Bankless - The EIP That Destroys DeFi | Stani Kulechov & Mike Silagadze

Episode Date: August 10, 2026

Ethereum’s latest staking proposal is sparking backlash across DeFi. Aave founder Stani Kulechov and EtherFi CEO Mike Silagadze join David to break down why stake tapering could push ETH yield toward zero, weaken solo staking, drive capital out of DeFi, and make ETH less attractive to institutions. They debate Ethereum’s monetary policy, whether the network is overpaying for security, and why trying to make ETH more like Bitcoin could undermine what makes Ethereum valuable in the first place. Subscribe for more conversations from the frontier of crypto. --- 📣SPOTIFY PREMIUM RSS FEED | USE CODE: SPOTIFY24 https://bankless.cc/spotify-premium --- BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🔓NEAR | TRADE CONFIDENTIALLY, GET 20% BACK https://bankless.cc/near-pod 🔑BITKEY | GET 10% OFF USE CODE: BANKLESS | #bitkeypartner https://bankless.cc/bitkey ✈️COINBASE ONE CARD | EARN 5% BACK IN BITCOIN https://bankless.cc/coinbase-one-card 📊BITGET | TOKENIZED STOCKS 2.0 https://bankless.cc/bitget-stocks 🎯THE DEFI REPORT | ONCHAIN INSIGHTS https://thedefireport.io/bankless --- TIMESTAMPS Intro 0:00  0:09 Ethereum’s Staking Debate 2:41 Stani’s First Reaction 7:48 Mike’s Centralization Concerns 14:37 DeFi Under Pressure 17:15 Stani on Yield and Cash Flow 24:54 The Case for Vanilla Ether 27:20 Mike Pushes Back 34:27 Issuance and Monetary Policy 35:16 Minimum Viable Issuance 40:47 Institutions Need Predictability 46:10 Conservative Yield, Not Zero 47:46 Legitimacy and Process 52:54 Final Verdict on the EIP --- RESOURCES Stani Kulechov https://x.com/StaniKulechov Mike Silagadze https://x.com/MikeSilagadze --- Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here: https://www.bankless.com/disclosures

Bankless Nation, there is a new EIP in Ethereum land that has caused much gnashing of teeth to help me go through some of the news and get some of the reactions. I've got Stani from Avey and Mike from Etherfi. Stani, Mike, welcome back to Bankless to you both. Thanks for having. So stake targeting is the EIP, stake tapering. This is around ETH issuance. So it's an ETH monetary policy debate.

There is a proposal out there from six Ethereum researchers and developers over in EF land, the ivory tower of the EF, and the concern in this EIP, the problem that this EIP is trying to address is that there is no constraint on the amount of ether that will be staked to Ethereum.

So the idea is that there's no cap on the incentive to stake more ETH. Right now, there is about 34% of all ETH is staked, and the worry that this EIP has is that that will slowly mark increasingly close to 100%, because there's no reason for it not to. There is more ether issued in sum in total,

the more eth is staked to Ethereum. And the concern here is that with that vanilla ether in the Ethereum financial ecosystem, the defy ecosystem, slowly gets replaced by staked eth derivatives. Things like staked eth from Lido, Reth from Rocket Pool, or with Mike, we have ether,

staked eth derivative as well. So there's no ether, vanilla ether, as we know, it disappears and turns into the derivatives and the researchers are concerned about that being the dominant equilibrium inside of the Ethereum ecosystem. Another concern that this EIP has is that Ethereum is overpaying for security.

We simply don't need 100% of ETH staked or even more than 50%. Something around 30 to 40% of ETH staked to Ethereum provides ample security, according to the opinions of these researchers. This proposal was introduced last week. Everyone hates it. I would say everyone outside of the EF does not like this EIP.

Even people inside of the EF. Yeah, even some people inside of the EF. Yeah. Yeah. And so that's why I have Stani from Avey and Mike from Etherfi here on the show to get some of their reactions and to elevate their voices about the problems that this EIP creates, for them and for the broader

defy and builder ecosystem. Maybe Stani, I'll just go with you since AVE came before etherfi. Stani, what was your reaction upon seeing this proposal out of the EF? Look, I think it's a, you know, it is an interesting topic to evaluate. And, you know, if you asked the question of

whether we're basically paying, are we paying sufficient, sufficiently overpaying for security, and I think that's a really legitimate question to ask. That is for sure. I think that Ethereum has been built on security and also on the idea that you have a resilient network, an ecosystem, and anyone who is a builder, for example,

like me and Mike, are choosing Ethereum because of that security and what it provides essentially. And that is the sort of like a core value proposition. So paying for security is big part of that. I think that the real sort of like objective of this proposal is basically somehow to affect the Ethereum, the ETH price and get it up. So I know we're in a quite of like bearish, markets and being for a while.

So in this kind of a situation, we see various proposals and ideas floating around about, you know, how do we get the eat price off? And this is this proposal, while it's sort of things like, while the mechanisms are around that it's staking and whether it should be capped,

and the issuance, particularly on the staking and reducing the yields that stakers are getting, and that way influence that there is less issuance and better pricing, better appealing, better appeal for Ethereum as an asset. And I think that what are the actual consequences of the proposal aren't actually achieving that. First of all, it really destroys the concept of solo staking

because it reduces the cash flows for solo stakers creates also very unpredictable tax consequences. So, you know, the question is then if someone gets a $500 bill for staking, they can even go into negative as well. So it really reduces the opportunity to come as a solo staker. And then the second biggest issue there is the institutional side. So obviously, institutions want predictability. They want a cash flow component, especially when they're building

financial products and distribution. And this is one of the key areas why a lot of institutions come in because they have this component there. And third, very important is DFI. So Ethereum is built on DFI rails, whether EF wants to acknowledge that now or never, that is the real fact.

Everything that is on Ethereum that is successful is about DFI. And that is totally fine because, you know, what Ethereum can really do is replace the financial system in overall and build on resilient rails that Ether provides the security. And there's a lot of argumentation that if we reduce the yield on its staking, you can go to places like R&DFI and, you know, get yield there. But a lot of this yield is actually being based on Ethereum staking.

And if there is no yield on EIT on DFI, what it means is that EIT as an asset becomes a funding leg. So what is a funding like actually means is basically when you do a carry trade, you want to borrow a cheap asset. Once you borrow that, you sell the asset to actually to an asset that can be productive, and then you can basically earn on that asset. And a really big example is the biggest carry trade in the world, which is the Japanese yen carry trade. So Japanese economy hasn't been doing well for the past decades. Yen has a very low or zero interest rate.

So what typically is done in this carry trade is basically yen is borrowed just to replace with another leg that actually creates cash flow. So this is the sort of element that comes when you reduce the productivity of it as an asset and also by reducing the yield. And those are sort of my, there's a bunch of things about the process and whatnot. So I think the question of this whole topic is important, but I think the consequences are extremely negative

for solo stakers, institutions, and DFI that actually build the Ethereum house. Mike, from the etherfi sector of Ethereum, what were the biggest flags that were raised in your eyes when you saw this proposal? Man, honestly, like, every aspect of it, I thought, was kind of frustrating. You know, first of all, it was proposed with, you know, a matter of days leading up to the meeting where these proposals were discussed for inclusion and the next hard fork. And so, you know, I'm sure there's all kinds of arguments about why, you know, why it came in so late.

but it just, it certainly didn't create a good impression that this thing was, it created the impression that this thing was trying to get sort of squeezed in without, without much debate, which, you know, in fact, had the opposite effect as a result. So that was frustrating. A lot of people were frustrated by that. The other part of it was in Stanley, you alluded to this, is that it was in a bizarre way proposed as a way to benefit solo stakers when, And very straightforwardly, this hurts solo stakers.

Solo stakers are individual node operators on Ethereum who are running their own little node at home. They have the highest cost basis because there's no economies of scale. They have their own machine. They have their own internet connection. You know, a 2.5% yield, 2% yield is pretty much break-even at this point in terms of the cost of operating a note.

So if the issuance goes down, which of course it would with this proposal, all solo staker is going to a loss. And so to me, I mean, it just really represents magical thinking to believe that all of these thousands of people who are currently running nodes are just going to altruistically keep doing it even when they're losing money on it.

I mean, some people maybe will, but self-evidently a large proportion of them will not. In fact, there was a survey fairly recently done by East Staker that showed that the sort of reserve price for most solo stakers is 2%, and they say, I mean,

you take them at their word or you can imagine that they're lying, I guess. But most solo stakers say that if it drops below 2%, they turn off their notes. So at least let's look

at the first order effects here and say, look, this is going to centralize the network because large entities like Coinbase and Binance and Sharplink and Bitmine, they have no cost of capital, right?

Users are depositing into their exchanges, into the, you know, the DATs, the ether is just there. If the yield is 20 basis points, they'll still stake. So you're going to have basically an exodus from independent smaller operators.

LSTs will immediately concentrate into one giant LST, liquid staking tokens, because at 20 basis points, 50 basis points, you're only making one basis point of revenue. And so you need massive scale for it to make any sense to pay developers and auditors and all that. So this is, it's hugely centralizing. And that seems self-evident.

I think it's self-evident to a lot of people. So seeing the argument from the proposer being that this will help, you know, decentralization is just like kind of bizarre. The other aspect of it is that liquid staking tokens provide more of a service than just, you know, intermediating staking. you. Liquid staking service provide user protections that would be inappropriate to provide at the network level, but it totally makes sense at the application level. Like if if North Korea all of a sudden decides to or executes an attack that steals like a, you know, a giant chunk of

etherfries liquid steak teeth, we have the option to do a fork. And that would be frankly, totally reasonable, I think, for us to do the proper governance process and rescue that. You would not do that at the network level, and other protections along those lines. So liquid staking tokens provide an application layer between raw, you know, ETH and users, you know, the that people actually use. If you look at the Tradfai markets, the market for derivatives is 10 times, more than 10 times the size of the market for spot. So whatever universe you live in, if Ethereum becomes the, you know, the platform for all finance, all ETH is going to be in derivatives. Like that's just, that's just the reality of it.

So this argument that we should reduce, you know, the ability of liquid staking tokens to, you know, to pull in ETH because it will reduce, you know, the amount of ETH stuck in derivatives. I mean, it's just, it's a red herring because like that's going to happen anyway, whether it's going to be AEath or whatever else. Like all the, like when you pay money to, you know, you buy some groceries at a store, you're not generally giving them like a hard, you know, hard cash, right? You're giving them a credit from your bank, which is based on a fraction of reserve. Yeah, we can argue about all that. But the point is all transactions in the real economy happen using various financial derivatives.

And, you know, if Ethereum becomes a real economic system, that's going to be the case here, too. And again, last point, in a real economy, having a fixed money supply is really, bad. There are no economists, no serious economists, they would say, yeah, you should have a fixed money supply that never changes, right? Milden Friedman's perspective to take one example is that your money supply should just grow at a fixed amount of 3% per year. Like, that's one argument. Because otherwise, you have deflation, which in some ways is actually worse than inflation. The money supply needs to grow as the economy grows. So this argument that we need to have zero issuance at some point is a really bad argument. It's like a Bitcoin.

brainworm that actually makes no sense in the real world. So again, going back to what I said initially, like every aspect of this is sort of frustrating because none of it actually makes any sense. In some ways, I can sympathize with some of the problems that are, you know, the, you know, EF or I guess the researchers

are trying to solve. But there's better ways to solve them. My perspective, and I've argued this in the past, is that we should just enshrine LSTs. and that kicks etherfi is taking, Lido's taking out of the picture, just have an enshrined LST that solves some of the issues

that they have concerns about. And that's a better solution in my mind than, you know, fucking with the issuance curve in the way that's going to blow up DFI and have all kinds of other externalities. To me, the biggest argument that I would like to dive into now

is what you just said at the end. It was going to blow up DFI. I'd like to understand if this proposal were to go through what would happen in Defi? What are the second, third, fourth order consequences of a potentially zero yield because like staking hits the target at 50% until we're burning all of the yield because we have ample security.

That's the effect that would go in if this EIP were to go through. Essentially yield approaches zero as stake teeth approaches 50%. Mike, what would happen in Defi as a repercussion of this proposal? Yeah, I mean, the seven of the top 10 defy protocols would face a massive capital exodus. So that's, I mean, so I don't know if that, that to me seems like that's blowing up defy. So all the big defy protocols stop defying. You know, it would be imperfect analogy. But imagine the U.S. government said, okay, we're going to change the issuance curve on T-bills.

if too many people, you know, are holding T bills, we're going to, you know, suddenly start tapering the rate or making it impossible to, you know, to buy more T bills. You know, like low, short-term bonds provide the sort of foundational yield layer. And there's, you know, 100 layers of derivatives that are, you know, then built on top of that. If you mess with that foundational yield layer, whatever you think about whether T-bills are paying too much or too little

or ETH staking yield is too high or too low, if you're messing with this foundational yield layer on top of which a lot of other things are stacked, I mean, you're going to really break the system. And so you really have to think hard about, how much of a problem is a, you know, one and a half percent, you know, inflation on ETH? And again, that's, we're ignoring the burn, right?

Because with the IP-159, there is burns that's actually going to be lower than 1.5%. But let's say burn goes to zero, 100% of ETH is stings. how much of a problem is 1.5% yield. I think the case is actually stronger that the yield should be higher than that it should be lower.

For the reason that I articulated, that you actually need the money supply to expand, and if it doesn't expand, it actually creates all kinds of other problems because you don't want to hold ETH as debt if it's deflationary. You know, so it actually makes it hard to use ETH as money. In that case, I wouldn't argue for increasing the yield.

I argue for not fucking with it. That's my position. Sonny, what resonates with you there? Yeah, it's sort of, I think for Define protocols, Dify protocols are agnostic to different assets and obviously use cases. So assets will change. But it does point out what Mike BASIC has said is that it really removes the productivity around it, an asset. So if you don't have the yield component, you won't have that yield component in

defy unless you go high up on the risk curve. So this is basically the biggest argument that actually the orders of the proposal, the proposal are making is that, you know, let's just, let's just cut the issuance. We cap it. No more issuance. Yield goes down all the way to zero, basically and then like you know the argument is that people will find the yield in in in defy but that is actually not the same thing because what the orders of the proposal don't really realize and many of them barely use defy and understand how d5 works but a lot of the yield actually comes from these liquid staking derivatives that basically just makes it more feasible to stake can come in and out, and then that creates the borrowing demand that you can go into lending

protocols, supply and withdraw without sort of going to the Q process. So if you remove that components and you move the underlying yield, effectively what happens is that users have to go higher in the risk curve, on basically EIT yields. I don't particularly know many yield sources at a scalable way where you can actually get yield on Eid beyond the sort of like a risk free or this low risk yield that is derived from native staking. So what actually happens then is that the users of Defi and the holders of EAT are starting to actually look for other sources of cash flow. And I think there the biggest winners are actually stable coins.

And let me explain this in a more concrete example, how it works in tradfile. So whenever the interest rates are low, set by, you know, when we have a low interest rate in environment, that that stimulates the equities and the stock markets and communities and so forth and even the crypto markets. When the, and that's logical, that makes logical sense because you don't want to sit on zero yielding cash because your inflation is just basically eating your capital. So you're finding new opportunities. It works the same way around. So if you don't get sufficient beta or cash flow and you have a yield component in cash, funds move towards cash, for example.

This is sort of like how the money movements are in the traditional finance. What will actually happen is that those holders of eat that are comfortable with the beta of it and appreciate the cash flow, they might actually then switch their positions from it into stable coin yields because there's a big difference there and doing that on chain. So that is like a really big challenge there.

And then obviously what happens to eat when you remove this productive asset nature is that it becomes that sort of like a funding leg. And this is where I earlier mentioned about the sort of like the big Japanese yen carry trade. Why does it exist? It's because there's cheap yen available that you can borrow and then sell it for dollars and then basically take those dollars and earn at a software rate, for example, or higher. And I think the similar approach applies into the same scenario where you have a zero yielding asset.

you simply borrow it to just swap into a more productive asset and then to do strategies. And that creates sell pressure for EIT as an asset. And that is why sort of like it has an impact for that user base that is coming and want to hold Eid because they believe in the sort of like a monetary aspect and the value aspect of EIT. And that is why I'm bringing up like this point is because that is what the authors of the proposal are trying to achieve. they are trying to make a more sort of like a better eat as a money, sort of like, or better like a value capture asset. But in fact, it really creates, you know, circumstances and consequences that go against that objective and goal.

And I don't blame them because I don't think there has been many sort of like economical reviews that I've seen based on true economics that actually review this proposal or the argumentation is based on. I've been trading crypto assets. for almost a decade, and I've used so many wallets, exchanges, aggregators, front ends, and I'm kind of always looking for the same thing. One interface with deep liquidity across a bunch of chains and assets, and the ability to act in private, and I still control my own funds.

And I've never really found it, and I'm always switching wallets, juggling gas fees, or getting eaten by slavage. NIR.com feels fundamentally different to me. My account is easy to use, and I can take all the actions I want from any chain while my activity remains confidential. It runs on NIR, which has moved over $23 billion cross-chain using post-quantam signing and has over five years of uptime. NIR.com is the best way to be on-chain and be in control.

Get 20% of your trading fees back through the bankless link. It's in the show notes. Not investment advice. Self-custody won, but it still has a usability problem. A seed phrase on paper is still a single point of failure. Phones get lost, devices break, backups disappear. BitKee is a self-custodial hardware wallet built for that reality. It uses a two of three multi-sig with keys split across your phone, the BitKee hardware device, and Block.

No single key can move your Bitcoin, and Block can never move it alone. There's no seed phrase to lose or expose, and if you lose your phone, your BitKee or both, built-in recovery gives you a path back. The hardware screen also lets you verify the destination before approving a transaction. And that's the point. More control without one mistake putting everything at risk. So download BitKee today and use promo code bankless to get 10% off of your BitKee. This episode has been sponsored by Bitkey.

Travel rewards have gotten way more complicated than they need to be. You've got points that expire, transfer partners, blackout dates, and somehow you still end up wondering if you actually got a good deal. Coinbase is taking a much simpler approach. When you book flights, hotels, rental cars, or vacation rentals through the Coinbase 1 travel portal using your Coinbase 1 card, you'll earn 5% in Bitcoin on eligible travel bookings. Book a $400 flight, and you'll earn about $20 back in Bitcoin.

No reward charts, no transfer partner. partners, no redemption games, just Bitcoin that you can hold or trade. And every other purchase on your Coinbase 1 card can earn up to 4% back in Bitcoin. Plus new cardholders earn a $50 Bitcoin bonus after spending $100 in their first 30 days. So if you've got travel coming up, check out the link in the show notes and see if you're approved today with no impact on your credit score. Or just visit Coinbase.com slash bankless. Terms apply. That's coinbase.com slash bankless for more information. There are a few elements of this proposal that I find interesting and And I'll say even like good, but good in a vacuum, not good in reality.

And maybe I'll go through some of those. The idea of preserving vanilla ether and enabling end users to hold vanilla ether without being inflated away is noble to me. And like that's one of the spirits behind this proposal is that, you know, vanilla ether, you shouldn't be compelled to have to put your ether inside of Lido or Rocket Pool or

Etherfi, because those are all intermediaries, in a sense. These are all third-party intermediaries. They're defy apps, and so, like, they're better intermediaries than, like, a bank or brokerage, but they're an intermediary nonetheless. And what

is Ethereum 4 other than reducing intermediaries? And so by with stake targeting, you don't have to take your eth, you get to hold vanilla eath and you don't have to put your eith in Avey in order to keep up with the rate of issuance and to get the yield.

You can just hold vanilla eth and be intermediary free. It's very self-sovereign, is very Bitcoin-like, it's very hard money, sound money. And, you know, Abe Stani, to a little bit of your point, the Japanese yen carry trade is a, is, there's a,

conflation on real yield and nominal yield. The ETH stake rate is a nominal yield because we are minting ETH as we are giving it to the ETH, to the ETH stakers. Real yield is not happening. Real yield is the transaction fees that are paid to stakers, and then maybe you also want to count burn in that as well.

That's real yield. And the nominal yield is really just a financial game. and with this stake targeting EIP, you know, stake tapering, we just remove the whole game around nominal yields that people do love to play, like people really love nominal yield games, but it's all fake. And so you don't have to do that if you just hold Vanilla ETH, self-sovereignly with the stake targeting EIP.

That would be one argument. Mike, what would your response to that be? Yeah, I mean, I think it's, I've described it as sort of a cash accounting level of understanding of the economy, which is like a, you know, very kind of base level. Like, yeah, it's nominal yield if you have like a fixed pie zero sum perspective. If the economy is growing and like the issuance is less than, I guess, the growth of the economy, I mean, you still have real yield.

And this yield that you're injecting back into the economy for providing valuable services, like running the network or providing user protections helps the economy grow. It actually supports the growth of the ecosystem. So looking at it in this very sort of one-dimensional, like number go up, therefore bad. That is very much a Bitcoin mindset.

I think you're exactly right on that. And it's, I could use all kinds of expletives to describe that. I was using it positively. I think you're using it negatively. Very negative. Yeah, I have a very negative opinion of most Bitcoiners.

You know, it's a little bit like saying, okay, the only real way, you know, I have money is if I carry a little bag of gold coins with me. And if I pay you, I give you a gold coin. Like none of this crazy iPhone cash app stuff. Like, what are you even sending me, bro? Like, look, we're, yeah, like if we're cavemen and we're trading, you know, seashells, like fine. But like, in a sophisticated economy, like all eth is going to be in derivatives. Like even in a world where state, let's say, they're like, let's say they're, like, you're not. even in a world where state,

let's say they eliminate staking, they come up with some other, you know, system, you're still going to be trading derivatives, right? If there's some protocol that holds your assets, and again, let's take the fraction of reserve banking example. Like, you're not going to be like sending people real eth. You're going to be sending people credits that represent, you know, a deposit certificate at a bank.

And there's, in a sophisticated economy, you're not going to be, you know, trading these sort of, raw, you know, gold coin. So I think this, I don't know, this perspective that the only true eth is like raw eth that you hold in your EOA is, it's almost like it's based on this lack of belief that Ethereum truly can be the foundation

for a proper economy, right? It comes from this idea, again, of this sort of Bitcoin or mindset that I'm just going to stack my eth, and it's going to appreciate in value for some reason, and that's all I'm ever going to do with it. But if you want to build an economy, you're going to build financial derivatives and institutions and protections and chargebacks

and all kinds of fun stuff that needs to exist. There was a reason, you know, this stuff was developed in the first place. There's value there. So, you know, in a world where Ethereum does what we all hope it will do, you're never really going to be transacting with, you know, pure eth. in the first place,

because frankly, it's not even safe to do so. You don't want your bank to just be holding, you know, a giant wallet with a bunch of ETH stuck in it. You want layers of protections built around it,

which is one of the services, as I said, that LSDs actually end up providing for basically zero cost for like five or 10 basis points of cost, a lot cheaper than, you know, the Trat-Fi system. Yeah.

I guess to take the flip side of the argument that I was given, a second ago, one of the benefits that Ethereum has is that it has a defy economy. And one of the effects of the defy economy can also, too, be democratize the yield to end users. Right. And so it's like, it's a question of like, how do we want to get to the end result of end users having free access to the value of Ethereum security and the Ethereum economy? And I think with liquid staking derivatives and defy apps like AVE or EtherFi, if 100% of ETH gets staked,

all of that value can be redistributed to end users with Ether in their account effectively the same way as it would be if we had zero issuance in the first place. I think maybe from the perspective of the DeFi builders is that all of the spirit of ETH tapering and the goals of ETH tapering is actually achieved through the application layer, the defy layer of Ethereum, that's what we're here for.

That's what we are here to do. We are the financialization layer and the democratization layer around ether of the asset. This is our job, and this proposal is just trying to enshrine this job in Ethereum, which the defy ecosystem does

just as well, if not better. It's like the private market is doing it better than the government more efficiently, and we've already been doing this. so don't take this role away from us. That's maybe the strongman of the other side of the argument. Would you agree with that, Mike?

Would you want to say it or add anything to that? There's, yeah, just the one, different ways of looking at this. So another perspective that I can add is you can look at the staking rate as a way of rewarding people that are saving. You know, if you're in a dollar economy, you produce some wealth, you make a widget,

you sell it, you get your dollars. and instead of consuming them, instead of spending them, you saved them. And in exchange for saving them, they're put to work and you're earning some bit of interest because you put out wealth into the world, you're not spending it. And so you're reaping the rewards of that wealth out there, you know, doing productive things. That is perhaps another way of looking at the staking yield. People that stake their eath generally are not selling it. So if you did some stuff, you got some ETH in payment for, you know, your services, you don't want to spend it.

you stake it, you hold it, you help secure the network, the network which is running this economy. And in exchange, you're getting the rewards of that asset being productive out there. And this is again why thinking of it as nominal yield is not really the right way to think about it, if the economy is growing, if the economy is growing at 10% a year, but the money supply is growing at 1% a year, well, then you actually have 9% of real growth per year. And you're getting the benefit of that, hopefully, in the appreciation of ETH, and, you know, in this interest rate, which feeds back into, you know, into the economy. So the system actually works. And I think maybe one of the problems here is that staking is de facto serving these two purposes, that on the one hand,

it's providing security to the Ethereum network, and there's lots of complications around that. And then on the other hand, it also provides this, again, de facto benefit of a staking, of a savings rate. which should exist in an economy. And when you sort of mix those two, it creates all these complications. Let's talk about predictability of issuance and predictability of monetary supply. I think the pro-Eath targeting argument

would be like this is continuous of all the other changes to the ETH monetary supply that we've ever done, always to reduce issuance. Every single change to Ethereum's monetary supply has been to become more restrictive to ETH's issuance. And so this, while we are already tinkering with the dials,

we are nonetheless tinkering with the dials in the same direction that we've always tinkered them. And the social contract of Ethereum's monetary supply is minimum viable issuance. We are not yet at minimum viable issuance. This EIP gets us to minimum viable issuance for Ethereum's monetary supply. Therefore, we should be.

do it. Stani, how would you react to that argument? Yeah, I think that's in overall, I do understand that, you know, you don't want to pay out more than you have to. Like, everyone wants to pay the, you know, the minimum price that you want for, whatever you're paying. And it's transfer me is, as simply as payment, you know, from basically all of the, all of the system and holders, into who are doing a productive work to keep the system whole and make it basically work. And I think that there is nothing really fixed in the world. Like everything moves in a sort of like,

it's not a vacuum, as David you pointed out earlier. Like, you know, there's growth, you know, and there's like inflation. And obviously that's if you can't have overly praisesians, right, so you can't go and issue like 20, 30%, you know, percent and whatnot, because that has a larger effect than tweaking few percentages here. But at the same time, if you have inflows and the actual ecosystem is growing, there's more things happening, and also the fact that that sort of like a yield has an effect

where, you know, what Mike pointed out as a sort of like a witch to hold it, especially from an institutional perspective, that looks into fundamentals, looks into, okay, how, like, if you think about the institutional perspective, they don't care about, you know, things like deflationary systems. It's more about how is an asset, well, let's say, like a business, from business perspective is growing. And then if there is some sort of like a payout, whether it's in form of cash, issuance or whatnot, whether the growth is higher than actually the payment. And sometimes, especially in the early stages and growth stages, that payment can be actually

even, you know, large compared to the growth because you're effectively buying market share. you might be buying a distribution and whatnot. And I think one of the most interesting posts I read recently about this whole topic was Joseph Shalom's post from Sharpling about basically the timing of everything. Obviously, there was also like more on this substance, but the timing is an interesting question is that, you know, we're basically sort of like the last mile of Ethereum

as an asset in terms of distribution. So we see institutions coming. We have EITFs and there's more and more distribution. And institutions are actually interested in this asset. And depending whether a Clarity Act passes or not, there's going to be in a lot of banks' custody, lending, and EIT is going to be one of the main assets there. and the fact that it actually has a sort of like a saving straight does position it better than for example Bitcoin that is sort of like a more known and has its own peculiar or properties but then there is obviously there's Solana you know there's other opinions on that there's Canton and like there there is real competition there as well and if Clarity Act passes obviously what it means that every single bank

in US can actually set up crypto-based businesses without any sort of pre-approval or an ask. They can just set up that business, basically. So this is what I'm, when I referred to that last mile, why it's sort of like a wrong also from the timing perspective is that if we kill that yield,

we also kill a lot of these inflows and how institutions are thinking about eat as an asset and also the institutions that are already here that actually has underwritten EITs as an asset with a cash flow. So this predictability is really

important. So like and we can all be sort of like think about, you know, like we don't have to care about the institutions like you know, it is about basically like this civilization and that's the focus and you know all this like a heapidipist stuff.

But the reality is that if we really want to see Ethereum to succeed, it has to replace the existing financial system, which is absolutely garbage. And to get there, we need to have the right levers to do that. And having that yield issuance that then brings institutions, brings solo stakers, makes this sort of like a staker base very diverse, secures the system. That is what basically Ethereum holders want to pay because they see inflows and they see more interest. you know, otherwise if that doesn't exist, all that value goes into stable coins

and also competing networks. And that is the worst outcome for Ethereum because it sort of has been in the beginning of the whole story of blockchains. Yeah, I think it's probably very important to take the perspective of Tom Lee. Tom Lee as the guy who is like the biggest espouser of Eith ever,

and he just punted like $10 billion into ether the assay and he's using the staking yield as one of the greatest tools of espousing ether to other institutions who might ever follow through in copying Tom Lee, same thing with BitMine or Sharp Link. And imagine what that message would be like if like one year after Tom Lee buys $10 billion of eth the ETH protocol kills yield

and now he doesn't get any yield. It would be a terrible look. It would be terrible for Tom Lee's business which he just bought $10 billion of Eath. Let's not piss that guy off. But then it would also be very terrible for all future Tomlies as well. What's up, Sonny?

David, if they don't have any yield, they will have to do, you know, Ponzenomics, like what micro-strategy is doing. Like, that is just sort of like, you know, alternative. cash flow, they can underwrite eat as an asset from like a cash flow perspective. And they're not complaining. Like, you know, if anyone like institutions like that might be complaining about, oh, we have

two high issues, let's reduce that. But like no one is, everyone wants it to be in a growth mode. Like it has to have good leadership and basically. And I think that the whole focus of this point is completely wrong. We shouldn't be focusing on optimizing issuance. We should be focusing on how do we make Ethereum a better product. It's still incomplete product to replace the financial system. It doesn't have good privacy yet.

It doesn't have good scalability yet. It does have security. Now we're trying to ask also the security side. These three components needs to be sold until we actually have a complete product. This is where the whole sort of like a community is trying to get EF and all these sort of like participants to focus on, not sort of like a tweaking, you know, these sort of like gaming, like playing sort of like issuance games. The real problem is in the demand side and fixing and improving the product. Yeah, I couldn't agree more.

I think that's exactly right. There's two aspects of it. One is security and risk mitigation. the other, many people directly or indirectly are basically looking at this as a way to reduce issuance, as if that will accrue value to ETH. And it's just, you know, it will obviously have the exact opposite result. You're reducing issuance by, you know, half a percent or one percent or whatever it'll be with the negative externality of basically killing the thing that actually makes Ethereum valuable.

And David, I think you made actually a really good point. in the example of someone like Tom Lee, who's using the issuance to go out and advocate for Eath, I think that's probably a good way to look at essentially all of the issuance that is taking place. All of this issuance is going back and feeding into the ecosystem, and that issuance is being used to go out there and grow the ecosystem. And so, yeah, you're saving whatever, you know,

it is 0.8% of inflation, but at the cost of starving, the thing that's actually helping the ecosystem grow. I think that obviously would be disastrous. It's very, I think, short-sighted, very sort of zero-sum thinking. Markets don't move one asset at a time. One day it's Bitcoin, the next Nvidia, then gold, and then the S&P. But most traders are still managing their portfolio across different platforms,

different accounts, and different pools of capital. BitGet just changed that. Their new stocks 2.0 products lets you trade tokenized equities directly with USDT. All inside the same app you'll. already used for crypto. This is not just another tokenized stock product. Stocks 2.0 is designed around deeper liquidity, faster execution, and the lowest fees in the market at just 0.04% and one-to-one economic exposure to the underlying stock. Dividend, stock splits, and other corporate actions are reflected automatically, helping your position stay aligned with the asset you actually want exposure to.

One platform, one account, multiple markets, crypto equities, commodities, and more, all accessible with the USDT. Biket. Trade Smarter. Start trading today through the link in the show notes. This is not investment advice. Some exciting news. We are launching a new podcast to help people figure out the crypto cycle, how to navigate it. The best crypto cycle investor I know, his name is Michael Nato. He runs the Defi Report. This is the guy that sent me a sell alert before the 1010 price drop happened. His cycle analysis has been absolutely on point. I've been following him for years. And this year, we started recording weekly podcast episodes. Each one we get into his portfolio, what he's holding, the market structure, entry targets, fair market value of Bitcoin and Ether.

and where we are in the cycle, there's new episodes that are released every Wednesday. They're 30 minutes. They're short. They're punchy. I think this crypto cycle is harder to navigate than most. So let's do it together. Go subscribe to this podcast. Search the DeFi report. Wherever you get your podcast, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, or find a link in the show notes. There's a new episode waiting for you now. I think it's worth noting that just the yield of ether. Heath staking is just fundamental to ETH. It's fundamental to Ethereum. There's no taking the yield out of ether because that's how Ethereum has its security.

And we don't need that yield to be double digits. It doesn't need to be 10% yield. The way, this is just me strong-in-arming another steel-manning another argument. Like the way to have Bitcoinser properties about Ethereum is to have very conservative yield, not no yield. No yield is Bitcoin. Conservative yield is Bitcoiner mindset of, appropriately applied to the Ethereum structure

is like the way to do that. Like 2% yield, like Ethereum is already the lowest yielding, issuing blockchain ever. That's pretty bitconary. It's way better than any sort of, you know, nation state bond. That's the way,

that's the better way to apply a Bitcoin or mindset to the Ethereum structure rather than trying to turn Ethereum into Bitcoin. I feel like that is a, another argument that one could make. Yeah, totally agree. Donnie, Mike, any other topics? I know there's so much more to talk about.

We could talk about solo stakers. I'm mostly into the defy ecosystem and the monetary impacts on ether. There's other things we could talk about about the legitimacy of the process, but I think crypto-Twitter is really handling that pretty well. Are there any other aspects of this that you guys want to talk about before we close this out?

Well, I think I don't think we've talked enough about the look, real or not real, the perception of this was that it was sort of a last minute thing that was thrown up. And again, real or I don't think this was the intention, but the perception of it was that this was an attempt to jam this change in without much debate. And I think managing that perception

is very important for Ethereum, because if I look at an institution or a nation state, Like, it's not, you know, there's a reason there is El Salvador chose Bitcoin as their, you know, their bet, I guess for their National Reserve asset and, you know, their, I guess the parallel monetary system. And I think that reason was largely because, look, it's ossified. We know what it's going to do. Whether you like it or not, like it's very predictable. We can trust it. There's not going to be some rug, you know, through, through, some governance process that's going to all of a sudden, you know, dramatically changed Bitcoin's properties. You know, the founder is long gone and dead. Like, this is a system that we can rely. It's as close as you can get to a natural money, like a, you know, like a gold.

And the way this process, the perception of how this process was, you know, was run with Ethereum, I think is the opposite of that. I mean, imagine you're a nation state and you're considering, all right, should we go all in on Bitcoin or go all in on Ethereum? This kind of thing, I think, creates a zero chance that they choose Ethereum. Because if they look at it, say, all right, we're going to base our national economy on ETH. And then tomorrow they're going to fuck with the governance and the issuance and, you know, staking is out or the network suddenly gas fees go way up or like the roll-up-centric roadmap was, you know,

all the rage, now that's, like, these are the types of things that make it, all right, well, we, like, this thing is just not something that's ready for us to, to build on. and that applies to nation states to large institutions. Like, Ethereum, I think, already has the credibility that on, among smart contract platforms, it is the most secure, the most stable, the more credibly neutral. But this is a way to undermine that. Like, this is, this is where like, well, Solana does this shit and Ethereum does it.

What's the different? So I just think managing the perception of how this process is run is very important, even if the reality is everyone is just trying to do their best, which I think is actually probably very close to what the reality is, you know, in the Ethereum community today. Yeah, I think that's the legitimacy piece that is really important. And over the years, and I've been in the Ethereum ecosystem since 2016, so that's already a decade. And I think that's what I've really learned about what's important over the years is that the reliability, but the legitimacy is really important. like what Ethereum has been based on,

how do you sort of ensure that everything goes to a process? Because one of the fears that there is in the community at the moment is that there's going to be a lot of feedback, the same way as with some of the earlier proposals as well that got some backlash, not as big as this, obviously, but the fear at the moment is that there's a lot of feedback and then EF won't listen to what's being actually discussed

and I think this is going to be a really problematic moment because effectively the proposal doesn't really benefit all the relevant stakeholders, not the solo stakers, not the institutions, not the EFI. In overall, it doesn't help. Like in theoretical aspect, there's components that are really interesting and really good. But when you put into practice and also run through some of the economical review processes,

you won't end up into the same outcomes that you are trying to achieve. And the big concern amongst the developers, particularly, is the disconnection between the EF sort of researchers, developers from like the rest of the ecosystem, and defy and sort of like the fear is that there's there is no listening of that feedback which is quite concrete actually. So that's what I think is the biggest fear at the moment.

Stani, Mike, thanks are coming on the show. I think I started this podcast in being a supporter of the EIP in a vacuum, but a non-supporter of the EIP. it in reality. And I think in this, and after this discussion, I'm also just not a supporter of it

in a vacuum either. Simply because Ethereum's defy layer is actually its strength and it should lean into it rather than pull ETH away from it. The defy ecosystem is the private market. It'll solve problems.

Private market's efficient. It has already solved the problems. And this thing is trying to solve a problem that it's not really that much of a problem in the first place. And so I thank you guys for coming on and helping me see your perspective. And ultimately, I don't really think this thing

it's going to pass anyways. But that's because we're doing conversations like this and we're telling the rest of the Ethereum ecosystem exactly what we think. So thanks for coming on and help me tell that story. Thank you, David. Thanks. Bankless station, you guys know the deal.

Crypto is risky, but that is why we are here. The institutions have landed. So we are going even further west. This is the frontier. It's not for everyone, but we're glad you are with us on the bankless journey. Thanks a lot.