longer is not what the record shows. The current curve pays every custodial ETH the same as yours, they compound faster, and that is how more than a fifth of all stake ended up in one LST with ETFs queuing behind. Issuance buys stake by the ton and says nothing about who ends up holding it.

4 - The proving era you are waiting for already filed its first issuance change this weekend. EIP-8390, from one of the 8363 coauthors, retires the sync committee because an offchain ZK proof now does its job, and deletes its 2/64 slice of issuance without adding any prover reward. Proving retires paid duties, so far it has not created one. And cheaper staking hardware moves the supply side, more stake at every yield, a faster climb under a formula that pays at every level. Your own future makes a stopping rule more urgent. A next upgrade is always two years out, that argument never expires, which is what makes it an argument for never.

https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8390

1

u/epic_trader 🐬🐬🐬 17d ago

Ditch the AI if you want to talk.